Sensationalism – The Drag of TV News
–Author: Alex Plum
When did the five o’clock news become the latest forum for flashy tabloids and thirty-second candids? Who decided to put premiums on the rhetoric of sensationalism instead of focusing on the real-life events happening locally and regionally? I have been witnessing a decline, over the past four years, of the quality of local and national television news. What once was saved for the last five minutes of a local segment now stretches the introductory-scene banner: “senile woman pulled from car on tracks.” How can anyone consider this substantive, helpful news?
I was perusing CNN.com reading the op-ed mentioned in the preceding article (“‘Scooter’ Libby, his sentence, and Time’s reaction”) when I happened upon this story (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/10/teen.hero/index.html?eref=time_us). Notice the second question out of CNN’s Kiran Chetry’s mouth: “Do you believe that perhaps she was suffering from dementia?” The response of the heroic teenager being interviewed, “I don’t know, maybe?” speaks to a common trend among most normal people: honesty with irreverence for the showy and inane. The segment was supposed to be a focus on one teenager who did a brave thing for a person who needed help. Instead, the anchor used her first expository question to shed more attention on the possibility that the person needing help, in this case an elderly woman, might be demented and/or senile. Why bring that up for any other reason than to perhaps broaden this narrow puff-piece to something more hot and provocative – “Elderly Lose Licenses because Crazy Woman Plays Chicken with Train.”
Last year I had the chance to sit down and talk with Scott Sheets (IR/Russian ’90) while he was visiting James Madison College and working on a new book. Sheets was NPR’s Moscow Bureau Chief from 2001-2005 and had worked as Caucasus Region Bureau Chief for Reuters from 1992-2000. I listened to Scott detail his interests in college and how he made the switch to journalism. Having double majored in IR and Russian literature and language during his time at MSU, Sheets desired to get out into the world and see what was happening in the lives of everyday people. His desire to meet people where they were and report on the events that were meaningful and specific to them and their neighbors brought him attention and prestige. In so doing, Sheets brought the world telling information and awareness. In a word, he brought us news.
Hopefully for all the journalism majors out there, or for that matter anyone interested in working for local TV5, take note that there is more to the news than “breaking the big story.” Anchors and reporters who take the focus from the intent of their story in order to bolster outrageous claims or conclusions do so at a cost to their network, affiliates, and the greater news media. Journalism is a product of what we make it; if we fill it with shoddy stories and half-assed remarks, than it becomes little more than just that. In a world where wars, conflicts, genocide, and terrorism persist, we cannot afford to waste time speculating on the mental health of women drivers. It’s time to get it together.
“Scooter” Libby, his sentence, and Time’s reaction
Scooter Libby, the former chief of staff to the Vice President, was just sentenced recently for a conviction on charges of perjury. The sentence he received is much more severe than many thought was going to be issued, and as a result is the focal point of some contention. The underlying issue in the case was Judge Walton’s use of an option in sentencing guidelines that allow for a harsher penalty for a crime believed to be committed in addition to the crime being sentenced for. The Supreme Court has ruled on three separate instances about sentences such as these and their impermissibility under the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to a trial by jury. One such case involved the conviction of a drug dealer for dealing X amount of drugs. The judge, per statutory allowances, increased that sentence because evidence indicated the dealer dealt over ten times the amount under the scope of inquiry.
Time the magazine recently wrote an op-ed of sorts indicating the problematic nature of Judge Walton’s use of this mechanism (which is constitutionally allowable when it is not mandatory, but under the purview of judicial discretion). However, is there not a distinguishable difference between believed amounts of drugs dealt vs. a perjury case. In the one instance, the scope of the inquiry focuses in on one event that bears only a tangental relationship to the crime under investigation. In the latter though, in Libby’s case, perjury is a crime in which the accused lied about the scope of an inquiry in another crime. Thus, isn’t it perfectly logical that one ought to take into account the crime being lied about?
For example, my father recently was called for jury duty. In the course of his time there, a man lied about why he could not serve on a jury. This is perjury. However, is the perjury in this instance the same offense as lying about the outing of a CIA operative? I hope that any rational person can conclude not. There are varying degrees of offenses, which is one of the essential reasons for having an independent judiciary–allowing for gray areas is only capable when someone is not beholden to the people.
I will save the advantages and disadvantages of an independent judiciary for another time. But, if one looks at the Time article’s negative portrayal of the judiciary it almost paints the system as one in decline. However, I would think that common logic shows that in this particular instance there is no threat to one’s Sixth Amendment rights when a judge examines what the subject of one’s perjury was in relation to the actual crime of perjury.
Technology and its role in globalization — breaking down the state-centric system
Much of International Relations theory, especially realist and neo-realist theories, takes the state-centric international system as an integral aspect of the system. While non-state actors have grown in importance recently, and international institutions try and are sometimes able to constrain state action, international relations continues to be, primarily, the study of relations between states. In more basic terms, despite Al Qaeda and the U.N., states remain at the center of International Relations. Yet I argue that computers and the internet, and the powerful and pervasive communications technology that they spawn, have the potential to break down this system because they enable such fast and robust communication across all sorts of traditional barriers. This week I wrote a post in my personal blog about Hometown Baghdad, a video project featuring Iraqi youths. To me, this is an excellent example about the new types of communication that the internet has opened up.
While it’s easy to brush these projects aside as simply pop-culture fads, they represent significant communication, from one individual to another across serious cultural and national barriers. Influential technology in its infancy often resembles a fad, but this degree of communication provides individuals with increased access to other people around the world. This access to people removes the barriers to international journalism and commerce. Not only that, but this allows reciprocal access as well, creating a way for the rest of the world to access new places, at least virtually.
Barriers on the state level still prevent communication from reaching its true potential. Perhaps the two greatest barriers are the cost of access, which limits the participation of the developing world, and government censorship, in which governments are trying to impose state-based barriers onto the virtual world of the internet. But this is changing.
The cost of access is falling. Another one of my favorite projects, the One Laptop Per Child Program is trying to get low-cost machines into the hands of millions of children around the world. The technical specifications of the machines should allow quick and cost-effective access to networks, without much of the costly infrastructure. Low cost hardware, coupled with well-designed, open source software, will be essential in bringing networks to the masses.
In my mind, the results of this could be phenomenal. Access to networks is access to knowledge. But it is also access to reporters, and access to markets, and access to meaningful cross-cultural communication.
As for censorship, a classic internet quote offers some insight. “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it” (apparently from John Gilmore). The actual technology, at its lowest levels, is designed to be difficult to stop. The debates about state control over the internet are, in my opinion, just beginning.
My views on technology are unabashedly optimistic, but I really do believe that computers and networked communications have the potential to open the world to everyone (and open everyone to the world), in ways that we are only beginning to see.
This post glossed over a lot of issues, but it also outlines and connects a number of my personal interests. As articles and case studies pop up, expect more information. And as always, please feel free to comment with your thoughts or questions.
This blog
This site is the project of two students at James Madison College, Michigan State University. The intention is to provide a medium for students to write about topics of academic interest, in a professional context but less formally than traditional academic writing. It should be a place for students to propose new ideas and receive feedback from a diverse community.
With this first post, I’ll be explaining how the site will be run and what its general topic will be.
This blog will be run as a registered student organization at MSU. The plan is to have 20 - 25 members working on the site. After all, we’re all busy college students, so it will take a number of contributors to keep content fresh. Members will be divided into 3 different user-classes. Administrators will have full control over the site. There will be 2 - 3 admins, including the webmaster and the president of the organization. All members of the site will have Author privileges. Authors can write and submit posts, but they will not be published until approved by Moderators. There will be roughly 5 moderators, who will read and approve all posts and comments to ensure that the site maintains an appropriate and academic tone.
Posts will be submitted on a regular basis by most of the members. While some may be involved with administration/organization, the goal is to have enough authors to publish new content every day without overworking already busy students.
Topics
As mentioned earlier, this site should be a place for advancing academic interests. This is a fairly wide-open standard, but it is important not to lose the intention of the site — developing and discussing concepts and ideas. Posts should not degenerate into political and rhetorical posturing, but should held to the standards of academic debate, as much as possible.
That being said, neither is this a place for censorship. Admins and Moderators will have the difficult job of shaping the tone without constraining ideas, but I’m confident that a balance can be found.
In the coming weeks, look for sample posts from Mike and myself. After that, writing will begin in earnest, with posts coming from interested students. Next fall the organization will begin officially, with an advisor, a constitution, and a full roster of members. Stay tuned, it should be interesting!