The British Are Not Coming -- Film at Eleven: How We've Trivialized the News

BreakPoint ^ | 27 Aug 03 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

More than 225 years ago, Paul Revere made his famous midnight ride to let Americans know "The British are coming!" It was important, life-changing news.

But how times have changed! Today, thanks to a thriving media and broadcast industry, "the news" is brought to us every hour on the hour -- whether something important is happening or not. And at least one historian says that all this daily "news product" is, well, making us dumb.

In his book HOW THE NEWS MAKES US DUMB, author C. John Sommerville observes that people used to exchange news only when something really important happened. But what are we given as "breaking news" today?

On the typical morning news program we may find out that the president has a new dog or see what celebrities are wearing. We learn what the weather was like yesterday in Bucharest, or discover what some film critic thinks of Hollywood's latest flick.

In other words, most of what's called "news" today is really just a flood of trivia -- mostly inconsequential data that will be soon forgotten. Sommerville calls this the "flotsam and foam" of history. If you don't believe it, check out a newspaper from fifty years ago. How much of what you find is truly newsworthy? And how much of it influenced the course of history? Not much.

But if nothing truly important happens most of the time, why do reporters behave as though they have earth-shattering news for us every single day?

Sommerville suggests it's because news is an industry now. And, he says, "you can't have a news business unless you pretend that the news is important every day. If publishers waited for something really important to happen, they might be idle for weeks, and their capital assets would get rusty."

That's why the media spend so much time convincing us that all "news" has the same value. A story about a 10-year-old winning the prize for the biggest pumpkin is given just as much coverage -- and as many broadcast minutes -- as a story about a conflict in Europe, or war in the Middle East.

We're subjected to this daily avalanche of data because the very definition of news changed. No longer is it focused on the occasional life-changing event. It's excitement, entertainment, and above all, constant change. Sommerville says news is whatever publishers and broadcasters "think they can get us interested in and get us to pay for."

This is why he says the news is making us dumb. The very daily-ness of the news makes us lose perspective. And when every story has equal value, we lose the ability to distinguish what is truly important from what is merely sensational.

All of this makes the news industry a natural antagonist to biblical wisdom. As Sommerville puts it, "News is only aware of change, while religion tries to concentrate on the eternal." Maybe that's why C. S. Lewis made a personal habit of staying away from newspapers altogether.

Well, I don't recommend that. But Sommerville's book HOW THE NEWS MAKES US DUMB helps us to put the news in perspective. And if we aren't caught up in all of the media babble, we just might discover the beginning of wisdom.

[Mr. Silverback]

And in other news, Francisco Franco is still dead.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping! If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Steve_Seattle]

It seems that every year there are only about four or five news events that really matter.

[saint]

HOW THE NEWS MAKES US DUMB

Maybe it's book titles that make us dumb. Why would I buy a book with a title like this unless I thought I was dumb and needed to blame someone else for it?

[gcruse]

"News" is a relative term.  Have you ever noticed that there is a headline on the newspaper every day? What we get is what someone thinks is most important, not that is absolutely important per se.

Think about the Oscars. There is a Best Actor award presented every year, regardless of the quality of the acting that year compared to any other year.  It is Best Actor that year.  "News" means whatever the editor thinks will sell papers that day.

It's up to us to determine what is really important.  Yet, without being presented "all" the news, how can we decide what matters most to us?  Sadly, most people don't even get that far.  They don't read a newspaper, and rely on network news to tell them what is important and to do it in thirty minutes, less commercials.  As long as we have leftists deciding what Joe Blow is going to see as important news, we will have an electorate being led by the nose.

That's the great thing about the internet and Fox News.  In the case of the former, we can see what "all" of the news is.  In the case of Fox News, we can get an emphasis on what is important from nonleftist editors.

I was going to include FreeRepublic in this, but even with the volume of articles rolling across the forum daily, the selection process is right skewed and blatantly unconservative material has a short half life.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

The article presents an interesting thought.

[Leroy S. Mort]

I remember when the Huntley-Brinkley report ran 15 minutes long AND WE LIKED IT..

[Keyes2000mt]

I understand where Colson is coming from, but he doesn't understand the news business clearly.

For one thing, it is a business and you have to appeal to a wide audience. Hard news is generally depressing, distressing,or wrought with conflict. You have a lot of people already who'll choose to be totally ignorant of the entire world because the news is all depressing. News organizations can't be hard and depressing or no one will take part in their media.

Second, this is also about Customer service. Do a significant number of people in the community care about a child winning a prize for a pumpkin? Then you give the kid a write-up. People in the community are doing something and if you don't cover it, you'll lose circulation.

Third, and most important, journalists (with few exceptions) are people, too. When I was a reporter, I needed a break. When covering the destruction of the game farm industry by liberal liars or abuses by protective services, as I reported on the ruin of people's lives. I needed to watch the Von Trapp children sing. I needed soft news. No one can stand the constant negativism, the beating drum of more death, violence, poverty, and misery without losing touch with reality.

A reporter who engages only in hard news is going to become broken, bitter, and jaded. That's why soft news has a vital role in maintaining the health of the press and of the people.

[ChewedGum]

C. John Sommerville observes that people used to exchange news only when something really important happened.

Very interesting point. But how did they know when it happened...how was that information disseminated? My years in rural Kansas explain it all to me. If there is news, then the farmers at the coffee shop sit there all morning and talk about the news - whatever it may be. If there isn't any news, then they complain about the weather instead.

Gum

[ladyinred]

The news is propaganda meant to shape public opinion for the most part. Even a real news event is not presented without some sort of spin these days.

[Paved Paradise]

A particularly relevant piece. Thanks.

[Mr. Silverback]

LOL!