It's no secret that television media networks are a major commercial industry. And, while they try to serve the ambiguously secondary responsibility of keeping the general public informed, their primary obligation is, of course, to make money. Though one might question the virtue of putting profit before public service, this prioritization is, in a simply logical sense, practical. In order to fulfill this intrinsically "moral" responsibility, television media networks have to stay in business, and to stay in business they have to make money. But even this syllogistic rationale is too simple.
Television news networks can't just do what is necessary to survive, they have to achieve some standard level of survival. Sure, MSNBC will stick around even if its third behind CNN and Fox News, but, for the sake of its own existence, it doesn't just want to be mediocre for all the capital being put into it. If you're going to do something, you want to do it right-nobody likes a loser.
But this input-output logic aside, even if the television media was in it solely with the purpose of providing a systemically essentially public service , they'd still want to inform as many people as possible, as opposed to just existing to "provide an essential public service" to the leftovers from Fox and CNN, and again we're back to the impetus for commercial expansionism and a focus on financial success. Anyway you look at it, the news needs to make money.
But what does this mean for us, the viewing public? It is absolutely true that the service the news media, especially the televised news media, provides to the general public, or at least ideally, is essential to the dynamic operation of our free civil society, in which it is incumbent upon the citizen to maintain a working comprehension of what's going on. But where does this service end and pure commercialism begin? Do we really need to know everything about everything?
Case-in-point: the Michael Jackson Trial. While it is valuable to be able to see the judicial system in action, especially in high-profile cases in which the limits of the law are being tested and examples are being made, do we really need to know everything about Michael Jackson's personal life? Some of the things I've heard on the news regarding this case have spoiled my dinner, and I don't complain because I'm not mature enough to listen, rather because I'm mature enough not to care. I don't want to see a clip of Michael Jackson dancing on his limo amidst a screeching mob of lunatic fans being played over and over, and I don't care enough about Michael Jackson's lascivious behavior to see it atrociously, melodramatically reenacted by a courtroom full of people who I hope have day jobs.
On the one hand, I appreciate being kept informed about the progress of the trial, and about actual evidentiary discovery, because pedophilia is almost a criminal epidemic in the United States, and a high-profile case might serve as an example as well as lead the charge to an even stricter crackdown. But the news media, in an effort to suck as much ratings-boosting hysteria out of a legitimately necessary institutional process as possible, has treated the Michael Jackson trial the only way, it seems, the major networks know how to get ratings: like a reality show.
The problem is that the topic of pedophilia is just a little too real for me, and hopefully most of the viewing public as well.
The state of twenty-four hour news media sensationalism has left us wanting to throw up from absolute overkill. What would be the best way to defeat this trend toward reality TV news? The same commercial logic from before still applies - if they treat you like this, stop watching it. But, somehow, I doubt we're ready to ditch the addiction. I don't know if it's a voyeur fetish or an obsession with vicariously living more interesting lives through the television news media, but this has, unfortunately, persisted for some time, with no signs of slowing down. If only the FCC could devote some of its obsessive interventionism to righting wrongs in the way the media keeps the public informed, instead of conducting "indecency" witch hunts. I know I'd rather see Janet Jackson's right breast than hear about Michael Jackson's left, well, you know.
-Sal Gentile is a freshman.
