Television news programmes don’t report the news, they create it. Do they?
August 2011
Television news programmes are criticized for creating the news rather than reporting it. This issue questions the quality of journalists’ work but also the impact of a biased vision of the world. How have we come to such a situation, who takes advantage of it and what are the consequences?
Media companies especially television channels were restructured into consortia about thirty years ago. As a consequence the media market has contracted and the number of stakeholders considerably reduced.
Since then the rules have changed. The ethics of the profession turned into an economic logic. The goal of these programmes is not to report the news but to sell information to the largest possible audience. The conditions of an autonomous practise of journalism are exactly the opposite of a marketed product reaching its target.
TV news programmes have become similar due to increasing competition. Nowadays the choice of programmes has a lot to do with polls and advertisers. No channel would venture into taking risk by being different or stating different opinions from the mainstream. Journalists or guests are also trapped in this system when they try to go further because of the editing. Moreover the pressure of political correctness and mainstream culture favour self censorship.
Topics mediocrity and analysis is even obvious when you compare them to newspapers’. For instance it seems there is no news in summer, only topics related to tourism are broadcasted. More generally, the use of fear, voyeurism, racist prejudices and simplicity eluding any questioning are at the heart of TV news programmes. The editing leans towards drama which generates TV viewers’ emotions instead of call for their rationality and critical reasoning.
Some intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky explain that television is made mediocre to control the TV viewers more easily. Indeed the financial groups who own media also have power in the political field. Politicians need the support of media to canvas for their next mandate and they know how deeply media can influence citizens. In return they are not rigorous when it comes to controlling finance or economy.
In spite of the conspiracy theory trend of this thesis, it is obvious that there is a link between media and politicians. Having a look at past elections a few years ago gives the dimension of their collusion: Tony Blair, George Bush Jr., Nicolas Sarkozy were elected with the helping hand of mainstream media. For example Nicolas Sarkozy is a close friend of the Bouygues family who owns the first French TV channel. Their news programmes have always showed him at his best. Just as in the film ‘Citizen Kane’ by Orson Welles, Silvio Berlusconi owns a huge network of media and is the Prime Minister of Italy at the same time. Ruppert Murdoch actively supported the mandates of President Bush Jr. via Fox News channel.
It is agreed that media is the 4th pillar of any healthy democracy. Yet there is no counter power to this so-called counter power: no one controls it or assesses it. This gap has allowed the emergence of the 5th power, finance. Finance has used media to serve its own purposes including shaping people’s mindset.
To escape from this pattern, citizens have to make a step backward to have a different look on what they are used to watching. Internet and social media are already an efficient way to find alternative information, but it requires a lot of cross checking to be sure of the reliability of sources. This approach can be adapted to television too, crossing TV news programmes with newspapers for example.
TV viewers have to understand they can act and ask for more qualitative news programmes if they are ready to do the effort. Indeed they should understand TV news programmes report the real world and that they are not TV shows. It is the only way to safeguard our freedom and to know “what’s going on out there”.