- By Dan Veaner
- Opinions
Print 
EditorialAm I the only one who is really, really annoyed with so-called television network news anchors? Especially the daytime ones? The thing is, I don't care what their opinions of the news are. But they are hell bent on sharing them with me, a vapid running commentary on current events. The little quips at the end of each news story are bad enough, but the constant interjection of opinion during interviews drives me mad.I don't know about you, but when I tune in to the news I want to hear -- I know this is radical -- the news. I don't care what a stranger who happened to be pretty enough to get a job in front of a camera and behind a desk thinks. When I do care about that there are already shows that rightly have that purpose and are labeled as such. Meet The Press, or Fox News Sunday, or Face The Nation. You tune in as much for the pundits as for the guests. Sometimes more for the pundits. But when I tune into the news I want to hear pretty much nothing but news.
The other day I listened to a Headline News interview in which the interviewer had something to say about everything the interviewee said. They were talking about a man in Massachusetts who allegedly killed his wife and daughter. The person being interviewed did a great job, I thought, of sticking to the facts. But the interviewer couldn't refrain from telling all of us what a monstrous person the man is, and how horrible the crime is. He literally editorialized on every single answer before asking the next question.
I agree that the crime is horrible. I thought so before he said so. As for the man being a monster, maybe so, but there is a concept in this country that judges and juries make determinations of guilt. And while it would have been legitimate to interview someone who thought the guy was a monster, the interviewer saying so himself in the middle of an interview seemed... well, monstrous. Unprofessional at best.
We don't need news anchors telling us what to think. What we do need them for is to tell us what is happening. The network is not called 'Headline Opinions.' And to be clear, I am not against opinions being aired. I'm not even against banter between anchors and reporters. And when clearly labeled there is nothing wrong with journalists sounding off. But when reporting the news there is a lot wrong with it.
Journalists offering opinions in the middle of a news story is unprofessional. It is similar to the problem the Dixie Chicks had when they told Europe what they thought about President Bush. As professional musicians their profession is to sing and play instruments. If they want to be professional pundits they could get that job, though the pay probably isn't as good as that of a star music act. People go to the Dixie Chicks to hear music. When they decided to offer their opinions a lot of people were turned off by it and their fortunes plummeted. So why do journalists get away with it?
I think it is because they have confused the fact that they are on television with entertainment. They have confused the medium with the message. Take Robin Meade (please!). Not only does she pelt her morning news viewers with meaningless opinions, but she constantly advises them to check out her videos on the Headline News Web site as though she is some kind of rock star that people should adore and want to know more about.
Here is a quote describing Meade's podcast from the Morning Express Web site: 'Robin gives thoughts on today's big headlines, answers your emails, and gives you a peek behind-the-scenes.' Her thoughts on the headlines? A peek behind the scenes? Is this Julia Roberts or an alleged journalist? Can you imagine Chet Huntley or Walter Cronkite taking time out of a news broadcast to tell you to look at videos or podcasts that exult them?
Once while visiting Atlanta I took the CNN (home of Headline News) tour. It was interesting, even the parts that sought to idolize then owner Ted Turner and his then wife Jane Fonda. The reason that 'behind the scenes' tour was appropriate is that it was a behind the scenes tour. Billed as such. Not news. Just a tour. It was fun to watch them broadcast the news, but it wasn't news.
The news is supposed to be the news.
Here are definitions of 'journalism' from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:
- The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
- Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast.
- The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
- Newspapers and magazines.
- An academic course training students in journalism.
- Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal.
If Meade chose to present editorials on her show I think most viewers would welcome them. Tony Snow did that when he hosted Fox News Sunday, and they were thoughtful and thought provoking. But Meade and a growing number of 'news personalities' seem to have skipped the first five definitions and -- making the leap that they are personally of current interest or wide popular appeal -- jumped to the sixth.
People are interesting. The things they do are interesting. When they reach a certain level of interest they become newsworthy. News is actually interesting enough that it doesn't need to be hyped, dressed up, given theme songs or scrolling titles. When I want those things I go to the movies. I wish the news personalities who are guilty of that would also go to the movies... and stay there.
And to be 100% crystal clear: this has been an editorial!
----
v4i23