More of the same, but why watch what we watch?

August 17, 2009 - This morning the three major news networks give us what we have come to expect, the healthcare debate. CNN and MSNBC focus on an apparent backdown by the Obama administration on the public healthcare option. Meanwhile, Fox News dwells on the issue of emails that were sent from the White House to individuals who never signed up for the White House mailing list. It seems clear to me that the only individuals who would read the Fox News story are opponents of President Obama and healthcare reform who are looking to conjure up some conspiracy theory about the Obama administration breaking privacy laws. Similarly, it seems that only Obama supporters would read the CNN and MSNBC articles that dispel rumors about what the public-option would be and the fact that it is only a small part of healthcare reform. So, why are our primary news sources so clearly focused on certain demographics, and what does that mean for those who watch?

For anyone who watches the 24-hour news networks it is clear who stands on what side. Rupert Murdoch's self-proclaimed, "fair and balanced," news network, Fox News, is about as unfair and off balance as they come, presenting the day's news with a very apparent slant to the right. No wonder Glenn Beck left CNN, he had a perfect home all along at Fox. MSNBC is the same as Fox, only their orientation is to the left. Anyone who can't pickup on Keith Olbermann's or Rachel Maddow's bias is almost certainly deaf or dumb. Finally, CNN, the sensationalistic news network that is perfect for those who would rather be watching Entertainment Weekly, but instead watches the news to feel informed. I never could have imagined how many breaking news stories could occur in an hour until I watched, "The Situation Room," with Wolf Blitzer. I would argue that CNN leans to the left, but they probably present the most balanced reports of the three networks. Mainly because it is difficult to place a political bias on the John and Kate Gosselin divorce saga.

Now, why do we watch these news sources? Furthermore, why do we mainly watch the one source that reinforces our political views? Does it give us conviction to hear a news anchor tell us what we already think? Everything I have ever learned about debate and argument is that it is vital to know the "other" side of the issue. Ignorance to the opposition is exactly that, ignorance. It is stunning how you can watch two different representations of a story and come to two completely different conclusions about what happened. For those who have TiVo, do an experiment. For a week, record, "Countdown, with Keith Olbermann," and "The Rachel Maddow Show," from MSNBC. During the same time period record, "Glenn Beck," and, "The O'Reilly Factor," from Fox News. See what kind of results you get. For Republicans, you will love what you hear on Fox and cringe at what you see on MSNBC. Democrats, you will get the opposite reactions.

The issue is not with people having the views that they have. The issue is that there is no real balance in our news and there is no truly unbiased network news source. Today, our news sources answer to the corporations that fund them and present the news accordingly. It is time for the news to present the facts and nothing else, because that's the news. I don't need to hear Glenn Beck complain about the disappearance of the America he knows, or Keith Olbermann talk about, "The Worst People in the World." I can hear all of that nonsense at a family reunion, depending on the side of the family. Therefore, a note to all news networks: Present the facts to the public, not your perception of those facts, and allow the public to create their own opinions based on reasoned judgements. No matter the political orientation, we should all be able to create our own opinions without having the news feed them to us. I'm sure you don't agree with all of my opinions, but I think you'll all agree with today's News to Me.