I've stated before that I'm a news junkie, an inveterate watcher of TV news, reader of newspapers, and an online zombie with email news flashes coming from our local papers as well as the New York Times, Boston Globe, and Washington Post.I'm also a skimmer - you have to grab my attention with a headline and the first paragraph, otherwise I move on. So many stories and so little time or maybe it's a lack of patience.What I am losing patience with is the yellow journalism, or more precisely, ratings-grabbing journalism trotted out by news organizations as thoughtful reporting.To the best of my knowledge, fish wraps like the Inquirer notwithstanding, most daily papers have stayed away from sensationalizing the news.The folks that I find fault with are the major television "news" programs on the three major networks as well as the cable stations, CNN, MSNBC, and the electronic tabloid, FOX News; they've lost their journalistic compasses.When did television journalism become a three-ring circus?What passes for news these days is a panel of three or four of these pseudo-experts with opposing views who elevate the rhetoric and volume to the level of a Jerry Springer debacle. The networks have confused controversy with reporting, and are on the brink of achieving the plausibility of professional wrestling.There are a few who try to be unbiased - David Gergen (did you know his middle name is Rodham?) comes to mind - but by and large we are getting partisan comments on news stories that are intended to incite the viewing audience.I expect controversy and outrageous views from Sean Hannity or Ed Schultz, talk-show hosts who make no pretense of being journalists. Creating fact out of fiction is their stock in trade; that's what talk radio is all about. But I expect more from my television news stations, local and national, and to a large extent, I'm not getting it.I know ratings and audience share sell advertising. I understand that television is a for-profit business, but I'm saddened to see the move away from legitimate news reporting in favor of some fusion of news and karaoke where anyone, regardless of their credentials, can sit in front of the red light and spew their opinions to the masses. It's obvious that the networks go for the more outrageous commentators who, by being controversial, will get them a bigger audience. If the "analyst" is controversial enough, competing networks will quote the guests, mentioning the network.Television started out in the news business with legitimate newscasters, names like Edward R. Morrow, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather, to name a few. These were men who gave the news as objectively as one could expect, and when they did launch into an opinion piece, they made it clear you were being exposed to their personal opinion.As a devotee of evolution, I know everything changes over time, but I miss the days when I could listen to a news story secure in the knowledge that I was getting the facts as best as could be reported.Today, I have to listen to some pretender whose only qualification for invading in my living room was being a stooge for George W. Bush trying to convince me that Barack Obama is the devil incarnate. The corporate moguls at the networks are bastardizing the Fourth Estate.[[In-content Ad]]
