Divisive Media

 

We would be better served if exposed less. 

Television news desks feature two types; field reporters and anchor personalities.  The field reporters address news on-site,  reporting facts for the most part.  Anchors are  on-screen personalities that populate programming 24/7. Media syndicates congregate these personalities to deliver a message.  The underlying agenda is heavily weighted to politics.

Media  personalities are generally unskilled, over privileged  narcissists dancing around a narrative; as a group they are out of touch with people, just watch them demonstrate detached interest when exposed in public.  They are grossly over rated opinion leaders;  abusing their position across the board.  The country would be better served if exposed less.  Unfortunately the programming is relatively cheap and effective in delivering eyeballs to advertising content, the penultimate goal off all print and electronic media.

 There was, at one time, a clear line between reporting and editorial opinion.  Although blurred,  that distinction lingers on the Six O'clock News;  it has been replaced on cable news by network personalities intent on swaying focus to fit the syndicate narrative on current events.  

 The ubiquitous news/talk shows that populate cable channels have eliminated the distinction between news reporting and opinion all together.   Opening monologs delivered by the hosts  serve to  warm-up  the supportive opinions  offered by a parade of network contributors.  

Public opinion is influenced, reinforced and sorted to supportive camps. Camps that emphasize self interest at the expense of mutual interest.  That process has brought us to a time when we stand divided into "silos" of  self interest;  where we refuse to recognize that our silos stand on common ground.  Ground we ignore at our own peril.

We are well into a presidential election.  Once again the media have us focused on name calling while our attention is diverted from issues that matter most.  How will this nation survive external threats, and there are external threats, if we continue to focus on trivialities offered by national media syndicates?  We should be focused on what makes us strong, what makes us safe and what makes us exceptional as a nation.  "Who said what, to or about whom" is great gossip over the back fence but it gets us nowhere and only causes derision.

I would like to see the opposing party platforms exposed with as much enthusiasm as the networks offer up to gossip and unsupported innuendo.  That would lead to a national discussion on the efficacy of issues and the relative merits of parties running for office and power over our lives.