To the editors:
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
The objectivity jig should have been up after the surreal ’88 election coverage, which was nothing but an extended, amorphous meditation on the media covering the media (covering the media) as the media, incidentally, covered the race. All that Hamlet-like hair-pulling was the biggest con job ever. Begging the only question that mattered, the media agonized over the magic formula for objectivity. The unspoken agreement was that “objectivity” would consist of hand-wringing over the correct practice of “objective” reporting. In other words, they let themselves off the hook! As the Founding Fathers spun in their graves coverage of the “issues” centered on feel-good love of the Flag and managerial competence.
And does anyone remember the tv commentary following the presidential debates? On separate occasions big-name actor-anchors sat on the panel, asking the questions that would elicit the answers they would report as news. Following the expected jejune queries and replied hems and haws about the candidates’ qualifications and strategies for performing well on television, the actor- anchors then descended to their network booths to field the question of “how it went.” (We’re allowed to watch the debates but it takes a network shill to describe what we saw with our own eyes, to explain what we heard with our own ears.)
Therefore, the next time you watch any kind of network news put objectivity, even ideology out of your mind. The only relevant factors are facticity, entertainment value, plausibility, Nielsen points and the ad revenue that follows behind. There are many ways to frame a story, but only a few ways that will piss off the sponsors. Think about that the next time you watch some “objective” report about Greenhouse followed by an Exxon commercial, followed by a Ford commercial.
