For some reason (apparently mistaken) I’ve always believed that the word “news” referred to new information and that newscasts were designed to be the means of making that information available to those who were interested in hearing about it. I’ve also believed that those persons who were worldly enough to be interested in the news were also aware of when those news programs were broadcast and that they were free to watch or not watch them at their own discretion. This further implies that, if they were not at the moment interested in hearing about local, national and world affairs, they could watch other types of programs for diversion and entertainment (or read a book, walk the dog, take a nap, or play hide and seek with the children.) I’ve recently begun to suspect that there is an entity (need I dare say conspiracy?) to take away that basic right from me and the rest of the world’s television viewers and force us to watch and listen to what they consider to be more important than our own choices of what to watch.
During most early evenings, I watch three different newscasts on three different stations where I am given what appear to be three similar versions of the same three to five events that someone has decided are the only things really worthy of our attention. In spite of the fact that I’ve been told that news broadcasts are now past the old prejudices of “opinion journalism” I find subtle differences in the range of reporting of the same events. There are shadings of approval and disapproval in the choices of adjectives used to describe persons, their actions, the interpretations of the remarks made by public figures, their facial expressions, even the way they are dressed. The best and most trusted news-anchor can’t, all the time, completely keep his own feelings from tinting his delivery of information.
I don’t know whose decision it is to interrupt programs with “breaking news” from supposedly urgent sources, reports that can’t wait an hour or so to be included in a proper newscast. I suspect that most of the people are still at work who are interested in hearing about some politician’s struggle with his self-made problems; some far-away disaster that is too recent to provide any accurate information as to cause, effects or possible solution; or some celebrity’s possible publicity stunt. It seems to me that about seventy percent of the times when my favorite afternoon program is interrupted for “breaking news,” the so-called news is too early to tell what caused it, or too far from the reporter’s location to offer a useful view of the action. They are unable to tell us what just happened, what is happening now, who is involved, suspected, injured or responsible. Why don’t they just wait until they know at least some of the answers? And why can’t this supposed news wait until five o’clock when it can be verified before being included in a news broadcast without all the uncertainty and rumor?
While we’re on the subject of interruptions, I want to make it clear that I do understand that nearly all those political interruptions come from Washington D.C. and that it is four o’clock there when it is time for Jeopardy here and even earlier the farther west you go. Why don’t they just interrupt programs for the people in their time zone – the ones who are likely to be off work and likely to hear and see it? I don’t need to hear all the speculation and possible interpretations of what it all means right that minute. I can wait an hour for the news. I’m not ready to give up my enjoyable afternoon for what probably will end up being some politician’s ego wrapped in a lot of hot air and will quite possibly be denied or modified before the ten o’clock news, anyway. I think some people and most politicians think themselves and what they do are far more interesting than they actually are. What they do and say is not necessarily destined for the history books and just because instant communication is possible, it doesn’t give them the right to impose their self-important whims on the rest of us. Perhaps the Bill of Rights should include our not being subjected to “information without justification.” Personally, I’d rather know if my favored contestant answered that crucial daily double correctly.