Too often I find reporters trying to strike a balance in their reporting by publishing comments that have little news value. For example, take the following quote from an article in the New York Times about possible Republican health care proposals. The comment seems to have little to no news value and sullies an otherwise useful article about the types of proposals that might become part of bipartisan health care reform:
Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, said, “If the Republicans’ health care plan was a plan for a fire department, they would rush into a burning building, and they would rush out and leave everybody behind.”
The statement is inflammatory. It is contradicted by the article. It does not benefit the national discussion on healthcare. It allows partisans a cute sound bite for avoiding the debate about whether our nation should invest in sweeping changes, incremental improvements or more of the same. Surely there is at least one Democrat who can provide a reason why Republican ideas are too little, too late. Is there no one willing to make an argument in favor of doing nothing?
Reporters need to strike balance by offering opposing insights, not a forum for opponents to hurl insults that neither educate nor enrich.
Thelma and I purposefully don't get any cable news channels. If I want to watch news coverage (and I happen to be home at the right time) then I'll tune into PBS NewsHour It's balanced, long-form reporting. Reporters take the time to cover issues in depth and don't seem to betray much of a bias one way or the other. Part of the program is dedicated to commentary from analysts with differing view points who know how to have a respectful conversation about substantive issues without it turning into a yelling match. The host actually moderates the discussion.
Compare that to the buffoonery of Fox News and MSNBC where the hosts try to be both the center of attention and the final word on all topics. The crumbs of rational and passionate debate are buried beneath an avalanche of populist rhetoric and political theater. Fair and balanced? Rarely. The days of Brit Hume at Fox News and Brian Williams at MSNBC are long gone. What passes as balance is yelling on the right to offset the cries coming from the left. Or is it the other way around?
(Here's where I insert plugs for my favorite news sources. First, The Economist. It covers the full gamut of business, politics, science, education and culture. It's published once a week so the reporters have time to look at the big picture and avoid being blinded by the haze of up-to-the-minute reporting. Second, the New York Times is simply the best newspaper in the United States with its breadth of coverage and quality writing. The Op-Ed pages present a nice contrast between the leftish editorial board and intelligent Conservative commentary.)
Comments