Lack of Intelligent Analysis on TV/Radio

Great Debates
1

After following some discussions here for a while, I find that most members here are intelligent, thoughtful, and they provide a number of insights into the news of the day, and issues in the world. Why are there very few news analysis shows in this country on TV/Radio at this level? There’s a striking disparity between the level on this board and primetime shows on TV, say (Most radio I have heard is much more terrible). Things as simple as separating facts and opinion are not done cleanly. I can’t just buy the idea that the public don’t want it. I am sure that if they get to see something better than “Hannity and Colmes” or “Alan Keyes…” they would watch it and the world would be a lot better for it. Am I wrong? Is this just the notion that the mainstream caters to the lowest common denominator?

(I am not sure if which forum to post this in. Mods, please move it as you deem appropriate)

2

Listen to NPR. Watch PBS.

3

There’s the BBC if you can get it locally or via shortwave radio. I also concur with Telemark.

4

Most people are interested in the news only tangentially. They are not interested in investing huge amounts of their time in it: and they want it to be entertaining. That’s just the reality.

Some think that this is bad, and it probably does have a detrimental affect on our public policy. But I also sometimes have to remind myself that it could actually be a GOOD sign rather than a bad one: that what it really means is that nothing is BAD enough for people to care that much. Thus, they invest more of their time on other things that are more important to them, and that’s a GOOD thing.

5

Hrmm. I don’t suppose that this would be a good time to point out the liberal taint present in NPR and PBS?

But back to the OP…radio and television are not god forums for indepth analysis. Time is too restricted. And given the editorial nature of ‘analysis’, I wager that television shys away from doing too much in-depth thinking, in order to capture as large an audience as possible. (A factor not generally present in print media).

Also, published media (paper or web) can spend much more time on any given topic, as opposed to sound bite-driven television and radio.

6

Sorry, but they’re just fine as mediums for indepth analysis as well as discussion.

I guess the thing I don’t quite understand is that CNN is a dedicated news channel, it would seem reasonable to think they’d have plenty of scope for getting variously opined talking heads around tables.

As flowbark says, if you can get the BBC (News24, BBC America or the radio stations), I’d suggest giving it a whirl.

7

But PBS and BBC are sooooo boring.
News has always been about entertainment or information.

I don’t have time to sit though a long analysis. I want to know the information i need to know as quickly as possible.

8

I think the OP has been answered by ** msmith537 **

Would it be better if Arafat was a juggler and Sharon a ventriloquist (lets not go there on who’s the dummy) ?

9

Its mind-control to make lay-people the unquestioning drones of a sinister machine. dumbing down.

10

A supporter once told Adlai Stevenson “Don’t worry. All the thinking people are on your side.”

He replied, “But I need a majority.”

TV and radio exist for exactly one reason - to air filler that will generate an audience for the commercials.

Entertainment is simple. There is a good guy and a bad guy. Issues are clear. There is always a simple answer.

Real life is messy. Issues are messy. Simple answers are rare.

Thoughtful discussion requires thought. It also produces thoughtful people.

Do you really think advertisers and news editors want people to think carefully about what they are being told?

Regards,
Shodan

11

I second what other posters have said about PBS,NPR and BBC. But it’s also true that even good TV and radio aren’t ideal for in-depth analysis; just compare the number of words you can read per minute to the number of words per minute you get on TV/radio.

If you want in-depth analysis read newspapers and magazines. The New York Times and the Economist are probably the best dailies and weeklies and for even more in-depth analysis try the New York Review for Books, Foreign Affairs etc.

12

Yep, but what radio and especially teevee can offer is real-time debate. One simple example from last night was an excellent gloves-off discussion between (the equivalent of) the Palestinian Foreign Minister and a US representative (obviously in the wake of the Bush speech) – excellent stuff. Almost dramatic in a political geeky way.

13

Consider the words of, IMHO, the greatest philopsopher of our age, George Carlin:

“Think about how stupid the average person is. Then realize that half the people are stupider than that!”

I think this board is great simply because there are so many intelligent people on it. The real world has people ranging from the very intelligent to the…shall we say…not so intelligent. The news programs have to get good ratings to make money, which is what the entertainment industry is all about. Therefore, they cater to the lowest common denominator. Sad, but true.

14

Somehow I can’t envision George Carlin’s average stupid person showing a interest in world news and analysis in the first place!
If that was the case: I have my answer… Sad but true. On a related issue, what prevents the society in this country to debate at the level we see here in GD? All the basic tools (education, capacity for reasoning, abilility to separate fact and opinion) are all in place.

What I find disconcerting is that under the pretext of in-depth coverage they only provide sound-bites, and whenever they have any sort of discussion, it degenerates into two opposing viewpoints muddled with facts and various kinds of goo. The reason I find this disconcerting is that most Americans are watching this on primetime or even worse listening to talk-radio. And, I have always had this belief that “better” would be accepted, especially in a culture like here.

I concur with London_Calling in that TV or Radio can be an excellent place for debates etc.

15

—I concur with London_Calling in that TV or Radio can be an excellent place for debates etc.—

But don’t be mislead into thinking that debates are an excellent way to come to the truth of a matter. Debates, even the debates on this board, are good mainly for one thing: getting a sample of the range of opinion that’s out there, some of the most common arguments and current sticking points, etc.

But if you ever think that a debate has “convinced” you of one thing or another, be skeptical of yourself. Debating, especially on real-time Tv, is heavily biased towards whoever can make the slickest argument the fastest. A practiced creationist debater can run circles around whatever schoolteacher he pulls in to be his opponent. And a “host” who wears two hats: moderator AND combatant, can manufacture almost any sort of debate they wish. But this demonstrates almost nothing about the truth of any given opinion. It’s just not about carefully reasoning out the truth.

Only you can do that for yourself, by actually asking questions of yoursef and trying to answer them yourself by looking up the data, doing thought experiements, etc.

Also never be so lazy as to believe that the truth of a matter must lie within the middle of two propositions. There is nothing more irrational than that belief: by which the “truth” can be altered simply by making one side’s position more extreme, or coming up with entirely new positions to drag the “truth” in any direction.

16

Shodan, "Do you really think advertisers and news editors want people to think carefully about what they are being told? "

Shodan, thanks for conveying what I would want to convey using about 1/8 of the bandwidth. :wink:

Apos, you are eloquent and exacting on the matter of debate. But I question your assumption above that the inclination to devote time to escapist media implies that there is nothing important enough to attend to.

Bear in mind, I don’t suggest that news is the only valuable media. Like good literature, good television or good movies are thought-provoking and sometimes as informative as good journalism. But too much of what is out there isn’t good on any of these levels. It’s deliberately simplistic and numbing; I’ve come to think of television viewing as exercising a narcotic effective with many Americans (and others) unwitting addicts. I believe that if people read more and watched television less they’d also spend less time shopping and more time talking. I also believe they’d be happier.

Disclaimer: I haven’t watched commercial television in about 4 years (though I watch some TV programs on video). I don’t flip through the channels looking for something to watch (unless I’m stuck by myself in a hotel room). It was a bit strange at first, but has definitely added to my quality of life in innumerable ways.

17

That should be “narcotic effect”.

18

Apos, I agree with everything you said in your previous post. But, I am wondering about the phenomenon, as **Mandelstam ** pointed out, where things out there are deliberately simplistic and numbing.

** Shodan **, does the public control the advertisers and news editors or do they control us? Your hypothesis that they don’t want us to think would break down if they are forced to make us think. I know I am slipping into idealism here, but, given the educated populace in this country, why shouldn’t I expect better?

Can I slip in a question here? Are there people from other countries who think their mainstream media does a much better job of presenting and discussing issues? (For example, is the non-jingoistic reporting of the BBC popular there?) If so, what is the main impediment in this nation?

19

Both Shodan and Apos make good points but I’d tend to characterise the value of debate by talking heads a little differently.

There importance, IMHO, is not to convince the audience of the value of their position but rather it is the function of the ‘ringmaster’/nominal interviewer to structure the debate and move it along in such a way that the ultimate goal, that of informing public opinion, is served. In other words, the real value lies in an able interviewer extracting substance from the heads that the wider public can utilise.

At the risk of partisanship, I do commend the training of BBC personal in the art of conducting these debates – it’s a subtle and much undervalued skill, IMHO.

20

Who cares about news on Radio and TV? You’ve got the internet, the world’s biggest and best research facility, right at your fingertips.

All other forms of information pale in comparison. But you do need to learn some research skills, and you have to be very careful about the sources you choose, because there’s a lot of crap on the internet.

But if you are interested in knowing something about, say, the Palestinian situation, do a Google search, and then follow the hits to the main news sites like the BBC, The NY Times, Washington Post, etc. For background, rather than just reading the editorials on those sites, try the ‘secondary’ sources full of editorial content. On the right, the best sources include Reason Online (http://reason.com/), The National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com), and a couple of the better foundations such as The Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/), or the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org).

On the left/center, the best online papers around are probably The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/), The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/), or Slate (http://www.slate.com).

Better yet, go direct to the primary sources and study them without the injected bias of secondary analysis. www.whitehouse.gov gets you all of the presidential speeches, policies, statements, etc. The Congressional Budget Office (www.cbo.gov) has all the budget documents, projections, etc.

For world issues, the U.N. web site (www.un.org) is pretty good.

And of course, The Straight Dope is an excellent resource.