Charlie Sheen and the State of the Union: Part II
Two weeks ago, I wrote Part I of this article. My thesis being that if Charlie Sheen is undergoing a meltdown, it is not cool to be using that as a spectacle for entertainment. But a criticism of the news media must go far beyond that. For, given how heavily Charlie Sheen-oriented the coverage was back then, one could be forgiven for thinking that there weren’t important issues that needed airtime; in other words, that Sheen was ruling the airwaves because there wasn’t much happening.
But that, of course, is the farthest thing from the truth. By all accounts, we are having one of the most tumultuous years, so far. What is transpiring in the Middle East, for example, deserves constant and close scrutiny on the part of every news organization. Even forgetting international matters for a moment, you will find that there is enough going on in the nation to fill up any number of news hours. Consider, for example, the Wisconsin teacher protests. It has not been surprising to me, how little some people have been aware of the goings-on up in our neighboring state. In short, there are people who have perhaps not even understood the situation because of a lack of information.
It has been the nature of current news programming (for example, a somewhat more neutral news provider CNN) to have any number of experts comment on current issues. Long before the reporting has even concluded, you suddenly have pundits of opposing viewpoints about to comment on the issue at hand. This is all well and good, except that these “pundits” are not here for a discussion or an argument – which by definition imply some sort of movement towards some understanding – but to state their opinion (or rather their side’s opinion) and move on. You can have them speak for a minute or for an hour; they will keep on the same line of attack. Under these circumstances, a viewer can take a side with one opinion or the other (depending often on political allegiance) but cannot form a fresh opinion of his/her own.
These are dangerous times, not only because of the partisan nature of individual news organizations, but because of the mind-numbing nature of commentary that seeks to be impartial by enabling two people who do not (cannot) see eye-to-eye to blabber on and on.
There is a lot going on in the US and around the world: good luck understanding all that if you rely only on TV news, particularly when the day’s favorite YouTube picks come on.
