Click here to view the embedded video.

“Much–though by no means all–journalistic bias lies in reporters’ assessments of what’s likely to be true. Those assessments are based in part on experience with sources and in part on how the reporter understands the world. What do you believe about political motivations? What do you believe about the way the economy works? What do you believe about the likely behavior of U.S. soldiers in combat, or of business executives, or of the clergy, or of Republicans, or of Jews? What do you believe about human nature in general? About political institutions? About the corrupting influence of money? About the power of ideology? About the relative importance of genetics versus culture, nature versus nurture? About the prevalence or sustainability of discrimination? About the influence of violence on TV? About the effectiveness of conspiracies?”

As a fellow of the North Carolina Institute of Political Leadership, I had access to a fantastic six months of training in the nuts and bolts of politics. One of the most important nuggets of information I gained in the process was in a discussion of the media. A reporter from the News and Observer out of Raleigh, NC spoke to the class. This reporter laid out the number one criterion for deciding what stories to cover.

“We want the story that is important to our next-door neighbor.”

This is a good thing to remember. Reporters and editors have to decide what to report based on a lot of things, but if the story doesn’t appeal to the guy next door, then who WILL it appeal to? Newspapers are out to make money, and they do that directly, and indirectly, through readership. If the guy next door has the perception that his job may be in danger, then employment issues are what needs to be covered. If the guy next door is a retiree, then Social Security may be the story of the day.
The bottom line? A reporter’s perception of his audience is very important in his choice of what to cover, and how to cover it. He perceives this audience by the people he talks to every day. Those people are his co-workers, his friends, his neighbors, and his other associates. Any bias in his reporting may come not only from his own point of view, but also from the points of view of those around him.
If you talk to a reporter, why not tell him what stories would be important to you, instead of how his bias screwed up what could have been a good story?

People often complain of bias in the media or other problems. Viewership is down among the big-three network newscasts. Dan Rather is stepping down amid controversy over his handling of a fraudulent story and evidence. There are lots of reasons to question the major network newscasts. I’ve long since stopped watching them at all. I’d like to explain why you should stop too.

Walter Cronkite was considered “the most trusted man in America.” His calm demeanor and effective communication skills allowed generations of newswatchers to see a high quality newscast each evening. I remember being sad when I watched him sign off of his last newscast. Even at my young age, I recognized the end of an era when I saw one.

I just didn’t know what era was ending.

Not too many years after Cronkite left, Ted Turner revolutionized the news with the introduction of CNN, the Cable News Network. Instead of waiting for the evening newscast, viewers could catch the latest news of the day at any time, 24 hours a day. With CNN Headline News, which came a little while later, one could effectively get a full national newscast every half hour. The highly competitive three-network news design was slowly turning into a tripartite monopoly, ripe for busting by the free market.

In 1989, Rush Limbaugh debuted his national radio show. Broadcast from New York City, within a month the show was carried on 55 radio stations. The AM Radio band had become a virtual wasteland, due to higher quality audio on the FM band. The music stations on the band were steadily losing listeners, and the news/talk formats primarily dealt with local issues. Limbaugh’s show caught on quickly, making the host a national personality.

With The Rush Limbaugh Show giving national news and issues a wide audience, stations began to expand and improve their news and talk offerings. AM radio became, in short order, a major source for news and direct competition for audience with television and newspapers.

When Saddam Hussein ordered his troops to invade Kuwait in 1990, the need for current news coverage became greater. The big-three network newscasts, throughout the Desert Shield/Desert Storm period, broke into regular coverage to give the latest news, but this conflicted with the entertainment side of their business. CNN, with staff on the ground in Kuwait and Bagdad itself, found itself becoming THE place to go for news about the Middle East. Viewers would still turn to ABC, NBC and CBS for their evening recaps, but CNN was the source to turn to during the rest of the day. The day of Cable News had arrived.

During the 1990s, news sources seemed to pop out of the woodwork. More cable networks arrived. The Internet came into prominence with access to newspapers, newswires, and discussion of the topics of the day. More radio stations turned to the news/talk format. More non-news cable networks began offering news segments, and with every step, the big-three network newscasts lost prominence, importance and viewers.

As the Internet matured, news became more readily available. More and more newspapers developed online versions. Television and Radio news departments began to offer their stories online. Sites such as the Drudge Report popped up to point at interesting news on other sides, and even to offer news of their own. The ease with which one can gain access to breaking news has gotten progressively easier as time has passed.

So, where are we today? Now, an engaged news junkie can hear about a breaking story on cable news channels such as CNN or Fox. They can go online and seek out news sources that are local to the news story such as a local newspaper or television station’s news department website. Within a couple hours of an event that happens at 11am, one can get all the major developing details from a variety of sources. You can spend an hour reading all about the story from different points of view. You can compare sources, details, and conclusions. Back on Cable, or even through streaming video, you can watch coverage in full moving color. At 6:30 that evening, you can turn the TV over to ABC, CBS or NBC and watch a whopping 15-20 seconds of coverage of the story, and absolutely nothing in the story will be new.

That’s the real problem. Now that we have ready access to news, breaking and otherwise, there’s just nothing to be gained from watching the evening newscasts on the big-three. Even if they DID have anything new to add, they just don’t have the time. With only a half-hour for their newscast, they have to be sparing with their information. When you factor in commercials, weather, sports, consumer news, personal interest stories and entertainment news, there’s just not much time left for the real news.

It’s not the bias that bothers me. I read, watch, and listen to biased news all the time. I get my news from biased sources all over the political spectrum, from Worldnet Daily to NPR. The main problem is that the big-three newscasts have simply abdicated their roles as valuable news sources. That role, once held by three networks and half a dozen newspapers, is now in the hands of hundreds, even thousands of sources.

Here we sit at the cusp of another major change. With Dan Rather leaving his post as anchor of the CBS Evening News, it’s only a matter of time before the other two big anchors go as well. The third era of television news is about to begin. The big question is, will the third era have any value at all?

As I wrap up this post, my email is beeping to announce that I’ve just received today’s edition of The Political Digest, a daily clipping service of political news that I’ve subscribed to for several years now. Time to read the news.