Advertisement

Blog

Death of the News

When troubadour Don McLean referred to rock 'n' roll great Buddy Holly's death on February 3, 1959, as “the day the music died,” he was crafting a metaphor about a period of remarkable innocence and idealism in American history.

McLean's lyric came to me last week while I watched, again, a movie set in the era of Buddy Holly: George Clooney's brilliant Good Night and Good Luck .

In a repeat viewing, it becomes clearer that the central conflict in Clooney's treatment of the 1950's anti-Communist panic was not between Joseph McCarthy, the fanatic red-baiting senator from Wisconsin, and CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow. The real clash, which reverberated further into the future and deeper into American culture, pitted Murrow's courageous producer, Fred W. Friendly, against CBS chief William S. Paley.

In the film, after Murrow's controversial See It Now broadcasts exposed McCarthy as a cowardly demagogue and doomed his Senate career, Paley summons Friendly into his office. There, he quietly sentences See It Now , perhaps the greatest investigative news show in TV history, to a slow but certain death. He sentences Murrow to finishing his career as the anodyne host of a celebrity interview show, Person to Person .

That meeting between Paley and Friendly occurred, although perhaps not exactly as depicted in Good Night and Good Luck . Its date might be recorded somewhere, but would be hard to pin down. Nonetheless, it deserves to be commemorated as “the day the news died,” because here was one irreversible moment when the world's most powerful and prestigious broadcast organization subordinated the news to the imperative of entertainment.

That day, Paley — a pioneer of CBS News — decided to appease the network's fretful sponsors with news less edgy, and with newsmen less enterprising than Murrow and Friendly. Adding insult to injury, he made Murrow a mere emcee, who wasted his last year on the air tossing softball questions to crooners, comedians, and movie stars.

Until Paley moved CBS News from Page One to the “style” section, the news — especially on TV — was not explicitly expected to make money, although it often did. Newspapers and magazines, throughout the 20th century, were profitable because they offered the most affordable advertising medium for most businesses. But all this profit tended to obscure a fact that today — as advertisers forsake virtually all news media — is manifestly evident. News isn't a “product,” nor is it reliably popular enough to generate the consistent sales that assure profit and reward America's insatiable shareholder class.

William Paley, in that fateful meeting, told Fred Friendly that in order for the news to survive at CBS (and, by extension into the future, in every US media organization), it had to do one thing it could not do and one thing it should not do.

The news cannot, to the satisfaction of America's constant-growth, quarterly-report, Wall Street business culture, create wealth. The news should not, at the expense of seeking the facts and informing its consumers as honestly as necessary, amuse people. The fact that it sometimes — even often — entertains is one of the reasons news continues to attract a vast audience.

News, at bottom, is a public service, required to explore aspects of a nation's life, politics, culture, and governance in ways that can be boring, disturbing, and even ghastly. News, if reported thoroughly, properly, and bravely, as Ed Murrow did, can expose realities with which no sensible advertiser wants to associate. News, done well, can be dangerous. It can get people killed.

News serves. Under the sort of tyranny that Joe McCarthy so theatrically feared, news serves the state. In a republic, news at its best serves the people and sustains democracy, without fear, favor, razzle-dazzle, or hope of wealth.

By allowing all those elements — timidity, favoritism, glitz, and worst of all, the almighty buck — to subsume broadcast journalism, Bill Paley and CBS forever altered the shape of the news, and imperilled the integrity of American democracy. We see the fruits of news-as-entertainment every day now. The latest example was a tawdry, money-soaked, and tragically information-free election campaign.

The death of the news, like “the day the music died,” is a metaphor. But Buddy Holly is really dead. And so is Edward R. Murrow, who said this: “If they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse, and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.”

10 comments on “Death of the News

  1. Houngbo_Hospice
    November 28, 2012

    Hi David,

    The purpose the news is to provide factual information to the public about who, what, where, when and why. I think most media are still loyal to that format. But I do agree that some press releases are more like paid advertising than real news.

  2. FLYINGSCOT
    November 29, 2012

    Seems these days that news reports tend to focus on the negative and very few positive stories are aired.  News editors need to remember they are peforming a public service and as such should present balanced news and not covet sensationalism.  In the UK the news guys also seem incapable of dropping a story when its course is run.  They tend to flog things to death and beyond.

  3. Adeniji Kayode
    November 29, 2012

    @Hospice

    Well, how would they finance and maintenance if there is no paid advert than real news.

    m

    media houses consider news as the free service or contribution to the society

  4. Adeniji Kayode
    November 29, 2012

    @FLYINGSCOT,

    That is because good news does not sell as much as bad news.

    While they don,t have to “sell” it , it makes more people to tune in but in the process spread more fear in the name of updating people about something.

  5. Houngbo_Hospice
    November 29, 2012

    @Adeniji,

    I have nothing against paid ads, I was just pointing out that (true) news should not be confused with advertising. During the US presidential campaigns for instance, some media chose to advertise “their” candidates rather than presenting factual information about them.

  6. Houngbo_Hospice
    November 29, 2012

    That is because good news does not sell as much as bad news.

    Maybe, but what people needs is information about what is happening around them and in the world. That information should be “accurate and timely, specific and organized for a purpose, presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance” . As long as the news is relevant, people will like to hear it.

  7. Mr. Roques
    November 29, 2012

    But we should also think of news as everything else: time on air. And that needs to entertain, but even more important, sell. Sell ads but also, sell ideas. Its reaaaally hard to have an independent news media. 

  8. Houngbo_Hospice
    November 30, 2012

    @Mr. Roques,

    “Its reaaaally hard to have an independent news media. “

    Maybe, but journalism ethics require that the news be trusworthy and accurate. Also journalists should be held to the same standards that they apply to people they cover.

  9. itguyphil
    November 30, 2012

    That's why people trust the people in the news that seem to be the most standoff-ish. It makes you feel that they won't be swayed by who they are covering.

  10. Barbara Jorgensen
    December 3, 2012

    Murrow is more correct than he'll ever know, and that might be a good thing. How would one explain “reality” TV to a serious journalist?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.