Oregon broadcasters chief says coverage adequate
Following up on Tuesday's post about a group that is challenging the license renewals of 8 Portland televisions stations because of the paltry coverage they provide of local elections, the head of the Oregon Association of Broadcasters made some rather astonishing comments in this morning's Oregonian.
They'd probably run a special segment called "Sausage - why you need 10 pounds per day." It's also interesting that the head of the broadcaster's association is basically encouraging people to stop watching television and seek information elsewhere.
While I'm happy to oblige, and have already done so to a great degree, we have to live in a society where many people look to television for their cues about what is important. The local stations seem to think that celebrity news and lifestyle reporting is important, so we have many citizens that can tell you what a J-Lo stands for but not name one member of the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is not the path to a healthy democracy.
It's not as if these decisions are insignificant. During the run-up to war, there were large demonstrations in Portland expressing concern.
The television stations mostly focused on traffic tie-ups, which were part of the story but not the story. There was hardly any background reporting about why tens of thousands of people might feel the need to try to stop the invasion of Iraq, which means most viewers saw the protesters as obstacles to be overcome rather than fellow citizens trying to issue an important warning. In this regard, the television stations are as complicit in the war in Iraq as Judith Miller herself.
Johnstone's comments are a brutally honest revelation of the attitude many broadcasters have toward the public's need for accurate information-they don't give a rip. The sense of entitlement the stations have is breathtaking, as if the way they do news is the only possible way.
Frankly, if Johnstone's comments are indicative of the sentiments of most television journalists, then a lot of them need to find different work, because they have no business being on the air. If they have that much contempt for democracy, then they shouldn't be allowed to use a public resource.
While the odds of the FCC taking any meaningful action soon are remote, Democrats should put broadcasters on notice that we intend to look after the public's interest in the future. The airwaves are public property, and in return for the use of that space the public deserves better.
Bill Johnstone, president of the Oregon Association of Broadcasters, defended the stations' track record of political coverage, saying the 1 percent of newscast time devoted to state and local campaigns in October 2004 gave regular TV viewers "more than our fill."So the fact that our politics is filled with lies is not a reason to say, practice journalism, but a reason to ignore politics and public policy? Great. It's a good thing Sinclair Lewis didn't have to work for Oregon television stations.
He said asking stations to air more stories quoting mudslinging politicians would not serve the public interest. "Very few politicians can tell the truth," Johnstone said.
"Our coverage is certainly adequate," he added, "given everything else that the public has access to — the Internet, the ads they see and hear, the billboards, the unwelcome calls from candidates."
They'd probably run a special segment called "Sausage - why you need 10 pounds per day." It's also interesting that the head of the broadcaster's association is basically encouraging people to stop watching television and seek information elsewhere.
While I'm happy to oblige, and have already done so to a great degree, we have to live in a society where many people look to television for their cues about what is important. The local stations seem to think that celebrity news and lifestyle reporting is important, so we have many citizens that can tell you what a J-Lo stands for but not name one member of the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is not the path to a healthy democracy.
It's not as if these decisions are insignificant. During the run-up to war, there were large demonstrations in Portland expressing concern.
The television stations mostly focused on traffic tie-ups, which were part of the story but not the story. There was hardly any background reporting about why tens of thousands of people might feel the need to try to stop the invasion of Iraq, which means most viewers saw the protesters as obstacles to be overcome rather than fellow citizens trying to issue an important warning. In this regard, the television stations are as complicit in the war in Iraq as Judith Miller herself.
Johnstone's comments are a brutally honest revelation of the attitude many broadcasters have toward the public's need for accurate information-they don't give a rip. The sense of entitlement the stations have is breathtaking, as if the way they do news is the only possible way.
Frankly, if Johnstone's comments are indicative of the sentiments of most television journalists, then a lot of them need to find different work, because they have no business being on the air. If they have that much contempt for democracy, then they shouldn't be allowed to use a public resource.
While the odds of the FCC taking any meaningful action soon are remote, Democrats should put broadcasters on notice that we intend to look after the public's interest in the future. The airwaves are public property, and in return for the use of that space the public deserves better.
