News Candy for the Ears
I used to think "Network" screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky's satire was an over-the-top amusement. Increasingly as commercial competition heats up in the new media, Chayefsky's vision is turning out to be more prophetic than I ever imagined.
I'm disappointed but not surprised by the behavior of the news channels. They are responding to the demands of audience ratings. When the Boeing 777 disappeared from radar screens over the Indian Ocean, all major news media quite predictably jumped in. '
But as the New York Times put it, "it is CNN, the cable network that has been scrambling to find a sustainable business model against its main competitors, Fox News and MSNBC, that has perhaps invested most heavily in the mystery...."
Ratings for CNN surged with its airline coverage by almost 100 percent in prime time. They even managed, according to the Times, "the rare feat of edging past Fox News for leadership in several hours."
I'm less surprised by the behavior of TV programmers than I am intrigued by the public's tastes. Who are the news-addicted viewers who can't get enough of the endless video of South Indian Ocean waters and speculation about what may lie beneath?
My theory is based on my experience: To attract an audience, tell a good story. Narratives help us to make sense of a complicated world. When the story is frighteningly incomplete, as in the Malaysia Air story, we long for explanations, no matter how far-fetched.
In that sense, the endless cable chatter is ear candy. It provides a soothing sustenance, even if only with empty calories, until a more complete story can be told.
Some people like the alternative speculation so much that they cling to it anyway, as with the die-hard "truthers" who believe the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were an inside job. Speculation can take on a life of its own. Newscasters, in my humble view, don't need to add to the confusion.
========
E-mail Clarence Page at cpage@tribune.com.
(c) 2014 CLARENCE PAGE DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
