Have you ever considered how the world would be different if not for perceptions created by the news media?
Have we been to war unnecessarily? Have we created hundreds of thousands of laws due to out of context news stories? Have we spent billions of dollars, if not trillions of dollars, on statistically irrelevant issues? Have we had deaths at an individual level, or at a large scale societal level, due to sensationalistic stories? Do you live in fear of things you should have no fear of? Is society really as bad as advertised? Did you buy a product you didn't need? (Say a gun or security system)? Do you hate or dislike somebody as a result of news coverage? Did you not go to a particular place for vacation? Not patronize a business?
The framers of the U.S Constitution's guarantee of a free press were British citizens attempting to create an atmosphere of accountability on their new government's part by allowing a protected free press to help keep government out in plain sight of the citizens. This due to lessons learned from their past and present with England.
There are indeed today, journalists and news outlets who responsibly make their mission consistent with that of the intent of the First Amendment of the Constitution. It is these journalists and news outlets who truly deserve the honor of the protections of the First Amendment guarantee of a free press and freedom of speech.
But what of the rest of the media clamoring for the same protection, while showing little responsibility to earn it. Would the constitutional framers vision of freedom of the press have included any concept of how that would be interpreted 200 years later. Would they have approved?
Thousands of TV, internet, newspaper, and radio news outlets? Tens of thousands of reporters? Operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, 'investigating' everything in sight? Exposing everything in sight? Making the obscure a national event? Creating and manufacturing 'news'? Blurring the distinction between talks show, variety show, comedy hour and news? In almost every case the hundreds of media outlets are retelling a story, (which only one outlet originally broke), more dramatically than the next for financial gain and revenue.
How about some common sense ideas imposed on the media?
Now go with me here. Here are some new rules and guidelines for the media imposed by a tyrannical blogger from Seattle. See if you can catch the reasoning and desired outcome behind each rule first, then feel free to hit me back. For the moment, ignore any of the usual immediate responses such as concerns about the freedom of the press, of the public's right to know, or current interpretations of the Constitution. Imagine such a freedom can be altered, imagine you don't need to know everything, and imagine the Constitution can be changed or interpreted differently
1. The image and name of the reporter may never appear in the story they are reporting
Why? The reporter's image and name are irrelevant to the story. The news will then be about the news, not about the reporter trying to be part of the news. It will also shorten the story and the time required to tell it. Show the flood, not the reporter standing in the flood.
2. No story may be reported more than ten miles from where it happened.
Why? Keep a local story from being manipulated into a national media event. A localized event in North Dakota is not the issue of the entire country ... or world. Ask your self an intellectually honest question here. Would the rash of school shootings that suddenly materialized en-masse after the event in Colorado, have occurred had the coverage of that event been localized? A number of these listed ideas would prevent the analytic sensationalism of the media from becoming self fulfilling, copycat, prophecies in someone else's locality.
3. Only the news outlet discovering the story gets to report it.
Why? To keep the story from being retold hundreds to thousands of time by other outlets that are merely 'parroting' another journalist's story. The stories get more competitively colorful and dramatic with each telling. In this, no reward is given to the media outlet that didn't do the heavy lifting. This will also discourage 'drive by' journalism.
4. A journalist or reporter must have a journalism degree in order to be hired.
Why? Come on!
5. A reporter is not allowed to offer commentary, analysis, or opinion on the story they are presenting, unless the venue is specifically marketed as 'opinion or analysis'.
Why? Just the facts please; what, where, and when. The reporter's 'opinion' is not relevant nor does the reporter need to be part of the story. Opinion is not facts. The story is not about him or her.
6. The story will not be allowed to be told for a period of more than 24 hours after the event occurs.
Why? So it can't be turned into a ongoing drama for marketing purposes, thereby attaching more relevance to the story than is necessary. Again, copycats would be reduced.
7. Terms like 'some say' will need to be accompanied by a definition of specifically 'how many' are 'some'.
Why? Again, to establish some degree of the depth of the story. "I got the opinion of two witnesses", rather than "some say".
8. If the news venue is officially billed as 'commentary' or 'analysis', the anchor or reporter MUST have a college degree in the subject they are offering analysis of if they they are claiming credit for the analysis.
Why? To avoid analysis of nuclear proliferation by an English major or supermodel. (No offense English majors).
9. All news may only be presented to the public between 5 and 6 pm daily.
Why? Remember the way it used to be? This will have the effect of reducing the anxiety producing noise in your brain, preventing media outlets from 'creating news' in order to fill a 24 hour newscast, narrowing down the output to priority news only, and allowing our decision makers to come up with a plan to deal with an issue without our having seen it first. "Mr. President, what about the bombing"? "What? What bombing"?
10. If the story results in reaction in the public leading to a death or deaths, the reporter will be held responsible - regardless of whether or not the story is true.
Why? No news story is worth causing the death of another human. There are, and have been, many such incidents ... ranging from suicides, to mass shootings, to riots, revenge motives, and many other side effects. Our 'right to know' does not supercede another's life. We do have other precedents in law for prosecuting people who's deliberate or accidental inspiration lead to the death of another. Why would we exempt the media?
11. The Pullitzer will be eliminated, both for individuals or newspapers.
Why? Why is there an award suggesting one story is better than another. Why encourage a journalist to have such a motivation?
12. A reporter may not start a question to an individual with prefaces like "do you think that ...?", "could it be that ... ?", "shouldn't it be that ... ?", "don't you think that ... ?", etc. Questions may only begin with who, what, when, or where?
Why? To avoid a reporter have a preexisting theory and merely trying to prop up the theory with a loaded question. That is creating news.
13. A reporter will be required to say how many people did not do the deed he or she is reporting.
Why? We do want context and perspective, don't we? Example? "Breaking news, over 300,000,000 Americans did not do this, and haven't done so in the history of this country".
14. A reporter will be required to note how many people he or she did not talk to in gathering opinion on the street.
Why? Again, perspective. "I talked to two people and this is what they think. I did not talk to the other 300,000,000 million Americans and have no idea what they think".
15. Talk shows, variety shows, and comedy shows, reporting or offering commentary on news events, must comply with all the above guidelines.
There are obviously events which affect the United States, and it's citizens, at a larger and more immediate level requiring a bending of some the theoretical rules mentioned above. Specifically, and only, these would be the rules related to distance of coverage from the event and length of time of coverage of the event. Imagine though, coverage of a national event, such as a war or disease outbreak, that was done with the other rules remaining in force.
In any event, would our lives, our psyche, and our country and it's psyche be a bit better off with such rules imposed on the media?
