COMMENTARY
Amid TV's breathless coverage, newspapers bring context and subtlety

Editor
2/23/2003

By MARGARET SULLIVAN

Jerry Seinfeld has a big problem with cable TV news. On the David Letterman show recently, he launched into a hilarious rant about the clutter and confusion on the screen when he turns on CNN, or MSNBC, or Fox.

His particular gripe is "the strip": that never-ending flow of words across the bottom of the screen. Because the strip's subject matter is different from what's on the main part of the screen, a baffling disconnect arises in the viewer's brain.

Seinfeld's complaint: "Don't these idiots who run the networks know? We don't want to read! That's why we're watching TV!"

Funny as it is, Seinfeld's take on cable news raises some legitimate questions.

How much information can any viewer take in at once? And just how deeply deficient and horribly atrophied is the American attention span these days if these gimmicks are necessary?

Certainly the cable news networks and how they do business have changed American media in a huge way.

When the phone rings these days, and someone says, "Turn on the TV" - this has become the moment that strikes fear in our hearts.

In a crisis, the public flocks to CNN and its competitors, glued to their all-out coverage. We stare at the screen for hours, whether or not there's new information. It's a form of group therapy, perhaps, when we're overwhelmed by events beyond our control.

For a monumental event such as the terrorist attacks of 9/11 or the recent shuttle disaster, cable news is compelling and irreplaceable.

But for subtler and more complicated stories, I'll take a newspaper any day.

Here's how newspapers are - in my admittedly biased opinion - superior to TV news:

1. Newspaper reporters don't interview each other; they interview news sources. Is anything more annoying than watching TV journalists fill time by asking each other questions and getting empty responses?

2. Cable news is fleeting; it's "in one ear and out the other." By contrast, a newspaper story can be studied, reread, clipped out and actually understood. It can be hung on a refrigerator, read aloud at the dinner table and sent to your brother in the mail - or by e-mail. It tends to create discussion, rather than a desire for more Fritos.

3. The visual impact is, in its own way, just as good - maybe better. Granted, the TV footage of the disintegration of the World Trade Center towers brought some of the most potent visual images of our time. But think, too, of the impact of a great still photograph that captures human emotion and that can sink in and be remembered, not just flit past and be forgotten. Or think of the strength of an informative map or graphic that helps increase knowledge and understanding.

4. Most importantly, newspaper stories are capable of communicating nuances and subtleties. What they lack in immediacy, they make up in information and complexity.

On this subject, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman last week offered his own criticism of cable TV news networks. He identifies a hawkish bias on their part, one that belies the usual criticism of the media as wildly liberal.

"For months, both major U.S. cable news networks have acted as if the decision to invade Iraq has already been made, and have in effect seen it as their job to prepare the American public for the coming war.

"In an environment in which anyone who questions the administration's foreign policy is accused of being unpatriotic," Krugman notes, these media outlets have "taken it as their assignment to sell the war, not to present a mix of information that might call the justification for war into question."

It's the aim of this newspaper, and most of the nation's large newspapers, to present a good mixture of information and to let readers draw their own conclusions. It's certainly not our mission to "sell the war" or to campaign against it.

So, for clarity, nuanced information and balance, newspapers have a lot to offer. But we'll leave the last word on cable news, a devastatingly accurate one, to Seinfeld:

"At the end of half an hour, I think I know less than I knew before."

return to CM 102 Page
return to Courses Page
return to Home Page