For the past few years, talk of the US TV news media has been CNN’s decline in ratings even as MSNBC and Fox, while declining at some points, are doing considerably better. Much is made of CNN’s attempt at impartiality in an age where the other two main competitors are entirely upfront about their more opinionated anchors and biases, and the reality that what CNN is pushing clearly isn’t bringing in the ratings. While a good deal of time has been spent discussing these developments, I feel like spending a bit of time discussing why TV news has gone down this road, and what it means in a larger sense.

Prior to the internet age, news media consisted of print, radio, and television. With the advent of each format, different advantages were afforded: with print, no longer did one need to rely on word of mouth to hear of the latest happenings. Further, there was the “reliability” of institutions, rather than mere individuals, collaborating to give you the news. Radio brought us closer to real-time information dissemination, across vast swaths of land. And with TV, the fusion of both visual and auditory awesomeness, again with the relatively instantaneous form of communication, things seemed to have really hit big time. Yes, I’m simplifying a large amount of history here in these few sentences, but, again, my point is that each of these had particulars about them that drove their success.

Back to our brief history. With all this in the background, the internet came along. Though it began with websites based largely on text and a few images, today, thanks to improved connectivity and innovative projects, the internet is now a bustling world of media, disseminating information to the global masses at awesome speed, allowing said users to interact and give offer their own opinions and commentary.

With the dearth of sources of information the internet provides—often heralded as the democratization of information—members of the all forms of media, forever married to the ratings and advertising game, have slowly realized that they have to change up their game, lest they want to be left behind.

So what does this mean in the context of television news? Given that breaking news and updates are now at the public’s finger tips, many news shows would find themselves offering little else to entice individuals to tune in and watch their shows. If anything, the notion of blogging, which has then translated into even quicker quips on Facebook and twitter and other forms of social media, has increasingly made the internet seem like a wonderful In just the same way that radio and print worked to address the introduction of newer forms of media, by offering opinions (read: talk radio, and, the rise of publications with an obvious slant. Even the concept of “reviews” of items and places constitutes opinions) over straight information, TV news has seen the likes of Keith Olbermann, Bill O’Reilly, Rachel Maddow, and Sean Hannity rise to prominence. Consider even the anchors of thirty-minute news updates: more often than not, it’s those with a sense of personality and spunk—ones that aren’t afraid to offer their thoughts and commentary on whatever they might be discussing at the moment—that often get the most play.

Now, a couple things need to be acknowledged:

  • In no way am I attributing CNN’s precipitous decline in viewership solely to a lack of opinionated commentators.
  • Secondly, on the flip side of things, the notion of opinions being interesting and intriguing is nothing new; I understand that.

Said behavior is only destined to continue, presenting us with a question as to whether this is “the right” way to for our society to progress. According to ratings and advertising agencies, clearly, the public is lapping the stuff up. Candidly, I can’t deny that I don’t enjoy watching broadcasters that tend to present the point of view that I most agree with, because, I tell myself, I’m more inclined to trust them and in turn learn most from them. Further, given the fast-paced nature of today’s developed world, it’s not too much of a stretch to say that asking someone else to do the heavy lifting for you, to condense an entire day into just the “important parts”.

But I do wonder if turning to news anchors to do much of the thinking and thought before I myself get a chance to munch on the information is best in the spirit of promoting individual thought. In a sense, are we not handing the media an increased degree of control over our thoughts and actions, in an age where the internet has taught us that individual expression and thought knows no bounds, provided you have some time to spare?

Evidently, I can’t say I have much of a definitive answer on that front, other than making sure that I get the best of both worlds, by staying active with what’s happening on the TV front even as the internet continues to flourish. Hope I got your mind churning a little, for now, that’s the end of my latest bit of musing.