You’re not watching real news; you’re watching a scripted show

By David McElroy · September 28, 2011

Most people with at least half a brain realize that “reality TV” is anything but reality. It’s scripted and edited to create the drama and tension producers want — to attract and entertain viewers. But how many people understand the same is true of news?

Newsweek’s Howard Kurtz has a great article this week about how Fox News boss Roger Ailes is making changes at his news channel to tweak its positioning. Although the moves are interesting all by themselves, I was struck by some of the details that emerge in Kurtz’ reporting, because it’s very obvious that the purpose of the producers is to create drama, not to enlighten people.

Because Fox let Kurtz have behind-the-scenes access to meetings between producers preparing for last week’s Fox GOP presidential debate, it’s clear that the network doesn’t mind you knowing this. The unreality of news has become so accepted that it doesn’t cross anybody’s mind to be ashamed of manipulating what should be serious discussion into being a televised melodrama about personalities instead. They might as well be plotting to create chaos between cast members of “Big Brother.” Kurtz reports:

Hours before last week’s presidential debate in Orlando, Ailes’s anchors sat in a cavernous back room, hunched over laptops, and plotted how to trap the candidates. Chris Wallace said he would aim squarely at Rick Perry’s weakness: “How do you feel about being criticized by some of your rivals as being too soft on illegal immigration? Then I go to Rick Santorum: is Perry too soft?”

“That’s going to get some fireworks going,” said managing editor Bill Sammon, grinning.

When showtime arrived, producer Marty Ryan choreographed the action from a crowded trailer outside the convention hall: he called for a two-shot when Wallace invited Mitt Romney to criticize Perry’s immigration stance, so the audience could watch both men’s agitated expressions. But Ryan barked, “Let’s just be on Perry,” as the Texas governor demanded to know whether Santorum had ever been to the Mexican border, capturing the moment. Afterward, Ailes phoned a top lieutenant: “Tell the team we’ve been kicking ass in these debates.”

This isn’t news. This is scripted manipulation of reality to create drama — to create a show to get you to tune it. It leaves you entertained. Maybe angry. Maybe amused. All the networks ultimately care about is that it keeps you watching. It also keeps you terribly ignorant and paying attention to all the wrong things.

I’ve explained before why I don’t watch television and recommend that others don’t, either. This goes to the heart of that issue, but it’s not just the surface-level things that are obvious. It’s the fact that it changes your way of thinking. As you watch the televised shows — and mistake them for serious substance — you think less and less about ideas and more and more about personalities and the hot-button issues that you’re fed. Before you know it, your thinking is so confused that you’re nothing but a mindless consumer of a passive product.

It’s no accident that the guy running Fox News isn’t a journalist. He’s a long-time political consultant. Ailes is someone I have a lot of professional respect for, even though I frequently disagree with him. He’s smart and he understands how to communicate themes. The problem is that he worked for years on communicating simple themes to voters in a dumbed down way — which I’ve done plenty of, too — but how he’s taking the same dumbed-down approach to getting viewers to watch. It’s a great business strategy. It’s great for manipulating people. It’s just a very dangerous way to handle public discourse.

(Just to be clear, this criticism isn’t directed just as Fox. It’s true of all the TV news. Fox is more successful right now simply because Ailes and Co. understand the game very well. The others are doing similar things, just not as effectively. The problem isn’t the people or the approach. The problem is the inherent limitations of the medium itself, which I discussed in my previous article about television.)

If you want to understand the world, turn your television off. I won’t complain if you watch some sports or if you use your television to watch movies on. But don’t get hooked into being a viewer of TV’s regular programming. And whatever you do, please stay away from “TV news,” which is the biggest oxymoron around. You’re being manipulated in order to get you to watch a show. It’s not going to help you think.

Of course, if you’d rather just live a passive consumer existence — and you don’t care that you’re not going to be prepared for the changes coming in our society — go right ahead consuming the garbage being pumped through your TV set by all the channels. Just don’t complain that nobody warned you.

The “reality” you seen on the news isn’t reality. It’s manipulated content to get you to watch. If you’re spending time with that content, it’s ruining your ability to think — and you don’t even realize it.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts