Arrogance of TV Networks: Compounding a national crisis
November 9, 2000
A few hours before dawn, the nation's TV networks foisted their
second outrageous blunder of the night on the American people. After
"calling" the state of Florida for Al Gore earlier in the evening, the same
networks announced that George W. Bush had won Florida -- and the White
House. With a typical flourish, NBC anchor Tom Brokaw declared: "George
Bush is the president-elect of the United States."
But before the sun rose on the East Coast, the networks were
correcting themselves again, acknowledging that Florida was too close to
call. By then, the arrogance of the television networks had compounded a
distressing specter: The Electoral College might end up giving the
presidency to someone who came in second in the country's popular vote.
Twenty-four hours after the polls closed across America, the
reporters and commentators on the airwaves and cable channels seemed to be
reeling from the succession of extraordinary events. Surely, millions of
Americans were also stunned, as if the previous long night had been a vivid
and protracted bad dream.
In effect, the TV networks made a bad situation worse. They added
to the night's quickly escalating sense of confusion, disorientation and
uncertainty about the election results.
Despite their vast resources and profuse assurances that they knew
just what they were doing, the biggest television outlets -- ABC, CBS, NBC,
CNN, Fox and PBS -- incorrectly proclaimed that the winner of the
presidential race had been determined. The list of those networks is a
dishonor roll for American media.
Like most busy people, the executives and journalists who run the
news operations of the TV networks don't have much time to spare for
soul-searching. And it's unlikely a lot would change even if some genuine
introspection took place. It's not a good sign that top execs are treating
the networks' election-night madness as a public-relations problem.
The rushed and faulty projections for election results were
dramatic manifestations of the kind of intrinsically flawed coverage of
politics that goes on all the time in national media. Major outlets cast
huge shadows across political landscapes, from campaign trails to
gubernatorial offices, legislative bodies and the White House. But even the
most influential reporters and pundits are in the habit of acting like
they're mere observers.
Although journalists at key media institutions pose as flies on
the walls of national politics, they're apt to function more like movers
and shakers. Far from just telling us what's happening, the biggest-name
journalists -- the ones holding forth on the networks throughout election
night -- are always shaping the media terrain through which politicians walk.
Meanwhile, journalists and the politicians they cover are
routinely financed -- one way or the other -- by many of the same business
interests. Numerous firms that own powerhouse media outlets or pay for
extensive advertising also spend gobs of money on lobbyists and campaign
contributions. And the phenomenal amount of lucre that went into the 2000
elections is just a pittance compared to the hundreds of billions of
dollars in corporate profits riding on future government policies set in
So, where are we now? After a year filled with denunciations of
the pernicious roles played by money in politics, the big money has as
tight a grip on the electoral process as ever. Not coincidentally, whether
Bush or Gore prevails, the man who'll move into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. next
January has long been cozy with economic elites of the nation.
After bringing us the fiascos of election night, the TV networks
assure us that they'll quit being so arrogant. And actually, it's easy to
stop. They've done it hundreds of times. Periodic self-critiques and public
shows of repentance are ingrained rituals for news organizations, which
tout only corporate-friendly presidential candidates as serious contenders.
On the surface, the willingness of the TV networks to "call"
elections prematurely and inaccurately may seem like an unfortunate quirk.
But it's a reflection of what constantly happens when news operations --
bent on outdoing competitors -- put the drive for profits above public
service. The people calling the shots at the major networks are acutely
aware that they must strive to boost the bottom line of the parent company.
It's a metaphor for the profound ways that Campaign 2000 has left
democracy in the dust.
Norman Solomon is a syndicated columnist. His latest book is The Habits of
Highly Deceptive Media.
Email this article to a friend
"And now, the P.U.-litzer Prizes for 2000"
December 23, 2000
"Media crucial as Bush faces 'Legitimacy Gap'"
December 17, 2000
"How to improve on the feats of network news"
December 8, 2000
"A dire shortage of pre-inaugural schlock"
November 30, 2000
"Finally: A Huge Media Spectacle That Really Matters?"
November 23, 2000
"Public wiser than pundits in post-election uproar"
November 16, 2000
"Arrogance of TV Networks: Compounding a national crisis"
November 9, 2000
"New Democrats: Maybe the jig is up"
November 2, 2000
"Resistance to a tightening grip of censorship"
October 26, 2000
"The debates: Truth is stranger than science fiction"
October 19, 2000
"Media spin remains in sync with Israeli occupation"
October 13, 2000
"Our debts to new media technology"
October 6, 2000
"Level the playing field: What a media concept!"
September 29, 2000
"Dr. Laura gets a TV show-but at what cost?"
September 7, 2000
"When watchdogs have a blind spot - for themselves"
August 31, 2000
"Paying homage to the Two-Party Media System"
August 24, 2000
"The Deception Convention: Don't stop winking about tomorrow"
August 17, 2000
"Holy smoke and mirrors: the rise of centrist theocrats"
August 10, 2000
"The Pleasantville party floats on a media cloud"
August 2, 2000
"Convention hospitality and police brutality"
July 24, 2000
"The easy media politics of optimism"
July 19, 2000
"And now, an all-new episode of 'Media Jeopardy!'"
July 13, 2000
"Nader raises hackles of media establishment"
July 6, 2000
"George Orwell's unhappy birthday"
June 29, 2000
"The Los Alamos story: spinning like crazy"
June 22, 2000
"The case for corporate-given names"
June 15, 2000
"Can 'E-government' bring us point-and-click democracy?"
June 8, 2000
"Campaign forecast: A long hot summer of punditry"
June 1, 2000
"U.S. news media: A security zone for Israel"
May 25, 2000
"Virtual Commandments of the dot.com faith"
May 18, 2000
"Overcoming the hazards of media monoculture"
May 11, 2000
"Ad industry: Giving women special treatment "
May 3, 2000
"Break up Microsoft? . . . Then how about the media 'Big Six?'"
April 27, 2000
"When Corporate Media Cover 'Independent Media'"
April 20, 2000
"Protests in Washington clash with media spin"
April 13, 2000
"From the news media to Elian, with love"
April 6, 2000
"Mickey Mouse network participates in abuse"
March 30, 2000
"Broadcasters celebrate big gains from violence and greed"
March 26, 2000
"A season of news coverage: No cure for political blues"
March 25, 2000
"The power and limits of photojournalism"
March 23, 2000
"The media’s lethal injection of numbing"
March 16, 2000
"Self-censorship is shadowing the new media era"
March 3, 2000
"Reporting on bloodshed, TV journalists play dumb"
March 2, 2000
"Dr. Laura: Radio’s leading anti-gay zealot"
February 24, 2000
"NPR floats an ombudsman, but problems run deep"
February 17, 2000
"E-Vandalism intrudes on the power to be heard"
February 10, 2000
"Fine journalism deserves a lot more attention"
February 3, 2000
"Bill Bradley, news media and 'The Politics of Ambiguity'"
January 27, 2000
"Aol Time Warner: calling the faithful to their knees"
January 14, 2000
"What happened to the 'Information Superhighway'?"
January 7, 2000
Read Articles by Year:
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000