Chewing Gum for the Eyes

I do not mean to imply that television news deliberately aims to deprive Americans of a coherent, contextual understanding of their world. I mean to say that when news is packaged as entertainment, that is the inevitable result. And in saying that the television news show entertains but does not inform, I am saying something far more serious than that we are being deprived of authentic information. I am saying we are losing our sense of what it means to be well informed.
             Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Brian Williams, formally the anchor of NBC Nightly News, was suspended this past week for six months.  His crime was in telling people that he was on a helicopter that was shot down in Afghanistan.  Now, as it was, he was nearby but in an effort at self-aggrandizement and to establish his bonafide as a reporter who reports from the front lines, he felt the need to lie.  In some ways, Mr. Williams’ actions were predictable and indicative of a general decline in the professional standard that has clearly lost its way in the last several decades. 

Watching television news broadcasts from the 1960s is jarring in its approach, what defined news and what was expected from its presenters.  Taking its cue from the growing professionalism of newspaper reporting, television news saw its duty as telling viewers what was happening around the world.  National broadcasts were filled with news, compared to modern broadcast that have fifteen minutes of “hard” news and the other half filled with fluff material.  Suit-wearing talking heads played it as straight as possible.  There was not emotiveness or gesticulation.  Instead, the more controlled the presenter was, the more trusted and respected they were.   

The 24-hour news development, first seen with CNN, changed radically the role of the presenter.  Entertainment was always an element of news presentation but with CNN and other subsequent news networks and programs, entertainment took on a whole new dimension.  In doing so, it changed how the news would be delivered and what would be presented.  It was an extension of the programming dilemma – directors trying to figure out how to fill large swaths of segments and soon, the idea of opinion news materialized and took off.   

Over the last few decades, the line between news and entertainment have systematically disappeared.  Furthermore, the Internet has eroded the once-proud professional guidelines, eradicating the neutral tone, the formality and the gravitas required.  The shrill of newscasters smacks of desperation, not trusting their role or their purpose to the American people.  This is typified with the disaster theme music which is widely mocked but never corrected.   

The lack of formality is yet another frantic attempt to appeal to people based on false assumptions of what is required to obtain and keep an audience.  It is seen in the dressing-down of presenters and the informality of language such as calling the president simply “Obama” or the usage of slang or trendy phrases.  It trivializes and minimizes the importance of the news, smacking of the transient nature of Twitter or any other social media site. 

And then, there is the nature and legitimacy of the presenters of themselves.  Do a Google search of Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, Bob Schieffer or Frank Reynolds – just to name a few.  They treated the news seriously and therefore, so did those watching.  The demeanor and professionalism of news anchors led people to trust and believe in what was being reported.  That kind of faith does not exist today.  Modern presenters have acted so silly over the last few decades, they have to affect a "serious" tone to present serious information.  This has impacted how Americans respond to the news.  Our current generation considers a serious treatment of the news made up of taking a picture of themselves, holding a placard that says #fillinyourtritepoliticalstatementhere.  The news is no longer treated important so why should our response to it be so?   

With the rampant rise of news as entertainment and the opinionated pablum that fills out the network days, why are we surprised or outraged that Brain Williams fudged on the details.  The idea that NBC, the purveyors of MSNBC, should be shocked and appalled by Mr. Williams’ actions is disingenuous at best.  It is easy to see that if news continues on this path, incidents like Mr. Williams’ will be considered quaint in comparison.  NBC and other networks can pat themselves on the back for putting their foot down on like incidents but it does nothing to reverse television news’ downward trend.

The Disappearance of Curiosity and Questioning

Considering the state of things, one could devote a lot of time trying to find a reason and ultimately, a solution.  Is it our education system or parenting?  Is it our indulgent and self-congratulating culture that revels in the importance of the inane or worse, the repugnant?  Where does our mental acuity begin to erode?  All the aforementioned conditions can hasten the erosion and the fact that we champion it does not help.  However, the breaking down begins with something basic – something we are naturally inclined to do but are incessantly taught, explicitly and implicitly, not to do.  We may be living at a time when we are losing our curiosity and questioning spirit.

Like most things that get me thinking, my original observations begin with my students.  They are nice enough, many with a helpful spirit.  However, I’m also faced with the problem that some of the students are not interesting.  They get good grades and have a way of engaging adults.  However, over the last fifteen years, they’ve been instructed by parents to focus only on grades and they’ve learned from schools that nothing is important unless it will be on a test or can be used toward their future monetary success.  Ergo, I have a classroom full of well-manicured receptacles. 

So, what is the ramification of this phenomenon?  There is a general lack of curiosity to ask questions and a willingness to endure questions.  Here is how it manifest itself:

Teacher:  How did we get involve in the Spanish-Cuban conflict?
Student:  We sent the USS Maine to Cuba to protect American interests (almost verbatim from the textbook).
Teacher:  True but why were we there?
Student:  To protect American interests.
Teacher:  From whom?  Who was provoking the U.S.?
Student:  Spanish?
Teacher:  Why would the Spanish antagonize the Americans?  They don’t want us involved.
Student:  Cubans? 
Teacher:  Why would the Cubans provoke the Americans?
Student:  So that we would join them?
Teacher:  Why would we join those who just attacked us?
Student:  (Shrugged shoulders) I don’t know. 
 

That would be an exchange from a more diligent student.  Most students would have folded like a cheap lawn chair not long after the second question.  As the student was reading at home, he or she read it without consideration for what they were reading.  They do not ask questions or otherwise, they would have come to those questions themselves.  Current high schoolers (it does go well beyond them, however) are not trying to obtain knowledge, they are trying to retain information until the test.  They are searching for grades (something that does not extend beyond the class or subject) and not enlightenment or understanding.

Where previous generations embraced questions as the pathway to knowledge, students today see it as badgering.  They haven’t considered the questions themselves and would not have the confidence in their thought processes if they had.  So, when confronted with a series of questions, they shut down and realize that what is being pushed for might not be that “important” long term (meaning, tests).   

Education is inundated with buzz words like “21^st century skills” to ready our students for jobs that “we are not even aware of yet” – certain they will help to reach our hidden destination?  Neil Postman suggested that our intellectual future lies in leaning on the best of our past.  If students can develop some intellectual stamina, treasure knowledge over information, if they know how to think, if they know how to problem solve (which requires a great deal of curiosity and questioning), it does not matter what appears in the future.  These are skills that can transcend all future obstacles.  Instead, we prep them for tests that indicate nothing of substance and suggest that everything not on the test is not important.  

Socrates once wrote about those who “will be of tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.”  We cannot accept the emphasis on information which does nothing to enhance knowledge and thinking.  We can’t abide with the emphasis on the need for “critical thinking skills” without a consideration for or appreciation of the process required to get there.  The more we dumb things down, the more precipitous the decline in curiosity or questioning.  It is a trend in desperate need for a reversal.