The Rise Of Politicized News Media Is A Structural Problem
the "24-hour news" model
I’ve just realized what it is that makes it so difficult to find a 24-hour TV news channel that lacks a pronounced political bias in one direction or another: the problem is driven by the format itself.
In the pre-CNN, pre-Fox News era, the news was gathered and edited for one 60-minute or 30-minute news broadcast every evening. “Breaking bulletins” that cut into other scheduled programming were understood to be reserved only for events of special significance- Joe Biden’s announcement of withdrawal from the Presidential race, for example. It was also commonly understood that very few news events held that level of immediate significance, and that there was no need for breaking news to become fodder for hot takes and speculation.
The “24-hour news” format doesn’t actually break news any faster than the occasional “breaking bulletins” of the traditional evening digest format. The reality is that there’s often very little in the way of breaking news of significance- and most of it can be summed up fairly quickly. You might say that leaves the 24-hour news network programmers with about 22 hours worth of free time on their hands, to fill with punditry and interviews during the daylight hours and prime time, and repeats at night.
As a result, it’s practically inevitable that the news culture within any given network eventually develops a political consensus. At this point, I don’t think any of the big players- CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBC- are denying it.
It is a fact that there was sometimes an indication of partisan bias within the old evening news channels. (But the FCC asserted their Fairness Doctrine for most of those years, too, which practically obligated radio and TV news channels to balance any editorial slant present in political views associated with a given network.) However, it didn’t just constantly radiate out of each of the “24/7 news outlets”.
As I write this, Joe Biden has announced that he’s withdrawing from the Presidential campaign, and the Democratic Party nominee is Kamala Harris. I can safely guarantee without watching that CNN will be favorable to Harris, MSNBC will be practically fawning, and Fox will be scoffing and razzing her (they may even have an attack reel ready.)
The hidden reason behind the explicit bias is that everyone on those networks is obligated to run their mouth. For hours on end, in some cases. I’ve noticed that after a while, it gets tougher and tougher to come up with speculation angles, recaps of history, rational interpretations of what it might/could/should/shouldn’t mean…eventually, the well gets dry.
For example, in the case of the Kamala Harris nomination, there just isn’t that much to say right yet. There it is. But they have to keep the patter going, to get to the ads. After a while, the most obvious gambit is to lean on whatever partisan bias is associated with the network. Tedious.
There’s one notable exception in 24-hour public affairs formats: C-Span. Raw primary source broadcasting. Often, it’s nothing more than cameras on a primary cource; what you see is what you get. And the news shows and call-in shows featuring C-Span hosts- most often reserved for the weekends- are remarkably nonpartisan. The network isn’t obligated to hold an audience by feeding them unending variations on a partisan theme- a tactic that’s ultimately required in order to please the commerical advertisers. No matter which commercial “24-hour news channel”, there’s at least as much attention paid to parceling out scraps of information- or the hope of those scraps- to the viewing audience in order to maximize ad exposure as there is to uphold the reputation of the channel for having a given political slant.
It would be interesting to have a non-partisan news network with a continuing issue debate format. Pro and con. Specifically issue by issue, position by position. But a 24-hour format for that network wouldn’t just be unnecessary, it’s practically impossible. Intelligent people realize that there’s no way to debate over hot takes. And nearly every issue in a given week’s time could be covered by debaters in perhaps 6 hours a week. Or maybe 2 hours a week.
This is an example of the Attention Economy. There just isn’t that much in the way of authentic “new developments” over the course of a given week. But the 24/7 wheel has to keep turning. Most of it amounts to fan fiction.
Another strange aspect of this situation—and one that isn’t easy to escape—is that most online political commentators and media critics rely on the 24/7 TV news networks as the source material for their own content. Television never really went away as the primary medium of topic-focusing the attention of the American public. And that includes the indirect impacts related to online news and opinion sources that reference the stories of the TV “news cycle” as grist for their reaction videos and articles. This is true regardless of whether or not the take is approving or hostile. Whatever position one might take on a given event and its media treatment, it’s most often it’s related to stories that have been prioritized and elevated to headline status by the 24/7 TV news networks. Stories that “everyone is talking about” because they’re what’s getting the most play on those broadcast outlets. Anyone can find exceptions to the common news feed and the common news cycle, and the second-order takes on those broadcast stories. But the exceptions are practically guaranteed to draw a much smaller audience.