News sources dry up. Scary stuff.

I read an article recently (no link, sorry) about how local TV news has become homogenous. In the old days, the news shows would try to outdo one another by coming up with the hot stories. They actually investigated things. Not anymore.

The article said there is a central source that feeds the stories to a city's news shows. They -- the central source -- determine what stories will air, how they'll be told, and what visuals they'll include. Then the stations take this home, insert their own reporters into the feed, and regurgitate the exact same stories on every news station.

This didn't come as a surprise to me. I've long noted that NYC's three main news stations presented identical stories, in the same order, and often using the same video footage. In my mind, the newsrooms were all in one building, on one floor. They met in the morning, where they were handed the stories, and then presented them on their own stations as "unique". The subsidiary stations (in NYC, 5, 9 and 11, as opposed to the "main" stations, 2, 4 and 7) are really offshoots of the main stations. You'll see a different "anchor" and the same stories -- but on these stations, the stories are often presented the next day. ) I assume this is a sort of contractual hobbling of the secondary stations.)

This is not healthy for our democracy. And the fact that most papers are about to fold, probably within five years, max, is another ominous sign for our country. Already, we have AP providing a unified news source from which the papers and electronic media feed. Take away the papers and there will be less profit for AP (Reuters doesn't count; let's face it), which will mean less resources within AP.

No matter how you look at it, we will soon be fed through one news source. And whoever controls that source, controls us. These are interesting times.

Sideways compliments

I love to write companies and offer them a compliment that's actually a cutting remark. For instance, I recently wrote to my local NYC TV station:

"I am writing today to express my appreciation for the way you present the news. I can rest assured that when I tune into your station each night, I won't have to be scared by any new news that I don't already know about. I love the way you only cover the stories from yesterday. That is such a comfort to me! My stomach doesn't get all roiled up with nervous anticipation and I can watch the show with comfort. Thank you so much! And please don't ever change!!!"

Okay, I did it better for the real email but I can't find it at the moment. But you get the idea. Have you ever done this? We can always go all Julia Sugarbaker on them and rip them apart verbally but I think sideways comments are more effective and more fun. After all, if the reader isn't too bright, he or she will think this is an actual person's real thoughts. That's the part that's really fun.

Have you done this?

Internet reality vs. TV news

I assume anyone who finds his or her way to this blog is an alert, intelligent person who uses the internet adroitly. We are internet people. We're awake and we know stuff.

One effect of this is that it's very difficult to watch "the news" on TV. Isn't it amazing how what they call "news" are items we've known about for days, weeks, months or even years? They actually present this stuff as fresh, new and vital -- as if all of us alert folks out here don't even exist.

But see, we do. And we find their words to be old, tired and almost always delivered from an obtuse, unhelpful viewpoint. We recognize how uninformed the "news anchors" are, and their ignorance is painful to observe.

How much longer will TV news be around? It's already dead, of course. But what I mean is how long will it be until everyone notices it's dead and stops tuning in? Sense would say "soon" but sense doesn't apply in our insular, knowledge-free America.

I wonder how long NBC's stentorous blowhard Brian Williams will be allowed to pontificate on the air. How many more months or years will I have to watch Katie Couric muddle her way through hairstyles and issues? And, horror of horrors, how can I continue to sit on the edge of my seat each night wondering how long Diane Sawyer's eyelashes will be this evening? One day she'll fall flat on her face from the weight of them. Even now, she can hardly keep her eyes open. Toss them out, woman, and give those eyes a rest!

What is their job supposed to be, anyway? They're introducers? I don't know about you, but these days I shoot through what they say since it adds nothing to the stories. The video that they introduce is "the news", what little there is of it. So what's with the introducers? These "anchors" are models reading words they don't understand (although in blowhard Williams' case, I accept that he's awake and actively evil). Their words don't amount to anything. They might as well not say them for all the effect they have.

The internet has opened our eyes and there is no way to close them again. We are alert, informed and self-motivated enough to seek out the real news. TV can't fool us anymore. So why are these people still on every night? And when will they go away? I won't miss them.

TV news is dead and when death happens, we need to toss out the body and switch our attention to the living. The internet is our only hope of obtaining true information about the world.

However, if the broadcast stations ever decided to present the real news again we'd flock back in droves. But as long as "the news" is just a bunch of mindless flacks presenting pre-packaged, government-approved pap -- we won't be there. Does a broadcast make any noise if no one watches? We'll soon find out.

Because the old-school model of "the news" will soon go the way of the dinosaur, this means the corporate powers-that-be will try to find other means to control our access to information -- and that means that, in the end, they will attack the internet with all their might. It's inevitable.

That will be the final battle. If we lose that one, we lose it all.