Love Letter to The Newsroom, Break-Up Letter to the Major Media Networks

There’s a new show on HBO that I’ve recently started watching called The Newsroom. If you haven’t heard of it than you should probably check it out. I think it’s a very important show right now because it addresses a huge problem in our society: the ability of media networks to spin their journalism in order to obtain ratings. It is just another example of the bad synergy that an important aspect of our society—in this case, journalism—has with capitalism. (See also capitalism’s terrible marriage with environmentalism, public education, and the food industry…p.s. the list goes on).


The show so far is about a famous cable news anchor named Will McAvoy who is known for his diplomatic, crowd-pleasing reporting. He bases his reporting on the ratings alone and so he frequently lets his guests off the hook, and he leaves his own opinions and beliefs out of his show. In episode one he has a very public meltdown, which directly and indirectly leads to his decision to become a more honest reporter. (And maybe caused many far-right-leaning viewers to turn off the TV). His journalistic decisions will be based on integrity instead of ratings. In episode three (which I watched last night), Mr. McAvoy starts his program with a editorial statement and this monologue lays out what I think is creator Aaron Sorkin’s purpose. (Maybe not, but I hope so).

Yes! Finally! Someone other than Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert calling out the media! This show is important because it’s pointing out the obvious problems with today’s media and it’s not on Comedy Central. It points out that many media networks are “in the exact same business as the producers of Jersey Shore” with the same intentions: to get ratings and make money. The intentions of the media should be to inform because “nothing is more important to a democracy than a well-informed electorate.” But informing people doesn’t get the ratings that networks need to survive (another example of bad synergy via capitalism).


Media networks have started employing a lot of psychology to organize their reporting, and like many things that are successful in our society, this psychology appeals to the lowest denominator of our human nature. It appeals to our codependent tendency to enjoy freaking out which is why many unsensational or non-threatening stories are sensationalized. They get ratings. Media networks are also appealing to our natural inclination to be motivated by fear in an almost Calvinistic way that Puritan preachers utilized hundreds of years ago. If networks keep us in fear, they can keep us watching so they can eventually calm our fears and then introduce a new fear to start the cycle all over again. Networks appeal to our weakness for the pathos of any argument, especially when it involves politics or religion; they hark on the polarizing topics that divide our country in a way that doesn’t foster conversation, compromise, or resolution. News is tailor-made to fit different political parties and to reassure the political beliefs that viewers already bring to the table. Journalists from many of the major networks aren’t informing the electorate; they are preaching to the choir. And many of the choir members joined the choir not because of political beliefs, but because of marketing schemes that have turned political parties into brands that encourage and allow for assumptions to be made about a person’s political stance based on the car they drive or the clothes that they wear. (Another example of capitalism’s bad synergy with politics in general). No one seems to understand the definition of the word concession, and no one can even agree to disagree. There is just a lot of shouting, interrupting, and purposeful and manipulative misinterpretations because reactionary journalism gets ratings. Straight-forward, unbiased, and informative news is simply that. In comparison, this evenhanded coverage is boring and it cannot be consumed and digested by a society with the attention span of a lit-fire cracker.

This show is important because it points out that many media networks are abusing their power in the most manipulative way. And just think about the power that journalists have. The power of the press is so overwhelming. It is a power that should not be taken lightly because duh, with great power comes great responsibility. We are suffering under some of the most irresponsible “journalists” that also appear to be the most popular. And no, I’m not just talking about Fox News, although they do seem to have some of the biggest balls when it comes to reactionary coverage. I don’t think anybody that works for a major news network like FOX, CNN, MSNBC, or ABC has the immunity to truly question the government and its officials. Again, because of ratings and advertisements (geeze capitalism…you’re doing it again), there is a huge conflict of interest that totally screws up where these networks place their loyalty. The media is loyal to its advertisers first, not the viewers.

Well, what problems could a news organization have with a company that advertises on their network? Things get a lot more complicated when you consider that a lot of these corporations that are advertising on these networks have also donated invested millions of dollars in certain politicians or campaigns. And a lot of times those investments are made because of the best interests of the company. For a recent and totally hypothetical example (I have no idea if this happened but it gives you an idea of how and why the media’s loyalty could fall with corporations instead of the people) think about the soda taxes that have been proposed and discussed recently. Since sodas are so unhealthy, some politicians want to impose a tax specifically on soft drinks like some states have done with cigarettes and alcohol. So it makes sense that Coca-Cola or Pepsi would want to invest money in politicians that are against this type of soda tax. These same companies might also be advertising on certain media networks. So if a news anchor decides to criticize a politician that Coca-Cola or Pepsi has supported, that could hurt the networks relationship with these corporations that are supporting the programming with their advertisements. These deeply-imbedded relationships don’t allow new anchors to do honest reporting which means the American People suffer.


This show is important because it points out all of these problems that so many of us aren’t aware of…because it’s not on the (major) news. There are so many people who watch the major networks and consider the news there to be the gospel. Well, it has to be true, because I heard it on the news. But because of the strange and mercenary relationship between media, corporations, and politicians what does that even mean anymore? I hope that this show helps inform people that they are not being adequately informed. (Although I worry that this show is preaching to the choir as well. After watching episode three last night, I think the show will quickly lose most right-leaning viewers that it didn’t already lose in episode one. And I worry that it will lose a lot of these viewers before making it’s so-important point. And ironically I think this might happen because we’ve become so accustomed to watching tailor-made news that doesn’t require us to question our own political beliefs because they remain uncontested on the network). And I hope people decide to demand good, unbiased journalism. Or at least be willing to admit that what they are watching might not be it.