News, "showmanship," and the mafia

Earlier in the semester we discussed the impact that news executives have on the news and the method of reporting that takes place on their networks (see "Outfoxed" debate), and "Network" makes this point even clearer.

The movie shows the inside workings of the fictional network, UBS. It shows the "top-down" nature of news organizations, and the decision making process over what qualifies as "news" and what will get the highest ratings.

In the beginning of film, executives are upset with the actions of Howard Beale (played by Peter Finch) because he uses vulgar language and says the things that people don't want to hear. However, after seeing a great rise in ratings the executives decide to keep Beale on the air and ride his ratings to the top. With a few bumps in the road, and a lame love story to go with them, the movie takes the viewer through the Beale's roller coaster ride that ends in Arther Jensen (played by Ned Beatty), the chief executive of UBS's parent company, using Beale's popularity to spread his message. This new message leads to a drop in ratings and the battle between Jensen and other executives that leads to Beale's assassination.

While I don't know how accurate the film is, it does bring to the forefront many issues with the modern media. The most important issue raised by the film is the fact that newscasters are handcuffed by, among others (which will be discussed later), their executives and their ratings. As Diana Christensen (played by Faye Dunaway), the network's entertainment executive, states explicitly:

"But TV is also show biz...and even the news has to have a little bit of showmanship"

It seems obvious to me that this statement should raise great concern from those who hear it. The sad fact is that those who are supposed to be spreading the news, the facts about what is going on in the world, to the world are just as (if not more) concerned with their ratings and "showmanship" as they are with reporting the facts are they should.

Another group that handcuffs newscasters and reporters is pointed out by Bennet, Lawrence and Livingston, and that is the government. Through many detailed examples and first hand accounts, Bennet, Lawrence and Livingston prove that government, and specifically the Bush administration, believe that "perceptions of reality are malleable," and that

"the safest place for the elite press to be is in the 'nonideological' space found in an implicit understanding of news as whatever the most powerful officials say it is."

I believe that this, the interference by and intimidation used by the government, is a very dangerous concern, one that trumps that of the executive. On the one hand, each administration will have a different outlook on the media and use different outlets to its advantage, and the executive is always concerned with only making the greatest profit. On the other hand, the government, and especially the executive branch, which "executes the law," uses its power and influence to indirectly take away the freedom of speech and expression that is guaranteed by the constitution.

It is up to those who hold the most power, US, the public, to support the media and demand the honest reporting of the facts. If we can show the government that we will not tolerate their actions, and show the executives that we support the broadcasters who report the true (and not necessarily the most interesting) facts, then we can do our part in insuring that the "fourth branch of government" is able to execute its role and check faithfully check the other (more official) branches of our federal government.