Would You Rather?

I forgot to mention that several weeks back, I heard Dan Rather speak at The City College of New York in a lecture called, "Democracy and the 24-Hour News Cycle." Rather's talk--which began and ended with two great anecdotes about his working life before he was one of the three "voices of God"--was, not surprisingly, critical of the fact that most mainstream media is owned and operated by major corporate interests that favor profit over content and who have a cozy relationships with government officials. (Sidebar: He did not once mention his $70 million lawsuit against CBS)

To his credit, Rather went to great lengths to take part of the blame for the dumbing down of the news, but he warned that those who believe newspapers are vestiges of the past or who think their proponents are merely waxing nostalgic should take heed: a healthy democracy depends on a strong and independent media. When newspapers go, Rather said, so goes what remains of original, investigative reporting. 

He spoke about the 20-minute news cycle that existed when he first started in the business (CBS and NBC carried 20 minutes of news at the end of the day) and the difference in coverage that was shorter, more vital, and not tied to profits. What a difference 40 years makes.  Many of us like to think of ourselves as extremely informed because we can go online or turn on the t.v. at any time and get the latest "news," but how much understanding can really be gleaned from a 15 second clip?  When does more actually become worse? 

You can listen to his entire speech here. 

Was Bear's demise CNBC's fault?

I recently watched a very informative and compelling special on CNBC called "House of Cards"  where David Faber, anchor of the CNBC show "Squawk on the Street" analyzes the current economic problems in the U.S. and exactly how we got here.  

When the program ended, I felt like I actually had a handle on credit-default swaps and mortgage-backed securities.  It was also clear to me that there isn't one person or group who can escape blame in this ordeal. From the individuals who deluded themselves into thinking they could afford a $700,000 house because someone they never met told them they could, to the bankers who took bad mortgages and spread them around the world, to the Congress who decided people must and should own their own homes...no matter what.  

But there was one strange thing about the show.  Much of the B-roll-- the trading floors and the desks at Lehman Brothers--showed televisions with CNBC on in the background, or in some cases, foreground.  At first I thought this was just shameless self promotion. I always assumed brokers and traders watched Bloomberg.  But, as we were taken through the nitty-gritty of the Bear Stearns collapse, and then the failure of Lehman, it became clear by watching the people on the floor of the Stock Exchange watching the television screens, that where the hyped-up coverage ended and the sell-offs began was difficult to distinguish.  I couldn't help but wonder how things might have turned out differently had CNBC not been on, had they not had an anchor booth on the floor of the stock exchange or had the business networks let the events occur and then reported on them.  

"House of Cards" squarely and, I think, fairly, implicated many people and players in this economic downturn. The only one left out--at least by name--was the media, in particular 24-hour business news shows. 

 

When you read something, you are told to be sure to read between the lines.  I would add: when you watch something, you should really pay attention to the B-roll.