anaconda-dan's Blog

In light of the recent shootings in Virginia, and some of the heated discussion regarding Charles Jaco's commentary, I have to ask the question. I typically watch the local news for just that. Local news. FOX 2 seems to be able to present a balanced report of the tragedies and triumphs in the greater metro area. For local news events only. For a more widespread look at the world in general, I tend to use a variety of sources. UPI, API, Least of all network television. I think I may be in the minority. In this age of 40 second sound-byte information dissemination, people tend to take what they hear on the television as rote. The only problem with this, as I see it, is that the media controls the content. Attention-getting, flashy graphics, over-dramatic "news casters", and self-proclaimed experts, all designed to impart a "spin" on the "tragic" event or events.
To create "water-cooler buzz". Why do we allow this to happen? Is it because we have become too lazy to think for ourselves, and let the media draw our conclusions for us? I think it is.
Take Mr. Jaco's commentary, for example. He states of the NRA board meeting, "Not only did they not have any comment, their meeting was apparently swathed in extra security, including a protective force composed of former Secret Service agents." In fact, the story read, "Security at the board meeting was tight, with former Secret Service agents providing security detail." No mention of "Extra Security". Swathed? Come on. "Protective Force"? What, maybe the same type of security that Oprah travels with? He deliberately uses the term "High-capacity clips". As a self-professed gun expert, he's knows that terinology is incorrect. But he dumbs-down his pseudo-reporting to draw the most attention.

Why do we let them get away with this?

For many people, their only exposure to events outside of their immediate area is television. We as viewers, should expect, no, demand, accurate reporting of facts, unclouded by editorial content.

Let's talk about editorial content for a moment. Certainly J.C. Corcoran's spots are intended as entertainment, after all JC's credentials consist of a spotted history in St. Louis radio. He's probably been fired from as many radio stations as have existed in St. Louis over the years. He carries no real credibility as a newscaster, but as such, provides entertainment and the basis for an occasional thought-provoking discourse at the water cooler, or in the blog space here. I'm certain that JC's commentary doesn't necessarily reflect the views of FOX 2.

Charles Jaco, on the other hand, is a highly-credentialed, experienced newscaster. His achievements during the first Persian Gulf war were well known, and highly rated. Does that make him a bell weather of American opinion? No. Are his opinions indicative of the views of FOX 2? That would be the way I see it. Put a respected newscaster's opinion on display for all to see and hear. He's not smarter than you or I, yet that's the way it's presented to us.

So, the only way you or I can express an opposing opinion, is to post a couple of paragrphs on a blog. That's great, but we might reach a couple of hundred people at best. (After all there aren't a lot of people willing to sift through all of the BLEEP that get's spewed forth on the blogs). The airwaves belong to the American people. Television stations are obligated to provide a public service. We need to start demanding that they serve the greater public good, and not their own interests. John Pertzborn made a great comment on Jaco's blog. It's freedom of speech. It certainly is John. But you guys control the freedom.