Op-Ed Columns

I grew up in a news-focused household.

My folks subscribed to weekly newspapers, daily newspapers, Time, Life, Progressive Farmer, National Geographic and VFW Magazine.

And we watched TV.

Television news fit neatly into the family routine. Every evening around 6, Mama cleared off the supper table and we watched 15 minutes of local happenings, followed by 15 minutes of either ABC, CBS or NBC — whichever one came in the clearest.

Then we went about doing whatever needed to be done.

I never thought that those 30 minutes gave me all the news I needed. What was broadcast was meant to be a supplement to what I read.

I kept to this news-gathering pattern through college and into the "real world" — newspaper in the morning, news magazines during the day and TV news after supper.

Then came cable news and things changed. I found it convenient to be able to turn on a 24-hour newscast whenever I wanted to see if anything was happening — good-ol' instant gratification.

So as time passed I paid less attention to network news. I still read a lot, but rather than setting aside an hour every evening to catch up on the day's events, I just switched on cable whenever I had the time and inclination.

But cable news is not designed to supplement what is read. Cable news, running 24/7, is designed to replace it.

For many, it did.

But with what?

I did not fully comprehend how the news we get had been changed by cable until Daddy had a stroke and I took him to a hospital in Mobile.

That was a couple of weeks ago — he is home, thanks for asking — but while I stayed in the hospital with him I got to watch the news — a lot.

And there was a lot of it to watch. The campaign, the second presidential debate and the financial crisis all seemed to converge while I sat in that hospital room or in the motel.

What I saw was shameful. Instead of news reporting there was what they called "commentary," an accurate-enough description since all those folks did was comment.

There they were — O'Reilly, Olbermann, Hannity, Maddow, Barns and Buchanan, Carville and Dobbs, Scarborough and so-and-so, muttering mendacity and spewing sarcasm. On they came, filled to overflowing with incivility, insensitivity, political pandering, snide, smirking and shameless partisanship. Never had I seen such an impolite, uncultured, sorry, slothful, sloppy bunch of people being passed off as journalists. I have seen better manners in a bar fight. Guests on Jerry Springer behave well in comparison.

Fox News and MSNBC had the most, but CNN was not without its share.

Ashamed to be caught watching, I'd turn it off when Mama came in the room.

It wasn't news.

It was preaching — yelling, actually — to the choir.

In the tumult and the shouting, reality took a nose dive.

After the second presidential debate, the network that was unapologetically pro-McCain ran a call-in poll, and according to viewers the GOP candidate hit a "home run"— which was the term used by one of the "expert" commentators who had been brought in to agree with the audience.

Which planet were they on?

Certainly not this one, where the next day a real poll revealed that a majority of folks who watched the debate felt it was won by the other guy.

Not that the audience watching competing shows was any better. It was plu-perfect pitiful.

Not once did objectivity rear its ugly head.

On these networks, opinion was presented as fact. Fact was discounted as opinion. The hosts were inhospitable, the guests were cowered, fairness was a farce and balance was bologna.

It wasn't news. It wasn't even good analysis.

It was a struggle for ratings won in true Darwinian fashion — the survival of the vulgarist.

And the vulgar love it.

Yessir. According to surveys, recently released ratings are up and rising. Apparently, people want to be told what they already believe by people whose conduct is little better than a 3-year-old's tantrum and whose ability to carry an argument is based on being louder than the other guy.

So I swore it off.

Getting Daddy home, I vowed never again would I waste my time on such.

I would go back to the old days.

Back to basics.

So the next night, at 5:30, I settled down to watch good old-fashioned network news. And guess what? It was a fine supplement to what I had read in the newspapers. At 6, I then watched good old-fashioned local news, sports and weather. And guess what? It was a fine supplement to what I had read in the newspapers. At 7, I then watched The Daily Show. And guess what? Because I knew what the real news was, I could appreciate the humor in what it wasn't. (Yes, it was a repeat from the night before, but fake news is never old news.)

Thus, I am resolved.

This will be my routine hence forth and forevermore.

So there.