Arthur SolomonArthur Solomon

There are many things about television and radio newscasts I don’t like, the foremost being what passes for coverage lacks the details compared to newspapers like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and USA TODAY.

For the most part, television news is similar to watching extended sound bites. And when politics are being covered, the host often lets their guests spout half-truths or outright lies without challenging them. (Perhaps because politicians would refuse to appear on the shows if their statements were challenged by the hosts? And without politicians providing the free talent there would be no programs?)

While reading quality newspapers are necessary to get the entire story, watching news on television assures viewers of one thing: boilerplate comments from anchors.

A host is sure to tell a reporter, “good job,” even if the news has first been reported in the morning radio programs and newspapers.

During a breaking news story that has reporters working around the clock, the host will be sure to say: “Our team has been working without stop throughout the night,” as if they are the only ones that have to pull all-night stints during emergencies.

“We have learned” is an oft-heard misleading comment that gives the impression of exclusive information, even though every other news outlet is reporting the same story.

Most of the time, incorrect reporting is never mentioned. When the wrong information is broadcast during a breaking news story, the excuse given is often, “we have our sources and sometimes, early information we receive is wrong.” Maybe new sources would correct that problem.

TV producers are always on the lookout for “feel good” stories. One of the most ridiculous that I remember was in 2013 when the Boston Red Sox won the World Series. The boilerplate TV report became how the Red Sox players inspired the city to recover from the Boston Marathon bombing. And if the Red Sox had lost, Boston would have not recovered? Ridiculous.

Similarly, after the horrific 9/11 attack, New York sportscasters — and sports writers — lauded the Mets’ Mike Piazza’s game-wining home run at Shea Stadium as an important part in rallying the city, as if every New Yorker lives and dies with the Mets. As a life-long New Yorker who commuted to the city every day after 9/11, I can attest to the reality of the hype behind the storied home run. The “era of good feeling” among people because of the home run was a fantasy. People of different colors would eye each other suspiciously. Everyone who set down their packages for a moment was looked at as a possible terrorist.

Political TV reporting holds a special place in the journalism Hall of Shame. Coverage resembles the movie “Groundhog Day,” as pundits repeat the same hum drum “analysis” dozens of times a day, all day, 365 days a year. The coverage is usually limited to opposing views from partisan spokespersons echoing candidates’ talking points or stump speech talking points. Or, interviews are conducted with think tank “experts” without the hosts telling the viewers the tankers’ philosophy, giving viewers the impression that they are listening to unbiased “experts.”

The nadir of political coverage occurs on election or primary days, as the pundits, whose track record for being correct equals those of racetrack touts, try to explain what every victory or defeat of a candidate means for the next election.

One aspect of TV news reporting that is most laughable is what I refer to as the “Promote The Star Treatment.” That consists of uprooting the read-the-news anchors from New York or Washington and sending them to breaking news hot spots, giving the false impression that they can uncover information that would be unavailable to the regular correspondents in the area who have the contacts. Perhaps that’s not so surprising, considering the news is now delivered like a reality show.

Groundbreaking, in-depth reporting by Walter Cronkite regarding the Vietnam War on his CBS Evening News special report, or Edward Murrow’s World War II radio reporting from London — and his subsequent TV special about the exaggerations of communism in the U.S. government by Sen. Joe McCarthy — have not been matched by our current lineup of TV reporters, despite the many years that have passed. The one facet of current reporting to which TV can claim expertise is the practice of pretending to have new information during a fast-breaking story, even as all the anchors and field reporters report the same facts.

After growing up with the likes of Cronkite and Morrow it’s easy to spotlight CNN’s Wolf Blitzer as an example of why it’s best not to take serious comments made by today’s newscasters. Several years ago he said of basketball TV analyst Charles Barkley, “He’s a real genius,” because Sir Charles was correct about a basketball prediction. And on Feb. 20, when reporting on the Democratic caucus in Nevada he said, “...now let’s get some serious analysis.” So, all the hundreds of hours of previous analysis by CNN’s supposed experts were a waste of viewers’ time?”

Too often TV reporting resembles social media. And that’s a major problem with TV news and commentary today: The race to be first often means the race to first be wrong. Intelligent TV — except for C-Span’s book interviews and weekend American history lectures — is an oxymoron. Whatever was left of intelligent commentary on TV, like David Suskind’s “Open End”, and “The David Susskind Show” and William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line”, was killed by the popularity of silly grade school-like TV sit-coms and the advent of the 24/7 cable programming. What passes for intelligent TV today are the British imports on National Public Television — whose management probably would have sided with England during the Revolutionary War — which, in reality, are run of the mill soap operas and mysteries with English accents. Also leading to the dumbing down of America’s TV and radio offerings are the analysis of sports commentators, some of whom have rap sheets.

I’ve been a news junkie ever since I can remember and served as a reporter and editor for several years prior to joining the international public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, where I played key roles in significant national and international sports and non-sports programs and traveled worldwide with high-ranking foreign government officials as a media advisor. Watching the early morning TV shows was a must for roadrunners like me. Now, on most days, they’re a waste of eyesight.

The shortcoming of TV news reporting can be summed up with what anchors often say to a guest: “Here’s an important question. What’s your opinion of what’s happening in the South China Sea?” Before the guest can respond, the anchor adds, “You only have 10 seconds.”

* * *

Arthur Solomon, a former journalist, was a senior VP/senior counselor at Burson-Marsteller, and was responsible for restructuring, managing and playing key roles in some of the most significant national and international sports and non-sports programs. He now is a frequent contributor to public relations publications, consults on public relations projects and is on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee. He can be reached at [email protected].