By Jamie York
Local television news stations are doing a disservice to the democratic process in the United States by failing to act in the "public interest," which governs their license to use the people's airwaves.
By leading off nearly every newscast with an act of violence or a murder, they give viewers the false impression that violence and murder are commonplace in our cities and towns. The media adage, "if it bleeds, it leads," has become the accepted practice of local television stations all over the country, but even if stories of violence and murder do attract more viewers and increase advertising revenue, this is a bad way to cover local news and it compromises the democratic process.
Nationwide, 750 local news stations have at least 80 million viewers in 211 metropolitan markets, so if these news stations are not acting in the public interest, then 80 million people are being disenfranchised from the democratic process as citizens and voters.
According to "mayhem index" studies -- the percentage of local news devoted to crime, disasters, war and terrorism -- conducted from 1994 to 1997 by Rocky Mountain Media Watch, about 50 percent of the on-air time on local news programs consist of violent topics. The most notable side effects of this nightly exposure to violence can include viewer alienation, viewer ignorance and viewer cynicism, as well as copy-cat crimes and racial stereotyping.
As stories of crime and violence are reported, night after night, all sense of proportion becomes lost. For the viewer, the cumulative effect of this repetition is that it seems like violent crime is occurring on every street corner when studies show that violent crime has been decreasing over the past 25 years. Disproportionate media coverage then fuels the legislative process by influencing public opinion, the police, the courts, and lawmakers, who then hire more police, enact tougher laws and longer minimum sentences -- and even allow the use of the death penalty -- all under the guise of "crime prevention."
The media could act more responsibly by focusing on the historical socioeconomic causes of crime -- poverty, illiteracy, mental illness, alcoholism and drug abuse. More police, tougher laws, more prisons -- even the threat of death -- will not prevent crime because society never gets a chance to even learn about, let alone address, the socioeconomic causes of crime. So, instead of improving the quality of education for children, we invest in more prisons. Instead of treating drug abuse as a medical problem, we jail drug users. Instead of building hospitals to treat and rehabilitate the mentally ill, we send them to prison where they rarely get proper supervision and treatment for their illnesses.
Domestic violence, robberies, rapes, assaults and murders occur every day, but making these crimes the primary focus of local news is a blatant attempt to sensationalize -- and thus "sell" -- the news. This type of reporting wrongly teaches viewers that the police and courts, rather than the larger community, should have a freer hand in combatting crime and that the ills of society are caused by individual acts, not by the degradation of the socioeconomic system that produces these individuals. Of course, discussing the ills of our socioeconomic system is a forbidden subject throughout the mass media, as any realistic discussion of this topic would have to mention the societal dangers of concentrated media ownership.
Television is a powerful medium and repetition is a powerful tool. By leading off each newscast with a blood story, the viewer, over a period of time, begins to accept the premise that crime is the number one political issue, so he or she votes accordingly. On the other hand, omission is also a powerful tool. If the viewer does not learn from the media that the historical causes of crime can be traced to socioeconomic roots, this will never become a factor in his or her thinking. Nor will the concepts of community policing and community-based sentencing.
According to the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC may grant the use of a particular frequency to a broadcaster for a limited, renewable term providing that the broadcaster serve "the public interest, convenience, and necessity." It is understood that broadcasting is a privilege tied to an assurance that the public interest will be served in order to enhance the democratic process by providing a full spectrum of viewpoints, to broaden political discourse during elections by providing free airtime for all ballot-qualified candidates, and to generally serve the information needs of the larger community. The public interest is supposed to be served as if the local community owned the station and had simply picked the best person to manage it.
Over the years, many people have wanted to narrowly define the public interest standard as protection against a possible information monopoly, which, they argued, would be one negative result of concentrated media ownership. Others, however, have wanted to broaden the standard by arguing that competition in the marketplace is in the public interest, as are corporate mergers that combine their resources and offer better technology and more programming to the consumer. Today, the public interest standard is so vague that broadcasters can claim that whatever programs people watch, whatever programs draw ratings and advertising revenue, is in the public interest.
In 1998, Rocky Mountain Media Watch petitioned the FCC to deny the re-licensing of four Denver television stations, arguing that the stations' local news programs are harming the citizens of Colorado, primarily by "excessive coverage of violent topics and trivial events, and, consequently, inadequate news coverage of a wide range of stories and vital social issues."
The airwaves belong to the people, not the media corporations. Those of us who want to do something to improve local news coverage can write to our local station managers and let them know what our needs are as viewers and consumers; we can write to the FCC regarding the re-licensing of our local stations; we can back political candidates who support a progressive, democratic agenda; and, most importantly, we can spread this message to friends, family, and co-workers.
Secretary of the Federal Communications
Commission
445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-204B
Washington, DC 20554
For guidance on writing to the FCC, see Rocky Mountain Media Watch, How to file comments with the FCC, and Guidelines for filing electronic comments with the FCC
For correspondence to the networks, write to:
NBC
30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112
Phone: 212-664-4444
Fax: 212-664-5705
ABC News
47 W. 66 St., New York, NY 10023
Phone: 212-456-7777
D.C. Bureau phone: 202-222-7777
General e-mail: netaudr@abc.com
CBS News
524 W. 57 St., New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-975-4321
Fax: 212-975-1893
D.C. Bureau phone: 202-457-4321
.