News Coverage: Do You Believe?
by Reg Seeton

The ironic thing about this is that while listening to the Situation Room on CNN just yesterday afternoon on May 28, I could have sworn I heard host Wolf Blitzer refer to news anchors as "actors" prior to heading into a commercial break. I thought to myself, "No, he must have meant the word anchors." Sure enough, after heading to the show's website for the transcript, there it was in the preview for the upcoming segment, "Also, the actors of the big three broadcast networks are responding to Scott McClellan's allegation that journalists were simply too soft on the Bush White House, leading into the war." The 1998 article was bang on the money - it's now a reality. The fact that it's being tossed around so freely certainly surprises the hell out of me.

After watching so many spin doctors across the news networks try to analyze the Democratic nomination race from the same angles that existed back in March, even January, I'm not that interested to hear what an analyst "thinks" might happen. Tell me what happens when something newsworthy happens so I "know" it's fact. When an analyst or strategist says that Hillary Clinton has the popular vote, is that really true? When an analyst states that John McCain is nothing more than George Bush in sheep's clothing, is that statement really true? I'm not saying it's not accurate, but how do you know? Who do you believe?

My point here is that there's a lot of fact and possibly even more speculation out there in the news world. I don't care what anyone believes in the end, that's their own choice. I'm just saying stop and think about it for second. At one time, news anchors and reporters were messengers and filters at the same time. In today's world, information is unfiltered like never before, so the responsibility now rests with the viewer to filter out the garbage. Since we live in an expanding sound-byte generation that thrives on scandal and salacious headlines, news networks are competing for your precious attention. It's a numbers game like so many facets of the entertainment industry. How many times have you turned on the news and saw the words "Breaking News" only to see the equivalent of a cat stuck in a tree type story? How about "Breaking News" that you saw the day before with no new update? Isn't there some type of statute of limitations on a breaking story? Maybe there should be. Anyone remember all of the airplanes that were touching down at various airports across the country with landing gear problems? It was certainly "Breaking News" the first couple of times it happened until it appeared that someone at the networks figured out the problem happens so many times a month that it wasn't really "Breaking News" anymore. Priceless!

News broadcasts, reports, and coverage has gotten so crazy that I can't remember if the late Robert Stack was actually an actor or the news anchor for Unsolved Mysteries. Is Ryan Seacrest a correspondent for American Idol or is he the host of the show? I don't know what to believe anymore.