The New Age of News... You Be the Judge!

Back in 2001 when I was one of the writers at Corona's Coming Attractions, the long forgotten former #1 movie news website and early pioneer in the online entertainment movement, I had a memorable discussion with a news reporter in our message boards, one that still stays with me to this day.

The debate centered on the changing face of news coverage and how information would be presented to the public in a rapidly changing age. At that time, most of the major entertainment conglomerates and mainstream networks were restructuring their news divisions to reshape the way they delivered news and information to the public. It was the early beginning of the "out with the old and in with the new" approach to journalism and reporting within the new age of information. The once credible news anchors and reporters were about to be blindsided and replaced by an up-and-coming crop of entertainment reporters and personalities. Although the changes seemed to be fairly organic on the surface, that of keeping pace with technology and society, it was hard to deny that the sudden transformation of mainstream news was about one thing... numbers. Higher ratings equaled more money, period. At the end of the day, it was that simple. As for the hard facts and evidence within the newly transformed and modernized era of news coverage, well, that's often a completely different story.

At a deeper level of my virtual discussion, there were two distinct viewpoints at play. The first, that mainstream news coverage was too boring to attract viewers and it needed to become more interesting and appealing to viewers, especially to the highly sought-after 18-34 demographic. The second, that despite how dry and boring real life events might be at times, news coverage needed to be about the facts, and solely about the facts whether the information or subject matter was appealing to viewers or not. To say the least, it was a bizarre debate. Do you change the way news is covered on TV just because the facts aren't compelling to viewers? Does it need an entertainment spin to be taken seriously? Is it more important to ensure that facts and events are reported and delivered to the public by credible people? Where do you draw the line? Seven years after that memorable 2001 debate, it's safe to say the line was never drawn at all. It was clear people wanted to be entertained when they tuned into the news. Not that the public had a choice, but it's now clear nonetheless.

Although much of that 2001 message board discussion centered on mainstream news coverage, it was hard to predict how the Internet would eventually impact the game. More in how the public received facts and information within a society fuelled by the spectacle of entertainment. Now, with the explosion of the social-networking landscape, where everyone is a self-appointed journalist, the once distinct worlds of fact and fiction have never been more inseparable on TV and online. If you're someone that believes in factual accuracy first and foremost, the modern news landscape is a rough sea to swim in without drowning in an under-toe of speculation, sensationalism and inaccuracy. If you're someone who prefers fiction over fact and simply wants to be entertained, there's no denying that the modern news landscape is a fun community akin to the Wild West or the early days of Las Vegas. What happens, though, when hard facts take a back seat to entertainment value, presentation and sensational delivery for the sake of ratings? Is there middle ground between "infotainment" and entertainment?

It wasn't that long ago when sensationalized shows like Inside Edition and A Current Affair were the taken with a heavy grain of salt much less any type of credibility. Within a decade, former Inside Edition host Bill O'Reilly became one of the most popular so-called news personalities on television. The once semi-credible Current Affair host Maury Povich, husband of once semi-credible mainstream news anchor Connie Chung, left the fringes of primetime to garner Jerry Springer style ratings in the afternoon. Then again, A Current Affair was on in the afternoon, too, but that's beside point. Anyone remember the not-so-long-ago era when you'd be tarred, feathered and made the subject of public shame and mockery if you admitted that you read The Enquirer? How about the time when Entertainment Tonight actually focused on entertainment stories? Yes, Virginia, there was a Santa Claus, and good old Kris Kring didn't give a sh*t about who got a divorce, who was on the verge of an alleged mental breakdown, who got custody of their kids, or who slept with who inside the confines of their Hollywood compounds.

The New Age of News... You Be the Judge! Page 2