by Paul Schingle

Created on: January 27, 2009

I suppose obligation is a difficult word to choose to use when describing the news industry. Old-time writer-journalists would proably roll over in their graves if they knew what "information" the media currently shares with its consumers. People like Edward R. Murrow and Ernie Pyle would likely be disgusted with what passes for news, today. They'd likely be sickened at the slick packaging that presents, as news, fluff with little or no real value to the consumer. In the old days, the media's obligation to the public meant presenting factual, unbiased and meaningful news to a public that wanted to be informed. Today's media only feel obliged to make a profit and produce the palaver that passes for news today.

In the old days, newspapers were put out by names like Hurst and Pulitzer. These guys believed in informing the public with meaningful news. No, I do not kid myself into believing they didn't have their own agendas as well. Anyone who produces a newspaper or any form of news presents it with some degree of bias. But, at least in the days of Hurst and Pulitzer, they tried to present hard news, and at least tried to make it appear as though it were objective. Not so, today.

Oh, sure, today we get stories about the economy, the elections and other things of importance presented to us. But, look at what the stories are presented next to. We'll see a story about the economy and the loss of a half million jobs last month juxtaposed with a story about what "Brangelina" had for breakfast. The latest political scandal (for instance, Rod Blagojavich) runs next to any story about Paris Hilton. They present this absolute crap as if we're supposed to care about it. And, in the end, a large percentage of the consumers of news must-else they wouldn't present it, right?

And maybe that's where the problem lies. Today's consumers are more interested in MTV, the private lives of celebrities and other spun sugar items than they are with the state of the economy, the state of the union and the state of the world. I'd argue that, yes, the media has an obligation to present meaningful news to us. The large-scale media giants would argue, and probably rightfully so, that they are just deliviering what the people want. They have a bottom line to look out for, after all.

Everyone is aware that America has a growing obesity problem. Unfortuantely, our bodies aren't the only things that are growing flabby. Our minds have grown flabby, as well. So, what's the media's obligation to the public? In some circles, and to my mind, the media has an obligation to deliver truthful, objective and meaningful news to its consumers. Unfortunately, what constitutes meaningful to me. is not what the overwhelming majority of the public consider meaningful. As long as John Q. Public keeps asking about Britney Spears and what color underwear she's wearing, the media are only too glad to spoon-feed that to us. And the media will argue that they are meeting their obligations to the public. Sadly, maybe they're right.

Learn more about this author, Paul Schingle.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.