Of Junk Food and Junk News

Categories: ,

Once on a flight I ate a cheeseburger-in-a-bag. It was a wonderfully microwaved beefy dough ball of cheesy-type goo. It tasted amazing! Of course, it’s designed to taste amazing. Mission so accomplished. The sandwich had the right amount of fat and salt to appeal to my ancient binge-to-survive-winter DNA. It was laced with artificial scents, laboratory flavors and synthetic colors. It had the proper “mouth feel.” The right size. The perfect temperature. My cheeseburger-in-a-bag was like a friend who had been paid to be nice to me: comforting, as long as you don’t think about it too much.

Cartoon by Nate Beeler - Washington Examiner (click to reprint)
Cartoon by Nate Beeler – Washington Examiner (click to reprint)

In short: The meal was manipulated by years of food science and marketing research to manipulate me. The “taste to actual health benefits ratio” was way off. It was more appealing than life sustaining.
It was the definition of junk.

Which is an apt metaphor for the state of cable news in America.

Watch your average for-profit 24-hour station for one hour. Your pulse will start racing. Something horrible is going down! Something that will kill you and your family and everyone you care about is close and imminent! You MUST stay tuned! There’s something outrageous! That’s why people are yelling at each other!

Cable news starts with a story, removes the grain and nuance then mainlines the fury. It’s all high-fructose hyperbole all the time.

Originally there was one 24-hour cable news channel, CNN. Then there were three. Now the three have spin-offs and there are by my count nine (CNN, HLN, CNN International, CNN en Espanol, MSNBC, CNBC, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network and Bloomberg) all vying for attention. That’s 216 hours of programming to fill with the news of just one day. It used to be the formula of Fox News to be a parody of Howard Beale in The Network, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!” Now all the channels are guilty of the same schtick – doing whatever they can to fling themselves to the top of the heap to make their respective Faye Dunaways happy.

In short: The shows are manipulated by years of psychology and marketing research to manipulate us. The “entertainment to information ratio” is way off. It’s more appealing than illuminating”¦which also makes it junk.

The literal translation of what locals in Somalia call the man on the BBC who reads the news is “He Who Scares Old People.” For the higher-on-the-dial news shows this moniker is a selling point, if not a requirement.

Because if you’re not afraid, you’re not watching.

Just as an experiment – instead of cable news watch PBS or listen to NPR. Try it. It’s like going from Oreos to oat bran. There’s a sudden withdrawal. You keep expecting someone to yell, shake their fists and proclaim “We’re doomed!” but it doesn’t happen. It seems as if the world might go on – that we have some problems, here they are and here is the context for said problems. No one calls anyone a Nazi”¦unless they actually served in the SS. It’s very novel and foreign when you’re accustomed to “loud equals accurate.”

A study released at the beginning of the year by Shawn Powers at USC and Mohammed el-Nawawy at Queens University found that the more their subjects in the study watched Al-Jazeera English, the less dogmatic they were in their thinking. Participants retained their opinions but were more open to the views of others. It’s like all the studies that find a diet of real food consisting of vegetables and fiber makes you feel better in every way. It’s interesting”¦and ignored.

We have too much over-processed junk food available round the clock, and we are fat. We have too much over-sensationalized news available around the clock, and we are miserable. More importantly a giant chunk of us are incredibly ignorant. Just as obese people are often malnourished, there are people who watch the “news” constantly and are horribly uninformed. It’s overconsumption of junk.

What’s the result of an uninformed, frightened and hysterical populace? As the saying goes, we get the government we deserve: shortsighted, petty and trend-obsessed. Which in fairness”¦is great for ratings.

—–

Tina Dupuy is an award-winning writer, editor and columnist for Cagle Cartoons. Follow Tina on Twitter @TinaDupuy.

Want to run Tina’s column in your publication? Contact Cari Dawson Bartley. E-mail [email protected], (800) 696-7561.


Comments

10 responses to “Of Junk Food and Junk News”

  1. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    So, 'just as an experiment', we should stop watching CNN and start watching the wonderful Al Jazeera . . .

    I guess that does fit right in with the Obama party line, but I'll pass. And what is it about Visiting Assistant Professors that so enthrall liberals?

  2. Change Is Just Chang Avatar
    Change Is Just Chang

    @ArtW: Are you seriously contending that she's off the mark? I don't know about Al Jazeera (English or not); but if it does even a portion of what the study she cites claims, isn't that a good thing (particularly if it has that effect on the ultra-dogmatic; i.e., those most likely to enter the folds of terrorist ideology)? Or are you just upset because someone on a different "team" wrote an article?

    Even if her view is "Yay, Team Obama" (or, for that matter, "Yay, Team Bush"), she in no way conveyed that. In fact, you couldn't ask for a more neutral article, not to mention one that's right on the money. She didn't even contend that there is no bias on PBS or NPR; merely that there is less sensationalism and more factual information than in mainstream "news".

    Are you claiming that there isn't?

  3. Murray Avatar
    Murray

    She has expressed her views, in a subtle way–if you know that Fox rocks the cable ratings suddenly the picture becomes more clear.

    And sometimes "being more tolerant of other views' is liberal-speak for "don't say anything while I advance my radical cause."

    As for being ignorant, the way to stay that way is to avoid cable news.

  4. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    This idea is one of the most ancient in western civilization. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. all advocated a broad knowledge. And every great military leader advocated knowing the thoughts of the enemy better than he knows his own. Patton beat Rommel because Patton read everything he could find written by Rommel.

    Anybody that only gets the word from a source that supports their position has no clue why they even have a position. The basic rule of debate is to know the support of both sides so well the debater can argue either side with the same success. If one is informed hannitized truth is as entertaining as "Archie and Meathead". When one is informed it is almost impossible to carry a label. Anybody that says "I'm a conservative" or "I'm a liberal" and feels no need to explain further is really saying "I'm a robot" programmed each day to spit out what the programmers poured in. Amazingly the programmers can install new software and all of the old arguments are instantly forgotten and the new "line" is memorized.

    I have Al-Jazeera English in my bookmark and go there from time to time. Of course I also have news sources from nearly every other corner of the earth that I go to from time to time. Most of the major world news organizations (including Al-Jazeera English) are far more moderate than anything offered on current US sources. Perhaps this is why US soldiers die without cause, and in the process bring on even more enemies. Perhaps it would be good if those that send those men to their death would know the thinking of the enemy as well as the enemy knows his own thinking.

    The North Vietnamese looked for support to have a united country independent of any colonial control. Had the US offered to defend that position and keep all powers away millions wouldn't have died. Instead we read our own media with no knowledge of the enemy. Sadly, the same happened to Carter in Iran, Reagan in Grenada and Lebanon, Bush in Iraq, Clinton in Somalia and Bush in both Iraq and Iran.

    Interbreeding doesn't work in biology or information.

  5. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Change is just change: "@ArtW: Are you seriously contending that she’s off the mark? I don’t know about Al Jazeera (English or not); but if it does even a portion of what the study she cites claims, isn’t that a good thing"

    I actually wasn't 'contending' anything. I was just making a smarta** comment about a liberal writer pointing us to Al Jazeera and how it ties in with Obama's (and NASA's) quest to get cuddly with Muslims.

    However, that you would blindly accept the 'study' quoted in the piece without any information as to who administered it or how it was measured (and by whom) is proof positive why the Democrats still have a good chance in November.

  6. Change Is Just Chang Avatar
    Change Is Just Chang

    Murray: As for being ignorant, the way to stay that way is to avoid cable news.

    Ignorant of what? Most "news" only serves the function of providing something to talk about around the proverbial water cooler. For the small portion that may actually impact our lives or inform us in some meaningful way (i.e., so that we can affect change in some manner, either for the present situation or future similar situations), don't you think it would be better if distortions and sensationalism were not such a large part of the equation? If you have an alarm system that goes off even when nothing is wrong, soon you won't even heed it, and it is useless (apart from a source of irritation — then again, many people like yippy dogs, so YMMV). Anyway, 1) cable news is not the only news, and 2) ratings does not necessarily relate to the quality of the news, but also (and in many cases, moreso) entertainment.

    And assuming what she means because she included Fox News, who happen to be best in cable ratings, regardless of all the others she listed seems a bit paranoid to me. Are you worried that she'll diminish Fox's viewership? Really? I'd be willing to bet that she herself would be surprised if that happened; but if her article does adversely affect any news channel, we can all be sure that of all the ones she listed, Fox would suffer the least.

    If you want to not be ignorant about politics (for example), the way to become informed is most emphatically NOT [just] news, be it cable or otherwise: you look at history, read legislation, examine politicians' voting records, etc. News channels, if anything, are a small (and extremely volatile) subset of information that has to constantly be checked for slants, omissions, etc. Not useless, perhaps, but then, neither is junk food.

    Murray: And sometimes “being more tolerant of other views’ is liberal-speak for “don’t say anything while I advance my radical cause.”

    You can find "hidden" statements like that on both sides — and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Judging from the rest of her article, I've no reason to assume that it is anything other than what it appears to be on face value.

  7. Change Is Just Chang Avatar
    Change Is Just Chang

    ArtW: I actually wasn’t ‘contending’ anything. I was just making a smarta** comment about a liberal writer pointing us to Al Jazeera and how it ties in with Obama’s (and NASA’s) quest to get cuddly with Muslims. However, that you would blindly accept the ’study’ quoted in the piece without any information as to who administered it or how it was measured (and by whom) is proof positive why the Democrats still have a good chance in November.

    I accepted it the same as I accept any piece of "news": with a hefty grain of salt and skepticism (did you miss the "if"?). But I'm also not going to immediately assume that it is wrong, either. You do know there is a middle ground, right?

    As far as laughably concluding that I'm a Democrat: We are doomed to the same destructive crap as long as people play their stupid "my team, your team" games with politics. Stop looking at the label and start looking at the contents.

    Well, I've got better things to do than argue with you. Hate her article if you like. Assume whatever you want about me, her, or whomever. Who knows? Every once in a while you might be right.

  8. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Change is Just Change: "As far as laughably concluding that I’m a Democrat"

    Sorry . . . I should have said 'liberals' or 'progressives'. LOL.

    Did you vote for Obama? Just wondering.

    "You do know there is a middle ground, right?"

    No, there isn't. Not always.

  9. Change Is Just Chang Avatar
    Change Is Just Chang

    Change is Just Change: “As far as laughably concluding that I’m a Democrat”

    ArtW: Sorry . . . I should have said ‘liberals’ or ‘progressives’. LOL.

    Wrong and wrong (besides, I thought "progressives" was just another name for "liberals", no?). I do like progressive rock, though, so you can get all irate about that, if you like.

    ArtW: Did you vote for Obama? Just wondering.

    No. I didn't vote for McCain, either. I'm one of those silly people that "throws their vote away" by voting for what I believe is best, even if it may not be the "winning side".

    And before you say it, I didn't "help elect Obama" by "taking support away" from McCain, because he wasn't going to get it, anyway (at least, not by the time it was nearing election day).

    Me: “You do know there is a middle ground, right?”

    ArtW: No, there isn’t. Not always.

    Yes, there is, always; though that doesn't mean the middle ground is always right.

    In context of "just disbelieve everything from X outright" and "just believe everything from X outright", I would hope more people would choose the middle ground. Maybe that's asking too much.

    Of course, I should probably point out (as if it would make any difference) that when I read the bit about Al-Jazeera, I was thinking more along the lines of its ultimate affect on any potential jihadists, rather than making Americans more jihadist-friendly (I had assumed using the English language and American subjects was one of practicality). I guess that was an uncharacteristic optimism on my part; now that my cynical eye has regained dominance, it doesn't seem likely.

    Nevertheless, that questionable bit notwithstanding, I think it was a fairly good article. You, obviously, disagree — so be it: You hardly need to worry, sensationalist "news" isn't going away any time soon.

  10. Warren Avatar

    "High-fructose hyperbole" is going into my personal lexicon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *