Customer Reviews

From Cronkite to Colbert: The Evolution of Broadcast News (Media and Power)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

"From Cronkite to Colbert" is a fascinating study of the slow evolution of television news. Ironically, I read it as my exasperation with current news program structures and journalistic coverage of stories kept gnawing at me. Why did I keep finding myself turning to C-Span or "The Daily Show" for my news? Why were pundits' opinions coming in the guise of news? I hadn't realized it, but the erosion of reliable, credible news coverage was intentional and insidious. This book provided numerous "ah ha!" moments for me.

Dr. Baym's choice of CBS News as a research subject represents the ever-changing face of television journalism. By focusing on the iconic Walter Cronkite's reliability to Dan Rather's fall from grace, the book provides evidence of symptomatic problems within television news. Thankfully, the author stayed aligned to his research mission, and did not turn the book into tangential arguments. The changes at CBS News are representational, but certainly not all inclusive of both cable and broadcast news. However, by maintaining a focus on one network, the readers may be inclined to think about the changes in other network news programs as well. For instance, it can be argued that from Huntley and Brinkley (contemporaries of Walter Cronkite) to Brian Williams on NBC, numerous parallels are evident with CBS.

What I find most compelling is the author's observation of how both "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" have, through the use of satire, returned us to the age of reliable, investigative journalism. Though Stewart calls his show "Fake News," "The Daily Show" actually holds a mirror up to our perception of current events. As I read through the examples from transcripts of both Stewart's and Colbert's programs, it became evident that, just as the erosion of credible news has been almost imperceptible as it was happening, so, too, has the re-establishment of investigative journalism through Stewart/Colbert become a sleight of hand. The author demonstrates that there is a sound reason why television audiences are switching to "The Daily Show" for their nightly news.

In addition, as a professor of Mass Communication, I am always looking for ways to deepen the students' understanding of the media. Dr. Baym's book is a marvelous text to explicate the changing face of news. The juxtaposition of the two Presidential impeachment processes (Nixon and Clinton) easily translates into lecture material and is a perfect example of how news has become almost intrusive. While it is not written at an undergraduate level, it would, however, make an excellent companion text for graduate students and for the very curious. For instance, if you are wondering "What happened to television news?," "From Cronkite to Colbert" is the book for you.

I highly recommend this book. Backed by considerable research and evidence, the author has not only proven his point about the manner in which news has changed, but has given the reader the opportunity to look beyond the examples provided in the book.

If someone could tell me whether or not Colbert and Stewart get a Royalty from the sale of books with their image on the cover or name in the title, I'd by 10 each. Short of that, go with the reviews,.... unless Colbert tells his Nation to buy it, then buy buy buy it. If Colbert says stay away, then do so. *wink

I was intrigued by this book's description: a review of the shifting news media culture in America - from Walter Cronkite, through the network news age, and now into what Baym calls the emergent or convergent age with cable news and shows such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

Part of the book was fairly decent. The first couple chapters contained some great history of how CBS News began, and the philosophies behind the early news programs. Baym also delivered some interesting facts - for example: during the 2004 Presidential campaign, the candidates appeared on late-night talk shows a total of 25 times. During the 2008 election, that number skyrocketed to over 110.

The next several chapters made some interesting comparisons between how the media handled the Watergate scandal as compared to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The comparisons were kind of fascinating, ranging from the length of time the news programs showed raw video footage of the players involved, how reporters referred to the President, and even down to how reporters interacted with one another.

There are several problems with this book, however, and because of them I wouldn't recommend spending your time reading this one. First, the language throughout reads like a hyper-academic extended journal article. Baym (an associate professor of media at the University of North Carolina) constantly employs obtuse language that just comes across as someone trying too hard to sound smarter than they are. And even in this, he belabors so many of his points - reading through many paragraphs you'll find yourself thinking, "Okay, I get it! Let's move on."

Secondly, his research appears to be about a mile deep but only an inch wide. He zeroes in specifically on CBS News and all of their affiliate stations and programs, largely ignoring every other network and news organization out there. Along those same lines, it would have been nice to see some other data points outside of his Watergate/Monica Lewinsky comparison to flesh out his theory of news evolution a bit more. How about comparisons of the coverage for some other major political events - the economy under Carter versus the economy under Reagan or Bush, for example? The Iran-Contra scandal? Cold War coverage versus War on Terror coverage? Out of nearly infinite possibilities, the fact that Baym cherry picks only two for comparison sake rings pretty hollow. Two points do not a data set make.

And finally, the last third of the book completely falls off the deep end academically speaking. I almost quit reading in the middle after continually getting bogged down in the author's language, and now I wish I had. If this book was meant as something resembling an academic article or a textbook (which is what the writing style makes it sound like), then Baym completely loses all academic sensibilities when he begins to talk about the two Comedy Central shows mentioned above.

Calling the mainstream media "the lapdogs" of the Bush administration, claiming that Bush had the media in his back pocket, and that the media never attacked Bush hard enough during his tenure as President (could there possibly be a more absurd foundation for advancing an argument?), he then points with much fanfare and celebration to the 'solution': comedy shows that lambaste conservative politicians.

His "review" of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's shows are largely just transcripts of interviews where the hosts and guests use humor to attack the politicians Baym doesn't like - over and over and over again. Made even worse is the fact that Baym then stops and explains to us why every joke is funny - something that completely ruins the joke and makes one wonder if Baym even has a sense of humor.

In his quest to point out the dispersion of news in the post-network emergent era, Baym even explores a long list of blogs which report or echo the news now - strangely enough, every single one of them from the far, far left of the blogosphere.

My advice is this: if you read this review, you've gotten about everything useful out of the book, and I've saved you from slogging through this awful research project/attempt at writing a college textbook.