Customer Reviews

No Time To Think: The Menace of Media Speed and the 24-hour News Cycle

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

 

 

This is a subject I've been annoyed/frustrated about for ages, so its great to see a book like this published. Basically, the two authors - one who worked for CNN, the other for Los Angles Times - believe that part of the reason our society is in danger of going down the pan is that news media is no longer about "news" any more. It consists almost entirely of opinion, speculation, and ridiculous combinations of those two, presented and disguised as news. The authors chart the history and development of news media, but focus very much on two things that have changed the landscape entirely: the birth of cable news, and the creation of the internet. I should admit that most of the jokes in the chapter about "blogging" probably went over my head, but this is an incredibly readable book about journalism, truth, dignity, and how on earth our politicians are supposed to function properly when there's an endless screaming demand for opinion and instant answers to everything.

Is there anyway to stop this all from spiraling out of control? The authors aren't sure, but they do have one or two suggestions at the end of the book. But do yourself a favor and read this book: its alarming, and terrifying at times, but it will make you look at news media in a whole new light.

NEWSTRITIONAL FACTS
Serving Size.................................................... 8 hours
News................................................................ 26 minutes (6%)
News Analysis................................................18 minutes (4%)
Opinion.............................................................128 minutes (30%)
Rumor and Innuendo.....................................28 minutes (7%)
Speculation.......................................................84 minutes (20%)
Idle Chatter.......................................................16 minutes (4%)
Self-Flattery........................................................20 minutes (5%)
Complete Bullshit............................................100 minutes (24%)

This interesting graphic from the final chapter of "No Time To Think: The Menace of Media Speed and the 24-Hour News Cycle" illustrates what the "newstritional" label might look like if the 24 hour cable news networks were required to honestly list the content of their programming. It looks fairly accurate to me. According to co-authors Howard Rosenberg (TV critic for the Los Angeles Times) and Charles S. Feldman (a former CNN reporter) the quality of the product being offered by cable news outlets has steadily deteriorated over the past decade or more. Clearly the lines between fact and opinion, news and commentary have been blurred. Opinionated hosts, panels of "talking heads", reporters talking to other reporters and network generated polling has replaced the thoughtful and diligent pursuit of newsworthy stories. The moguls at these networks have evidently determined that in this is the stuff that audiences really want to see. Sadly, they appear to be correct. The "dumbing down" of America continues.
But the problems discussed in "No Time To Think" are not indigenous to cable news alone. It is certainly no secret that many major newspapers in this country are in imminent danger of folding. These newsrooms are just a shell of their former selves. Staffs have been slashed across the board and journalistic standards substantially lowered. Rosenberg and Feldman cite a number of cases of inaccurate reporting by newspapers. It is all very discouraging. And of course no discussion about the inadequacies of the 24 hour news cycle would be complete without taking a long, hard look at what is going down on the internet. Here in this totally unregulated environment misinformation is disseminated at blinding speed. While there are certainly many responsible websites and bloggers out there they appear to be vastly outnumbered by those who are not. On many of these sites rumor and innuendo rule the day. No time is taken to verify information and as a result the reputations of businesses, institutions and individuals can be ruined in just a matter of minutes. Very scary!
"No Time To Think: The Menace of Media Speed and the 24-hour News Cycle" is a sobering look at what journalism has become in America. It is not a pretty picture. Personally, I opted out of the cable news shows quite a while ago. I really don't give a damn what Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann think about anything. Likewise I have absolutely no interest in celebrity news and much of the other fluff being offered up by these networks. I have come to the conclusion that my time is far better spent reading books. When cable news and the major networks return to the idea of "getting it right" rather than "getting it first" maybe I will give them another look. Unfortunately, Howard Rosenberg and Charles Feldman see very little evidence that this will happen any time soon. Recommended reading.

Ironic that this is about the speed of the news cycle - as this is quite a fast read. Very interesting, and by two very qualified authors. Main issue was there was some appalling editing (blatant spelling errors!), and didn't go into too much depth. Was also very US centric. However - very interesting analysis of the news cycle.

In 1480 a letter reporting the death of a Turkish sultan took two years to reach England, and in 1841 it took 3 months and 20 days for Los Angeles to learn of President Harrison's death in the east. Today, with technology allowing immediate communication, the pressure from competitors is immense for immediate reporting, leaving no time to think or double check - inevitably resulting in errors.

A recent Zogby poll found that nearly half of Americans make the Internet their primary news source, TV for 29%, radio 11%, and newspapers 10%. Only the Wall Street Journal has persuaded consumers to pay for its online product.

Actually, the impact less probably than the authors state. There is greater pressure on news organizations, and news makers as well - eg. immediate queries such as "What do you think about . . .?" or "Why shouldn't we . . ..?" Smart politicians can deflect requests for immediacy by being unavailable, and simply stating that "more time and information is needed." On the other hand, the ubiquity of film and photos from cell-phones allows public figures no respite from instant notoriety - eg. Sen. Allen's 'macaca' remark. The "good news" is that there are no reports of public officials being pressured into unwise decisions by untimely news media queries.

News media, having gone to 24-hour news, now have the problem of filling that time. The authors point out that ways to accomplish this include having talking heads (guests) on to speculate, see into the future. We also are subjected to innumerable time-wasting interviews in which the respondent doesn't begin to answer the question, and instead spouts the "party line."

Bottom Line: "No Time to Think" has some interesting material, but is far too long.

I should have been the most eager and appreciative reader the authors have. I've had a glimpse inside the belly of the beast and it's just as ugly in there as they declare it to be.
But any good jeremiad has to be serious and carefully written as well as entertaining and provocative. No Time to Think manages to be only provocative. Sadly, the authors have taken a solid premise and their significant first-hand knowledge and experience and turned it into the kind of rant I might have expected to see on the now-defunct Crossfire. There is enough content here to fill a long magazine article; alas the authors have stretched it to its limits and beyond, stuffing it with gratuitous literary stunts such as portraying television pundits in imaginary debates. Their goal is to lampoon these individuals, but it just feels staged and forced. With so much real material available to accomplish the same end, what on earth were they thinking about?
At its worst, the style sounds coy and forced, as in the chapter devoted to blogging, where "your blogmeister" transforms himself into a central character of the book. (Oddly enough, that very tendency is one the authors criticize in the broadcast media figures they criticize. One rule for them, another for their targets?) Ironically, given the book's title, the writing is almost breathless throughout and excessively chatty. A way to get readers to pay attention? I can't imagine how that kind of tone would help.
I finished reading this with a feeling of sadness. Like many readers who willingly will pick up this kind of book and sigh with relief that someone is finally attacking some of worst sins of (in particular) the blogosphere and broadcast media, I'm part of the choir to whom the authors are preaching. (The folks they are criticizing, alas, will probably never crack open its pages, just as liberals shun Ann Coulter and conservatives are offended by the mere idea of reading Al Franken.) But I hoped for more. Thomas Frank, with his political jeremiads, has shown that it is possible to build damning indictments of his targets in an accessible and compelling manner. But being flippant and even flaky at times is no way to have your arguments taken seriously. (At their worst, the authors sound like self-important versions of Wayne and his sidekick from Wayne's World.) That is especially so if you're hoping to win converts to your side. And if the authors' only purpose is to rant to an audience who is already in full agreement with them, then what -- as they themselves would claim, going by the evidence contained within the pages of the book -- is the point of the exercise?
Borrow this from the library if you want some behind-the-scenes understanding of how the media functions. Then take the money you have saved by not buying it and send it to one of the few bastions of good broadcast journalism or to a journalism school with the proviso that it be used to correct the flaws in the system that the authors have tried to address.

This book is somewhat clumsily written, without smooth flow. But the ideas presented are spot-on, highlighting how television news reporting has suffered from the competetive need to be "first." We viewers haven't got a chance. There's no time for any of us to think anymore.