Last material update 07/18/2004
Thank you for your e-mail. Because your comments are important to us, we read each and every one. Unfortunately, we are unable to respond personally to so many. We value your feedback and thank you for watching American Morning.
-- The Staff at American Morning with Paula Zahn
In spite of this, those weasels never even loaded the page, let alone read it.
At the end of October, 2002, Journalists won the #1 spot among professions in Dilbert's Weasel Awards. Was this due to some unfocused, irrational "disdain for institutions" as CNN's Paula Zahn would have us believe?
No, I think not.
Sadly, I missed my chance to vote in the Weasel Awards poll. But the American press still earns my Weasel vote. How? Let me count the ways...
According to Weasel Awards rules, a Weasel is someone who's trying to get away with something. The press has two things they're trying to get away with: 1) Build the largest possible audience at any cost, and 2) Promote their own "correct" points of view. Here are some of the methods used:
People claim that they want good news, but the ratings prove otherwise.
Here are a few examples of profitable fearmongering:
The Economy
Bad news about the economy is good news for ratings, so don't EVER say anything positive. Don't say anything that might lessen the herd's feeling of helplessness and hopelessness, because that might enable them to feel good enough to get out of the house and inadvertently spend a few bucks. The potential for a vicious cycle is obvious: less panic leads to less TV News watching, which leads to more economic activity, which leads to less panic. To prevent this, just keep (over)stating the bad news again and again and again!
DON'T say anything that might embarrass those who are (through either ignorance or avarice) making the situation worse!
DON'T point out that fearfulness is a key cause of slow economic activity and bearishness in the markets!
DON'T EVER mention the fact that diversified investment accounts that are simply left alone will bounce back significantly when the economy improves.
(Or should we say IF the economy improves! Wink, wink!)
Just keep repeating: "Your money is GONE! SELL! SELL! SELL!! Don't spend! Don't invest! The situation is getting worse! Hide your pennies underneath your mattress!"
Sure, you could be a force for positive change, but that doesn't sell. Instead, make things worse as much as you possibly can.
The DC Snipers
Before I begin, let me emphasize that The DC Snipers committed horrible crimes, and it was 100% right to pull out all of the stops to catch those beasts. I feel terrible for the victims and their families, and if they got the right guys, I hope they fry - along with anyone who helped them!
However...
In order to line their pockets, the press made a MUCH bigger deal out of the Sniper case than logic would suggest.
According to the most recent USDOT statistics I could find, more than 40,000 people die each year nationwide as a result of motor vehicle incidents. That works out to roughly 2400 in any given three-week period. If you assume that the DC Snipers' range covered one percent of the population of the United States (a conservative guess, I'd say), then a DC area citizen's chances of dying as a result of a roadway accident (which people generally don't fret over) were approximately double their chances of being shot by the Snipers during the same period.
...Any so-called journalist making a point like this will have their secret decoder ring confiscated!It's quite possible that being shot by the DC Sniper didn't even make it into anyone's top ten of risk factors for fatality (unless you're very clever with statistics, that is! ;)
But, since we deliberately failed to mention that particular fact, we were able to use the remaining facts to whip the herd into a frenzy of ratings - whoops, I meant "a frenzy of fear!"
The press had millions of people paralyzed with fear over something that had almost no chance of affecting them! The zig-zagging that people did while walking through parking lots probably increased their chances of being run over by cars far more than it decreased their chances of being shot - But hey, if you're going to make a ratings omelet, you have to break a few human eggs!
Also note another technique employed: When a big story is in progress but developing slowly, you COULD admit to your audience that no new information is available, and cover other news - but then people might go about their normal lives, which you definitely don't want. Instead, babble constantly, pretending that it's "news." Create the illusion that you're recapping in preparation for new material coming up. Then just repeat more old material. Pile new speculation on top of old speculation no matter how far away from the truth this takes you. It doesn't matter what you say - Just don't let them change the channel!
Science and Technology
Most people don't have a clue about science or technology. This, of course, offer endless opportunities for keeping people fearful! Think of each new scientific discovery as a vague outline for your next work of fiction!
When a study shows that some newly-discovered stimulus raises the risk of a particular type of cancer from three in a billion to nine in a billion, then you report that "YOUR RISK OF DEADLY CANCER HAS TRIPLED!!!" ...In spite of the fact that the risk is essentially zero either way.
Harp endlessly on the theoretical risks of nuclear power (by the way, it's perfectly okay to say "nook-e-leer" or "new-kew-ler"), and totally ignore the animals, plants and people that ACTUALLY DIE from the effects of fossil fuel harvesting and emissions EVERY DAY.
You see the pattern, I trust: Report extremely unlikely scenarios as if they were certain to occur, and it will be like Halloween every day!!
All of this can be justified by wielding the sword of "impartiality." This is important: If you are "impartial," then hysterical wailing from special interest groups carries exactly the same weight as hard facts! Present them as if they were equal, and pick and choose as you like.
When authorities try to keep something quiet in order to protect an investigation or avoid provoking the criminal or a copycat, go after that secret information with everything you've got, and broadcast it as soon as it is leaked. In the meantime, speculate savagely about what is being kept back and why, in order to do as much damage as possible. (Go, Daryn Kagan!! Your CNN coverage of the DC Sniper didn't appear to lead directly to any deaths - but it was a great effort! Better luck next time!)
If someone is up to no good but needs a lot of help to be successful, give them some free publicity.
Go ahead and write how-to books for the terrorists, snipers, and other assorted fiends to come. It's not your problem. ...In fact, you can even profit from it later, because you'll be on the inside track to get the "scoop" after the seed you plant begins to bear fruit!
This probably goes without saying, but:
If you lack knowledge, make stuff up - the more inflammatory the better.
(Listening to CNN's Sanjay Gupta and Daryn Kagan spouting ABSOLUTE NONSENSE about firearms during the DC Sniper case would have been funny if the greater story hadn't been so sad.)
If your creative writing well is running a bit dry, you can go ahead and broadcast a story even if it has holes in it that you could drive a truck through. The Five W's of Journalism? Forget about them. They're ancient history! The important thing is that you report some fragment of the story FIRST. Whether or not you actually impart any satisfying or useful information is absolutely irrelevant.
Finally, keep in mind that the public has been conditioned to prefer sound bites over any sort of thoughtful treatment of a story. This only makes your job easier. Not very long ago, Barbie® taught us that "math is hard." Well, so is any other form of thinking, so just report what you feel.
Interlace opinion, factoids, and facts until they become indistinguishable.
When interviewing, ask ruthlessly leading questions that make it impossible for the interviewee to discuss the facts without appearing heartless or stupid. Right and wrong are irrelevant - if you're a real pro, chances are you're MUCH quicker on your feet than they are. That's all that matters. Sophistry trumps substance every time.
Find plenty of "likable" simpletons that agree with you, and interview them without commenting on their credentials (or total lack thereof).
To create a thin veneer of "balance," show comments from the opposition, but carefully select only deranged slime balls in order to discredit anyone who agrees with any part of what they say. Comment on their associations with unpopular groups to further weaken their likability/credibility.
For example, when doing a story in support of the War on Drugs, don't use a well groomed member of the opposition saying "Given all of the harm done fighting this war, we definitely should study the decriminalization of marijuana!" Instead, use a clearly underage but nonetheless menacing-looking person with safety pins in his face saying "I should be able to do crack if I wanna! Your generation just don't understand!" This technique works particularly well on hot button issues like abortion and gun control.
You can "prove" just about anything with opinion!
Genuine debate based on facts must be avoided, since this is fairly tedious and thus can lead to channel-changing. Instead, offer your audience interesting personalities to choose between!
We've touched on this already, but it merits mentioning again: You are under no obligation to report everything. When there are facts that fail to lead the audience to the correct conclusion, simply ignore them:
Miscellaneous crimes against intelligence, erudition and decency are always a nice touch:
H.L. Mencken once said that "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." Happily, most people don't have the foggiest idea who H.L. Mencken is, so you can promote these wrong solutions with impunity!
If an action that someone takes doesn't "feel good," you should condemn it, no matter how difficult the situation was. IMPORTANT: It isn't necessary to offer reasonable alternatives - even with hindsight being 20-20, some problems are still really tough to solve!
Take for example the Russian/Chechen hostage crisis:
You've got 50 terrorists with automatic weapons and explosives holding 800 hostages. The terrorists promise to kill all of the hostages if you fail to meet their demands. The demands are impossible, so you fail to meet them. The terrorists could detonate their explosives the instant they sense a rescue in progress. You think you hear gunshots from within the theater. It may already be too late. Something must be done immediately. What do you do?
Only an idiot would think that there is a neat answer to this problem.
Even so, you should still feel free to wrinkle up your nose and cluck disapprovingly at whatever action is taken! (Talk to CNN's Paula Zahn for more pointers!)
If hostages are killed because the rescue attempt didn't happen quickly enough, you obviously have been handed an opportunity to endlessly second-guess the authorities.
But it's even better if hostages are accidentally killed during a rescue attempt! From your desk, where there are no terrorists armed with machine guns to interrupt you, you should compile a list of every bad outcome, and then find a well-intentioned person to blame for each one. Pad that list. Reach. Pretend that leisurely analysis after the fact is equivalent to action taken while staring death in the face. Pretend that bad outcomes are always the result of deliberate malfeasance. Humiliate people with impossible yet life-and-death important jobs. Keep pounding on these vulnerabilities - until the next victim comes along.
Remember the Challenger disaster? There were thousands of points of view and millions of decisions made to get that shuttle into the sky, and ONE of them turned out to be wrong. We really twisted that situation completely out of shape, didn't we? After a while, it was starting to look like NASA killed those astronauts on purpose! Ha ha ha!
Well, that about does it for American Journalism 101, so go out there and get those ratings, weasels!
And always remember:
- Richard