T.V. news drops ball with poor coverage

Correction
Due to an editing error, the Oct. 21 Diversions column "TV news drops ball with poor coverage" misspelled the name of Ferrel Guillory, Southern politics expert and director of UNC's Program on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life.

It's no big secret - Tucker Carlson is a dick.

The right wing co-host of "Crossfire" screams when his points aren't strong enough to stand on their own, treats educated liberals like a gang of roving idiots and blatantly ignores the basic failings of President Bush's administration.

Plus, he expects America to take him seriously even though he sports a bow tie. No one ever respected Pee Wee Herman's political views - the same should hold true for Carlson.

But when Jon Stewart, host of the Emmy award-winning "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," called Carlson a dick on Friday during an appearance on "Crossfire," he wasn't criticizing Carlson's political leaning.

He was pointing out a much graver problem in "Crossfire," CNN and broadcast media at large: They're failing in their sacred democratic duty to protect the American public.

Instead of providing a context for the news, acting as a watchdog over the government or putting politicians' feet to the fire, the media are lobbing up softballs.

It all plays right into the political game. Shows like "Crossfire" could address serious, contentious and important issues, but they don't. They throw hot-headed pundits - what Stewart called "hacks" - in front of the camera for what boils down to a partisan dogfight.

The end result is more of a mouthpiece for the politicians than a forum for criticism, debate or - gasp! - the truth.

And the American public is the victim. We lose expert analysis, hard-hitting news and pertinent information. But despite what Stone Phillips' apocalyptic prophesies would have you believe, we aren't helpless.

The New York Times gives us hope; The Washington Post is our savior; Newsweek brings sweet salvation. When broadcast news organizations rush blindly through complex issues, the print media are there to pick up the pieces and make some sense of the mess.

News analysis and op-ed pieces - whether investigating the crucial arguments during a presidential debate or highlighting some connection between pop culture and politics (ahem) - provide an infinitely greater context for the information they contain.

Broadcast media have their place. There's no quicker or cleaner way to cover breaking news. Just look at the scandal in Florida during the 2000 presidential election.

But to frame and fully explore the intricacies of an issue, there's no substitute for the written word. No matter how many talking heads CNN fits on the screen, it can't compete with the competence, cohesion, completeness and clarity of a strong print article.

If you really want to know what's going on and what it really means, you have to read. Find the writers with whom you agree. Read what they on the other side of the fence. Read all of it and any of it. The point is to read - a lot.

Ferrell Guillory, one of my professors and probably the smartest guy I know (honestly, this is in no way brown nosing - nothing I could say could salvage my grade), was working out on a treadmill at his fitness club last week.

He was watching several newscasts on a group of televisions that were muted with the closed captioning turned on. As Guillory was reading the white text scroll under the broadcasts, he realized the shallowness of what it was saying.

When you have to listen to Wolf Blitzer speaking with flair and passion, pouring profundity into his every word, it sounds good, it looks good and it sells well - but the words coming out of his mouth don't really mean anything.

That's why citizens have to seek out good written analysis. That's why "Crossfire" is poison to the uninformed. That's why "The Daily Show" anchor called Carlson a dick.

Stewart said it best: "Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America."

Contact Nick Parker, a senior journalism and English major, at panic@email.unc.edu.