The evening news

Much has been written about the current state of electronic news media. Critics on the right complain about “the mainstream media” or, more directly, “liberal media.” On the left, pundits are more apt to generalize all conservative outlets (Newsmax, The First, Blaze, etc.) simply as “Fox.” The generally agreed view is that nearly all contemporary broadcast news tends to be opinionated and politically polarized. It’s one of the few things on which both left and right can agree.

The events leading to our current situation are well-known. Back in 1980, Ted Turner founded CNN as a 24-hour cable news channel, but without the Challenger accident, Iran-Contra, a natural disaster, or some other major news story, repeating straight newscasts on a continuous loop didn’t hold viewer attention. They needed more engaging content.

Just as reality shows tend to flourish during writer’s strikes, CNN found that spontaneous, or seemingly spontaneous discussions of opinion, like Crossfire, Evans and Novak, or Lou Dobbs, held the interest of viewers long enough to sell insurance products and pharmaceuticals. It worked, and CNN's viewership soon rivaled the big three networks.

CNN’s success did not go unnoticed, and other players gradually joined the market. In 1989, CNBC entered the fray with a very respectable financial product by day but tried to go nose-to-nose with CNN at night. It didn’t go well. Also in 1989, Rupert Murdoch founded Sky News in the UK as an alternative to BBC. Although Murdoch makes no secret of his conservative leanings, Sky News followed the CNN model and attempted to stay in the center.

In 1996, FOX News came online as being “fair and balanced,” and in the eyes of those on the right, it was. Most viewers, however, recognized that the channel was noticeably conservative, and despite transparently false claims of neutrality, viewership soared. Fox became a formidable competitor to CNN and CNBC, and the three-letter networks watched nervously as ratings continued to slip. CNN, however, saw the value of niche marketing and shifted left as a counterpoise to Fox. Then, when CNBC had a chance to position itself in the center, it didn’t. Instead, it took a hard turn even further to the left of CNN.

In light of that history, it is now common to hear people lament the passing of the old network news programs that were arguably unbiased. Many now idolize the newsmen of yesterday, like Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, Eric Sevareid, John Chancellor, and the patron saint of all newscasters, Edward R. Murrow. Those gentlemen dealt in facts, not opinions, and on those rare occasions when they did express an opinion, they made the distinction crystal clear.

We all know this stuff, so why do I mention it? I have recently been revisiting those old broadcasts, and the experience has been both refreshing and shocking.

I once wrote on these pages about my discovery of YouTube as an informational television channel. Originally known for silly cat videos, YouTube has blossomed into a video encyclopedia that is now piped into my living room television. Like any information on the net, there is good and bad, but for a curious person, it can deliver the high quality, informative, and educational programming that TV pioneers promised in the early 20th Century.

It was on YouTube that I recently ran into a pocket of evening newscasts from the 1960s and 1970s. Presented in their entirety and interlaced with cigarette and Geritol commercials, all of the broadcasts include one distinctive characteristic: old white guys.

Being an old white guy myself, it doesn’t particularly bother me, but it’s not hard to see why the absence of women and minorities was a concern. Newscasters were, of course, the faces of authority and trust, and for better or worse, the faces on those broadcasts reflected the attitudes that were considered acceptable at the time. I’m glad we have moved forward.

Also noticeably absent were the graphics that we enjoy today. The broadcasts would occasionally cut to footage of small arms fire in Vietnam, but most of the time, the announcers looked straight into the camera with a blank wall behind them, only looking down periodically at a paper script.

The most noticeable characteristic of those broadcasts is that they were dead serious. Jack Webb from Dragnet had nothing on those guys. There were no jokes, no smiles, and no frivolous human interest stories. The evening news was serious business, and it was presented in a no-nonsense way. Just the facts, ma’am.

If I were to say that I was surprised by my surprise, would that make any sense? I am an admitted news junkie, a history buff, and I’m old enough to remember watching those broadcasts (or at least being present when my parents did). I thought I remembered those days clearly, but I didn’t. The contrast between those broadcasts and today’s was more jarring than I would have expected.

The delivery of unbiased news in a straightforward fashion is something that I would still like to see more of, but let’s not pine for the old days too much. News coverage wasn’t as geared to reinforce our partisan belief systems, but it was subject to network (and corporate) censorship that didn’t always reflect our better angels. It was also painfully low-tech, not at all diverse, and for good or ill, it was never intended to be entertaining.