Oh Fox News

Our 24 hours news media is a snapshot of our country: bitterly divided. MSNBC is the home to a bastion of liberal minded commentators; Fox News tends to court the Conservatives with passion. As for CNN--it is somewhere in the middle touting an aging Larry King and Wolf Blitzer who is on too long on weekday evenings. But what bothers me the most is that every major news outlet tries to masquerade themselves as professing the "truth" -- fair and balanced. MSNBC has recently started a media campaign where they use patriotic themes, images that scream American  and then end it with their logo--almost as if wrapping themselves around "America." But none of these stations truly represent the views of all Americans. The fact is that they simple cannot--we as a nation espouse a diverse set of views and for the better or worse want to only watch things that cater to that viewpoint. Put a liberal in front of Glenn Beck and the person would joke about his antics; a conservative on the other hand considers it gospel. (There are many shades in between.)

I believe there is an easy way out: SAY WHAT YOU ARE. No one can criticize these news networks if they say what they are, that they have an intended motive. For example, if you go to a movie theatre expecting a movie to be in the "horror genre" -- you get annoyed when it's not. Similarly, when a commentator or even a source of media tries to claim they are "objective" when they are not--at least some are surely to be annoyed. In effect, expectations are not met leading to disappointment.

The second option is strive to be objective. Everything tends to be charged words that linger on-- "Obamacare" "higher taxes" "socialism" --- news always has to be something that sticks in your head. If someone had a tax professor sit there and discuss the minute details of why the Democrats claim the legislation is a tax break for most while Republicans claim its a tax increase -- the viewer would change the channel. But isn't that what we need? Can't there be a business model for a news station that doesn't sound like C-SPAN and is mildly more interesting and fact driven?

Take, for example, candidates for office coming on news stations. They have been coached to avoid tough questions, attack their opponents, and claim to have the best interest in their heart. Why not take them to task? For example, have the facts laid out in a computer monitor  (or swanky touch screen) by the candidate. So if the candidate says "well I never said this" -- play the clip of where the candidate supposedly said it. If a fact is challenged -- have a report that comes on in the background that either contradicts or supports the candidates facts. Have a dynamic model where facts are checked real time instead of hoping the viewer goes on some arcane website to "fact check."

Similarly, news shows claim to be impartial when they bring a liberal and conservative commentator on. Both sides attack each other -- whose right? Why doesn't the media challenge, question or consider each view point. I, as the viewer, gain nothing by "approving" the side arguing my viewpoint. If I were to see some facts, reports, or even due diligence on what is being said by each commentator--the media may be making a step towards the "objective" of being "objective."

Unfortunately, we are in a society where information has skewed from not having access to information to having access to too much information. As I once heard "it is a paradox of plenty." The engaged citizens, some would argue, are responsible to find the facts, make their own opinions. But who has the time? Who seriously has the time to sit and fact check what a politician is saying?  That is why attack ads and viral thirty second clips have a disproportionate impact.

While this is not an argument against an engaged citizenry; however, but when you place it in the context of reality--nagging kids, financial issues, even issues with plumbing--who has time to cast an informed vote for a politician who may or may not even represent the individual's view? The result is that those on the extremes, those who have vested interests in the political process, those who are even wealthier and more educated -- have a larger impact in Congress. The "average Joe" that every politician claims to have at heart is probably not the one who is going to be voting.