The Problem with TV & Print

While print and television have served as adequate formats for the analysis of complex issues thus far, they are far inferior when matched against the web. Television is especially ill-equipped, for example:

It’s Easy to Pick and Choose Criticisms and Rebuttals

Televised debate typically follows the following model:
PERSON 1: This policy is correct because of A, B and C.
PERSON 2: You need to get your facts straight. B is wrong because of D and E and you’re forgetting F and G.
PERSON 1: I am truly saddened that you find it necessary to resort to H in order to make your point. Think about how this affects J. Are you suggesting K?
PERSON 2: That’s outrageous! Why can’t Ls make their point without exploiting M and N?
And so on. The audience is left with a mess of unsubstantiated assertions, forcing us to cling to the ones we already agree with in attempt to justify some value for the event. TV moves forward in time, ready or not—at least print offers the luxury of self-regulated digestion. As a result, the glossing over of politically “inconvenient” arguments has become an implicitly necessary convention of television.

Misleading Claims Go Uncorrected

In the short exchange above—which isn’t as unusual as it would seem—thirteen assertions were exchanged. Invariably, pundits reference obscure facts, relying on their counterpart’s unfamiliarity in order to get away with a skewed interpretation. Television generally chooses to offer cheap and quick content in quantity at the expense of its quality. In fact, there is a growing industry of websites dedicated to fact checking television.

Time Constraints

Most broadcast journalism is in thirty-minute blocks, and further, seven-minute segments between commercials. Complex analysis is impossible within this framework. Competition and the nature of multi channel television necessitates programming to be engaging enough to halt a channel surfer.

The following flaws apply to print media as well as television.

Insufficient Context

Neither print nor television have the time, space or money to provide background for every story they run—nor if they did could they ever be fully contextualized with all the intricate causes and effects. As a result, when a news report introduces an unfamiliar issue, we’re left with a limited picture. For example, by the time most of us realized the Enron scandal was important, it was too complex to jump into without a significant investment of time and energy researching background—not to mentionthe larger context of white collar crime.

Human Personalities Stir Emotions and Affect Sound Reasoning

By relying on distinct human beings as mediums to communicate ideas, print and television introduce the influence of human “likeability” on an idea’s permeability. The audience creates a link between the idea and its presenter and perceptions of each affect the other. Michael Moore and Bill O’Reilly are good examples—both have been shown to inadvertently alienate more people from their cause than they endear to it. Likeability can act as blockade or gateway to comprehension, but any sort of influence is undesirable. Humans, and the baggage they bring, are a destructive and unnecessary distraction from the cogent analysis of ideas.

The Interests of the Authors

The issue of bias is an understandable, but overwhelming distraction. Critical reading demands awareness of the author’s agenda—after all, it’s hard to trust someone without confidence of their professionalism. Bias should not be viewed as a sign of imperfection, but an intrinsic quality of a point of view (see figure 1). Inevitably, human beings make assumptions that others find offensive because one person can only see the world in one way. Though not malicious, it is still bias, and it’s as unsquashable as our need for food. Since self-selected, discrete groups create the media, credibility issues are impossible to ignore.

Unavoidable Profit Motive

Reaching a wide audience with traditional media requires passage through a series of complex and irrational channels that are more concerned with economic viability than content. Television and print require enormous investment capital, so there’s no getting around it—if media companies don’t think a program can make money, it won’t be made. This makes these forms the definition of conservative.
Until now, pointing out the weakness of print and television would be like criticizing cats for being poor dentists, but the Internet provides an exciting new form for media, free from many of the limitations of print and television.