The Need for a Third Screen

Like many middle-aged Americans trying to hold on to their last vestiges of youth, I’m a regular at Planet Fitness. There’s people of all shapes and sizes there and no prevailing “style code” enforcement (though I have seen some very questionable workout attire). There are also big screen televisions, like, everywhere. Like a loud bar or kitschy chain restaurant, silent visuals prevail. No captions, just televisions silently broadcasting a continuum of mainstream entertainment consisting mainly of sports and news. 

As a creature of habit, I always seem to end up at the same elliptical machine. This station is perfectly positioned in the middle between MSNBC (to the left) and Fox News (to the right). Yes, I’m serious. From my captive vantage point, for 30-40 minutes at a clip, I get to observe the polar opposites of “news” delivery. With the sound off, the viewer has only the visuals to guide them, but it’s still not hard to follow.  

With the exaggerated facial expressions and eye rolls of an 11th grade drama class doing their end of the year production, the “journalists” imply indignity or smugness. The ticker on the bottom relies on action verbs. Politician X didn’t “make a statement” about the other party; he “blasted” them.  There isn’t “concern” about pending litigation; there’s only “outrage.” Even with the sound absent, the viewer can pick up whatever key points the assembled talking heads are trying to make. 

They’re doing it under the guise of news.  And we’re buying it. So are the advertisers. 

While MSNBC pitches vitamin supplements and ASPCA donations, Fox pushes gold investments and veterans’ causes. The advertisers who wish to gain eyes and attention of specific demographics, biases, and worldviews know exactly where to go, and the networks are all too happy to sweeten their honey to draw more flies. 

As a result, the “grapes” of news being squeezed to make the wine are made more concentrated, the flavor more intense.  The subtlety, character and nuance of flavor are sacrificed for greater concentration; more of the main taste that drew your audience in the first place. As a side effect, the alcohol content in this “news wine” grows; the more viewers consume it, the higher their tolerance, and the greater quantity they need to feel satiated. 

In this case, the “suns” that shine upon the vineyards (I.e. politicians, subject matter experts, advocates) also have a conflict of interest. While they create the energy that grows the grapes, these folks also know that the wine drinkers, i.e., news viewers, can also look right at them.  The brighter (and harsher) their light shines, the more followers they earn on Twitter. The better their soundbites, the greater the chance they’ll end up on MSNBC, Fox, or another news outlet that will let them rant or cry to their constituents. That, my friends, gets ratings, and ratings get soon-to-be-former politicians high-paying commentator spots on the same networks that covered their soundbites in the first place. 

As a result, the modern political machine is no longer powered by people who want to create policy or govern; instead, it is driven by those who seek a platform to gain attention and a following to eventually find a lucrative and cushy spot reinforcing the viewpoints of consumers who tune in to advertiser-supported networks that supposedly cover the news.  There is less financial incentive to cooperate, compromise, or reach across the aisle, because “playing nice” doesn’t make for compelling television. Nobody wants to see Batman and the Joker sit down and have a reasonable conversation…or to admit that their own side might occasionally be the Joker. 

I have to admit that the anger I feel watching these networks has increased the pace of my cardio workouts; a few extra calories have definitely been burned as I’ve taken out my frustrations at the makeup-caked actors masquerading as something other than pitch people for the corporations paying for their airtime. This week, I found myself staring between the two monitors, wishing for a screen in the middle. 

Given how much time we spend staring at televisions, smartphones, and tablets, it’s not a popular sentiment to say we need yet another screen, but I think the time has come. Is there room for a middle ground between anger and fear? Is there a broadcaster with the ethics to attempt reasonable truth telling?  Are there companies whose consumers are moderate enough to warrant financially underwriting non-biased, nuanced reporting? Might the general populace be awake enough to realize their cable news outlets are gearing what content is aired (and how it’s presented) to keep their eyes glued to the screen? 

I’d love to hear what the talking heads have to say when the cameras are off and the lights down. Do they truly believe the words they’re saying or are they, too, simply pushing eyes to commercials, clicks to advertiser websites? Or is the job of the reporters no longer to inform, but influence our behavior in grocery store aisles, Google search bars, and ballot boxes. 

As I finish writing this post, it is cardio day. Despite my misgivings, my habit will likely lead me back to the same elliptical machine, smack dab at the intersection of anger and fear on the screen. With frustration at being played, I’ll likely still give in to my human nature and stare at the screens, watching the loudest and dumbest sentiments broadcasted ad nauseam. Though I’d pedal less furiously, I’ll still be wishing there was a new screen in the middle.