Omari's Blog

Recently in a conversation I noted that I refuse to watch CBS 60 Minutes. I declined to discuss why, but said that I might dig up an old email that discussed the topic.

My refusal to watch corporate news programs extends far beyond CBS. I was sadly reminded of the reason for my refusal after I recently saw Brian Williams anchoring the NBC newscast from the site of the 2010 Olympic Winter Games. The entire news cast was one promotional Olympic "story" after another.

The east-coast liberals with whom I typically associate often grimace when I say I respect Lou Dobbs. I respected him because his news program did not descend into corporate promotional garbage. Did I agree with him? For the most part, absolutely not. But he reported on what he thought was important. He brought issues to light that others ignored. He was, in some respects, a fine journalist and I respected him for his convictions. I cannot respect a "news" organization that breathlessly hypes the Super Bowl or the Olympics and I will not consume any of its products.

On that note, here is the email, reprinted in its entirety. I wrote it on Sunday, March 4, 2007 and sent it to "publiceye@cbs.com".

I received no response.

---

Dear CBS,

While watching Frontline's four-part series about the news media, I learned of your "Public Eye" website. It seemed an opportune moment to offer you my profound disappointment with your organization's coverage of the Super Bowl.

During the week before the Super Bowl, I took the unusual step of watching your evening newscast with Katie Couric. I noticed that Couric was in Florida, the site of the Super Bowl. The program had a story about Super Bowl security. Knowing that CBS was airing the Super Bowl later that week, I raised my eyebrows at the apparent promotion of the CBS sports event. But Couric's story could be considered newsworthy, so I dismissed it as permissible.

As I watched Couric's program, I saw the promotional announcements for other CBS News programs to air that week, such as the morning program. All were quite heavy on Super Bowl coverage. Again, I figured the Super Bowl is somewhat newsworthy, and besides, perhaps it was an appropriate feature for a "lighter" news program such as a morning program. I shrugged.

On Sunday morning, I turned to CBS for Sunday Morning, long one of my favorite programs. Surprise, more Super Bowl coverage. It started to seem a bit excessive. I realized that perhaps some of this coverage was, unfortunately, to be expected at a time when news organizations are expected to help the bottom line. Besides, I said, "Sunday Morning" that day also had some more substantive stories. Plus, I said, the next program after this is Face the Nation. It's a Washington news program, with Schieffer interviewing newsmakers. That will be a break from the Super Bowl.

At least, that what I was silly enough to believe. I was actually naive enough to be flabbergasted when Schieffer appeared before a Super Bowl banner. An entire Face the Nation on the Super Bowl. There was a war raging, an unusual showdown between the Congress and the President, and a presidential race brewing. It wasn't a slow news week in Washington.

It is hard for me to express the profound anger and disappointment that I felt after seeing Schieffer sitting in a cheap director's chair in front of a hastily improvised Super Bowl banner. It showed me just how captive to profit and promotion your "news" organization has become. Certainly I am aware that such cross-promotion is nothing new; nor is it unique to your network. I can recall seeing Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams reporting from the Olympic Games, for example. But seeing the descent of an ordinarily "hard news" program such as Face the Nation into crass promotion of a sporting event was more than I could stand.

Surely you read the lines I am about to write all the time, but that does not make them any less true for me: your organization has lost so much credibility with me that I cannot consume any of your products again in the near future. I can stomach controversies over forged documents or (to cite an example from another organization) reporters telling tall tales. These are examples of news gathering gone awry. The key words in that previous sentence, however, are "news gathering." Inevitably, journalists and editors will make mistakes. These are forgivable. However, your organization's Super Bowl "coverage" was not news gathering. It was not journalism. It was bald, crass promotion of a Viacom profit center.

Seeing Schieffer at the Super Bowl forced me to realize that a corporate drive for profits has so penetrated many news organizations, including yours, that it has completely destroyed any sense of journalistic responsibility. I realize that this slide into profit-driven mediocrity likely is not the fault of the people of CBS News and that responsibility for this sad situation likely belongs at the feet of Viacom's managers and shareholders. No matter where the fault lies, my refusal to consume any more of your products (and, for that matter, the products of most of your competitors as well) is not an act of protest. It is a rational decision made in response to an obvious decline in quality that recently became sadly apparent. However, this letter is a small act of protest. I am naive enough to hope that this letter will make a small difference in your organization. But I am not so naive as to actually expect any results. I know the hardworking journalists of your organization cannot possibly enjoy being pushed into such mediocrity, but I will not join you as you hit bottom.

Omari Norman

posted at: 18:53 | path: / | permanent link to this entry