Part 2 in our ongoing series exploring why Tee Vee stations are taking money to lie to you

by: Eric B.

Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 11:13:06 AM EDT

Okay, sunshines, so here's how things worked 20 and 30 years -- perhaps even longer -- ago ... your local Tee Vee station had its own news department. It was considered a cash loser, because news never generates much revenue, but Tee Vee stations were expected to have them because the airwaves the station was broadcasting on were considered to be a public resource and the station was expected to manage them for the public's benefit. That's why we used to have the fairness doctrine, which required the airing of dissenting viewpoints (back when we had genuine differences of opinion, before that was supplanted by arguing over the facts of an issue). Most broadcast news programs, at one point, put effort into doing their jobs well, because most of the people employed aspired to be journalists, not just local celebrities.

I remember once having a conversation with someone employed as a campaign consultant then, and in the years leading up to now. If they say a campaign ad from an opponent that was simply, verifiably untrue, they'd contact the Tee Vee station in question and lodge a complaint. The Tee Vee station would ask the people behind the commercial for factual verification for the ad's content, and if it couldn't be established to anyone's satisifaction, the Tee Vee station pulled the ad and returned the money.

That was then, this is now. 

Claims that have bombarded Michigan voters for months that taxpayers will be stuck with the bill for a multi-billion dollar bridge to Canada are not based in reality, said three independent law professors asked by the Free Press to review an international Crossing Agreement signed in June.

Needless to say, most of those news programs that local stations used to consider a necessary public service (and a cash loser) in exchange for use of a public resource are now gone. As has been documented on this site over the years, in some cases the same news team is used at multiple stations and in some cases the standards for reporting have become so ridiculously poor that you can't believe anything. The sort of effort necessary to report on ballot proposals is dead and long gone, replaced by scare stories about mosquitoes, the latest house fire, and feel-good mush about the dog who finds his way back home. In other words, media outlets that accept money promoting views on this are taking money to misinform readers while providing no outlet to rebut it (the Fairness Doctrine was killed back in the late 80s so Rush Limbaugh could impugn the character of anyone he wanted without fear of having to give that person the chance to defend him- or herself).