• by George Simpson , Featured Contributor, December 10, 2015

A recent survey from Nielsen confirmed the obvious: For most people around the world, regardless of age, TV is their major source of news.

It was hard to find out whether the study differentiated between Big Three Network news and 24-hour news channels (where we all turn during major breaking news), since the link on the headline of the survey on the Nielsen site clicked over to a study about craft beers (no joke).

So for the sake of argument, let's say most folks limit their news intake to the usual 22 minutes or so of whatever ABC, CBS and NBC have decided are the "big stories."

Unless, like me, you tape one evening news show and live-watch another, you don't see clearly that the quality of the coverage of the same story can be significantly different between two networks.

Although there are some stupefying similarities — like when the anchor goes to the site of the news (think Paris), as if being on the ground gave them some sort of insider perspective that they wouldn't get sitting in New York.  

Never mind that standing at police tape three or four blocks away from the "scene" doesn't give off that Master of The News Universe vibe they hope. Nor does wearing safari jackets or hard hats.

Every night now you can count on the nets to estimate how many millions of people are "in the path" of something ominous — like rain. Followed by the totally inclusive discussion about whether this is or is not caused by El Nino or global warming. And wrapped by the earnest promise that the weather folks will "keep a close eye" — on the rain.

Every disaster story includes an interview with an observer who adds little to no insight by saying mundane things like "Geez, he seemed like a really nice guy" or "I heard a loud bang and looked up and before I knew it..."

Or worse still, a response from a grieving parent or relative about how they "feel" about a loved one who just died. Just once, instead of the tears and the "can't believe he's gone..." I would love someone to say, "Fuck 'em, he was such an ass — it couldn't have happened to a more deserving person."

If something has popped up online and is going viral, you can count on one of the newscasts showing it with the disclaimer that they "could not verify" if the full court shot/cat on a skate/pretty shot of the Northern Lights taken from Kansas/six miles of trash washed up on shore, "is authentic." But it shows they are hip (and love free content).

Similarly, the news taps into social media to harvest Twitter and Facebook posts that "illuminate" the story they are covering. Matters not whether whoever posted the comments knows what the hell they are talking about. Matters only that in this way, too, does the network show it is "contemporary."

Even though there is serious trouble virtually all over the African continent, you likely won't hear much about it if a celebrity goes into (or comes out of) rehab, gets hurt in an accident or calls it quits with their current significant other. Or if one of the royal babies catches a cold.

Although it is impossible to cover all of the news in just 22 minutes, that does not stop the nets from using an invaluable three or four minutes to tell the “feel-good" story at the broadcast's end. If you have done something remarkable for kids with diseases, vets, the handicapped or the homeless, your story will send the audience off with a "warm feeling" that perhaps the world is not such a bad place after all.

Increasingly, yes it is. But you won't know why just by watching TV.