by 
When troubadour Don McLean referred to rock 'n' roll great Buddy Holly's death on February 3, 1959, as “the day the music died,” he was crafting a metaphor about a period of remarkable innocence and idealism in American history.
McLean's lyric came to me last week while I watched, again, a movie set in the era of Buddy Holly: George Clooney's brilliant Good Night and Good Luck .
In a repeat viewing, it becomes clearer that the central conflict in Clooney's treatment of the 1950's anti-Communist panic was not between Joseph McCarthy, the fanatic red-baiting senator from Wisconsin, and CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow. The real clash, which reverberated further into the future and deeper into American culture, pitted Murrow's courageous producer, Fred W. Friendly, against CBS chief William S. Paley.
In the film, after Murrow's controversial See It Now broadcasts exposed McCarthy as a cowardly demagogue and doomed his Senate career, Paley summons Friendly into his office. There, he quietly sentences See It Now , perhaps the greatest investigative news show in TV history, to a slow but certain death. He sentences Murrow to finishing his career as the anodyne host of a celebrity interview show, Person to Person .
That meeting between Paley and Friendly occurred, although perhaps not exactly as depicted in Good Night and Good Luck . Its date might be recorded somewhere, but would be hard to pin down. Nonetheless, it deserves to be commemorated as “the day the news died,” because here was one irreversible moment when the world's most powerful and prestigious broadcast organization subordinated the news to the imperative of entertainment.
That day, Paley — a pioneer of CBS News — decided to appease the network's fretful sponsors with news less edgy, and with newsmen less enterprising than Murrow and Friendly. Adding insult to injury, he made Murrow a mere emcee, who wasted his last year on the air tossing softball questions to crooners, comedians, and movie stars.
Until Paley moved CBS News from Page One to the “style” section, the news — especially on TV — was not explicitly expected to make money, although it often did. Newspapers and magazines, throughout the 20th century, were profitable because they offered the most affordable advertising medium for most businesses. But all this profit tended to obscure a fact that today — as advertisers forsake virtually all news media — is manifestly evident. News isn't a “product,” nor is it reliably popular enough to generate the consistent sales that assure profit and reward America's insatiable shareholder class.
William Paley, in that fateful meeting, told Fred Friendly that in order for the news to survive at CBS (and, by extension into the future, in every US media organization), it had to do one thing it could not do and one thing it should not do.
The news cannot, to the satisfaction of America's constant-growth, quarterly-report, Wall Street business culture, create wealth. The news should not, at the expense of seeking the facts and informing its consumers as honestly as necessary, amuse people. The fact that it sometimes — even often — entertains is one of the reasons news continues to attract a vast audience.
News, at bottom, is a public service, required to explore aspects of a nation's life, politics, culture, and governance in ways that can be boring, disturbing, and even ghastly. News, if reported thoroughly, properly, and bravely, as Ed Murrow did, can expose realities with which no sensible advertiser wants to associate. News, done well, can be dangerous. It can get people killed.
News serves. Under the sort of tyranny that Joe McCarthy so theatrically feared, news serves the state. In a republic, news at its best serves the people and sustains democracy, without fear, favor, razzle-dazzle, or hope of wealth.
By allowing all those elements — timidity, favoritism, glitz, and worst of all, the almighty buck — to subsume broadcast journalism, Bill Paley and CBS forever altered the shape of the news, and imperilled the integrity of American democracy. We see the fruits of news-as-entertainment every day now. The latest example was a tawdry, money-soaked, and tragically information-free election campaign.
The death of the news, like “the day the music died,” is a metaphor. But Buddy Holly is really dead. And so is Edward R. Murrow, who said this: “If they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse, and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.”
Hi David,
The purpose the news is to provide factual information to the public about who, what, where, when and why. I think most media are still loyal to that format. But I do agree that some press releases are more like paid advertising than real news.
Seems these days that news reports tend to focus on the negative and very few positive stories are aired. News editors need to remember they are peforming a public service and as such should present balanced news and not covet sensationalism. In the UK the news guys also seem incapable of dropping a story when its course is run. They tend to flog things to death and beyond.
@Hospice
Well, how would they finance and maintenance if there is no paid advert than real news.
m
media houses consider news as the free service or contribution to the society
@FLYINGSCOT,
That is because good news does not sell as much as bad news.
While they don,t have to “sell” it , it makes more people to tune in but in the process spread more fear in the name of updating people about something.
@Adeniji,
I have nothing against paid ads, I was just pointing out that (true) news should not be confused with advertising. During the US presidential campaigns for instance, some media chose to advertise “their” candidates rather than presenting factual information about them.
“That is because good news does not sell as much as bad news. “
Maybe, but what people needs is information about what is happening around them and in the world. That information should be “accurate and timely, specific and organized for a purpose, presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance” . As long as the news is relevant, people will like to hear it.
But we should also think of news as everything else: time on air. And that needs to entertain, but even more important, sell. Sell ads but also, sell ideas. Its reaaaally hard to have an independent news media.
I think a common problem that most global companies face is the decision between what strategy should they go for when it comes to serving global markets. Should they consolidate their operations together to take advantage of economies of scale or should they diversify into different markets and serve the local market better from those local operations.
@Mr. Roques,
“Its reaaaally hard to have an independent news media. “
Maybe, but journalism ethics require that the news be trusworthy and accurate. Also journalists should be held to the same standards that they apply to people they cover.
What aspects of the global supply chain are easier to move back to the US?
Also, are those companies creating different products based on the market their will be selling or do they sell the same one? It would require a different supply chain (or at least, some changes).
“What aspects of the global supply chain are easier to move back to the US”
@Mr Roques: I guess it differs from industry to industry. In some industries you may be able to move the entire supply chain operations back to the US. This may not involve considerable labor or manufacturing costs. In any case, it's better to move one operation at a time rather than the entire supply chain.
What's the risk/reward for doing so?
In most industries, now that the election is over, what would motivate the manufacturers to bring operations back on-shore now?
@TaimoorZ,
“it's better to move one operation at a time rather than the entire supply chain.”
That makes sense. But won't this delay the whole “relocation” process? Some companies would like to move their operation plants faster to save time. But it depends on each company's goal or business vision.
@pocharles,
As president Obama said: “There Are Some Jobs that Are Not Going to Come Back”. But he will have to keep his promisses and make sure that his administration devise strategic plans to motivate manufacturers to bring operations back to the US. The improvement of the economy also depends on that.
I understand that but it's mostly jsut words.
What is actually going to make companies WANT to bring those jobs back?
That's why people trust the people in the news that seem to be the most standoff-ish. It makes you feel that they won't be swayed by who they are covering.
The impression I get is the jobs that come back onshore will be final-assembly-type jobs that deliver a finished product to the end-market. These might be as high-value as auto assembly or as simple as boxing and shipping. Whether or not people want these jobs depends on how bad things get: but taking a wage cut must be better than no wages at all.
Murrow is more correct than he'll ever know, and that might be a good thing. How would one explain “reality” TV to a serious journalist?
Western companies are learning that offshoring jobs en masse, while the cost savings looks favorable on the financial statements, isn't always the optimum solution when productivity, time zone, language and cultural barriers are taken into account. As wages in China continue to rise, and as search for overseas talent becomes more difficult, we can expect jobs to trickle back to the US on a case-by-case basis, but not in significant volumes.