Edward R. Murrow is rolling in his grave
By Lance Vargas

Could someone please tell me where to find a decent news source in this day and age?

I don't know what happened in the last ten years but, with the emergence of three 24-hour news networks and three more local broadcasts, the news seems more like a video game or blockbuster movie than an informative service these days.

Granted, the networks are not as sensational as the 24-hour channels (though CBS, NBC and CBS are not entirely innocent either). However, between the once-proud-but-now-trivial, Cable News Network and its sister, Headline News, to the up-and-coming and Microsoft-influenced MSNBC to the god-awful, one-degree-away-from-tabloid-journalism drivel that is constantly spewed over at Fox News, I find myself taking the news about as serious as Soupy Sales delivering the Gettysburg address.

I seek a coverage of world or national events that is void of catchy titles that seem like they should be reserved for bad action movies on late-night HBO. "America Strikes Back," "War on Terror" and "America at War" sound more like titles of the next Chuck Norris film than phrases that should be uttered in a newscast.

And since when did the news need a name anyway? When did, "The News" becomes passé'?

I seek a decent anchorperson who refuses to draw out the syllables of their words to sound more serious and who delivers the day's events in a manner that does not resemble the narrator of a movie trailer. I want less pregnant pauses, less vocal posturing and less inflection.

Again, Rather, Jennings and Brokaw are not as guilty as the folks at CNN, Headline News, MSNBC and Fox News Channel are. Though I won't name names, many of the most obnoxious culprits of this
melodramatic speech disorder (which I'm sure is learned behavior in the training of a newscaster but still strikes an annoying chord in me) exist on Fox News Channel.

In fact, Fox News is so utterly banal, obnoxious and low-grade in their reporting that I can't devote enough ink to their bashing in this editorial alone and find it to be my duty to devote an entire article just to them (expect it in two weeks).

I seek a broadcast that does not fill it's screen with graphics. Across the bottom, in the corner and off to the side of the television screen on any given broadcast exist a number of images that serve to either draw in a channel-surfing viewer or pad the pocket of some lucky design engineer. While I understand the usefulness of these lovely computer creations, I do not accept the decision of the networks to crowd my screen with so many of them.

Headline News is the biggest offender as far as screen graphics go. Their three-tiered hammersmash of weather reports, hourly news and the ever-present station ID or "bug," make the channel utterly unmatchable. I bought my 25-inch television screen because I wanted 25 inches of television, not a myriad of words and symbols and a crowded newscaster in the corner.

The evil detestable child of the multiple graphic invasion is what's known as the "crawler" or "ticker," a steady stream of headlines that strolls across the screens of most cable channels at a perpetual and undaunted pace. In the case of stock market quotes or sports scores, I consider the crawler a necessary evil. People tune into sports news or financial news for specific events that are often best served via a crawler or ticker. What is unacceptable is when the crawler starts its little show during an ordinary newscast. Headlines come and headlines go on the crawler with nary an explanation from the oblivious newscaster who must not only compete with cutthroat colleagues but also a steady and relentless digital delivery system that absolutely will not stop.

Is anyone thinking John Henry here?

Of course, the most devilish and subliminal reason for the crawler's existence is to keep viewers who have surfed in via remote control from surfing away seconds later. Headlines function only in their entirety. If only a fraction of a headline is seen, the entire meaning could be confused. Thus, any news junkie who happens to be glancing down at the crawler will only going to catch the tail end of the headline that just ticked by. His interest peaked, said viewer will likely await the next revolution of the ticker to catch the front part of the head. It will probably come as no coincidence that the next revolution will only occur after a commercial break. Thus, what started as a split-second stop on CNN has become a 15-minute stay occupied by a constant switching of attention between the anchor and the crawler. Just don't let the head sneak by again.

Madness.

Though I am normally not old fashioned, I must say that gawdy and sensationalized news that tries to entertain people rather than inform them has driven me away from the networks and cable channels entirely.

Does anyone out there have any suggestions on how I can cope with this mayhem that passes for news? Shall I withdraw to the safe confines of PBS and the BBC? What caused the whole thing to go haywire in the first place? Help!