Mass media’s mission is not providing quality information; it’s about winning a competition for your attention.

This hypothesis is made clear in this article which appeared on the front page of The New York Times last week.  With the loss of several staple anchors in the last couple of years (one to lung cancer another to an Iraqi IED) there appears to be a substantial power vacuum in the world of evening news.  No longer is NBC the head-hauncho of night time information, their ratings have slipped to rival company ABC and now the networks are shifting around lineups trying to figure out how to keep enough viewers to stay at the top.

What I find really interesting about this article is the way in which the New York Times describes the current situation of its contemporary news outlets.  It’s interesting because as one mass media program evaluates the situation of another, we can witness a kind of psychological analysis of how mass media views itself. 

What I am talking about is based off of George Lakoff’s work with conceptual metaphors.  A detailed inspection of how language creates specific impressions, assumptions, and mental images when a certain word is used. 

In this example, The New York Times is a news outlet reporting about another news outlet, and so their insight, as a contemporary of the mass media they are reporting about lends perspective as to how mass media conceptualizes itself.  Let’s look at what words The New York Times uses to describe the current situation in evening news …

“Dominance, race, challenged, scored, victory, fallout, successor, supremacy, double victory”

This language sounds appropriate for a commentator on ESPN or for the Super bowl, but this article is referring to the media which is supposed to provide millions of people with factual news, not quality entertainment.  What the New York Times article shows us is that the priority of major news networks is beating out their competition.  They conceptualize their existence as a competitive market and it would follow that they believe that their ratings are the most important thing at stake. In the background I can hear Ricky Bobby yell "If you're not first, your're last!" 

At some point this mentality would be acceptable, if the focus of these news networks was to increase ratings by improving their ability to deliver accurate news, but the changes being made are aesthetic in nature.  Undoubtedly changing the face of the anchor does not affect the accuracy of the reporting, but that is precisely the networks response.         

What is at stake for news networks is $500 million dollars in advertising and the reason for the competitive mentality.  They will do whatever is necessary, changing faces, flashy graphics, music, makeup and plastic surgery – anything to make you watch.

There needs to be a serious adjustment to the mission of mass media.  It is not the entertainment industry.  I say we need a mass media news market where advertisements are left for the Super bowl.