Thirty-five years ago, there were three major news networks on television: ABC, CBS, and NBC. Each city had its own newspaper that was printed at the same time each day, sometimes with an evening or other extra edition that covered the news of a set period of time. In 1996, cable news experienced a shift with the establishment of CNN and the network’s coverage of the First Gulf War, where CNN reporters were on the ground in vital locations such as Baghdad, even after President Bush advised the media that the area was too dangerous for their presence. FOX News and MSNBC both appeared soon after, and the control of the big three networks began to fall apart. These networks had the dedication and resources to cover international news through offices and contacts around the globe. The demand for coverage, for information, increased. The Huffington Post put a name to it: infomania. In order to keep viewers interested between bits of facts pertaining to the current story, networks created new segments, such as interviews with supposed experts and opinionated dialogue by the news anchors. Soon, networks were airing just as much opinion as they were airing fact.The twenty-four-hour news cycle was born and grew with those who are coming of age now in the late 2010s.
Then came the heyday of the Internet and social media. After years of development by various platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, news for the younger generation now comes overwhelmingly through social media. Student or other youth authors voice their opinions through websites such as the Odyssey or its competitors. You can view two to four-minute clips of video that will cover most of the information you’ll need to know about a news event. What’s great about this system, and the shift away from the twenty-four-hour cable news network, is that we’re no longer reliant on the main networks to give us our news. This opens up the opportunity for small news outlets to get their stories and perspectives out--stories and perspectives the main networks may have ignored.
A recent example of this is the coverage of the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline. Protests have been going on for months. Despite this, it has taken a considerable amount of time before any news outlet reported on it. Now, even TIME magazine has published a piece describing the crisis faced by Native American peoples are again faced with an 1800s manifest destiny style proposal from the United States to allow the pipeline to desecrate their lands and raise health and safety concerns for the community's drinking water. They even make note of the fact that the pipeline was moved away from a previously proposed route near the primarily white town of Bismark. Pushed by smaller news outlets, a major magazine was able to use its resources to get the story out to the mainstream audience. Without the influence of the small press, we perhaps wouldn't have any mainstream coverage of this event.
The nomination of Hillary Clinton as the first female presidential candidate in American history is a huge event. She is in a position that would have been impossible, even just a decade ago. Many smaller outlets were able to cover the facts of her election. FOX news, one of the most watched news networks in the nation, took a different angle on the situation. They seemed to be more interested in the matching blue pantsuits worn by Clinton and Senator Elizabeth Warren. This sort of sexist coverage was broadcast to the masses, helping to perpetuate the over-stressed importance of feminine beauty.
My generation receives unending critique for our consumption of social media. I, for one, am glad that we are able to voice our opinions on a variety of platforms and hear a variety of perspectives. We have access to information outside the mainstream, allowing us to take the time to inform ourselves on what we deem important and form our own opinions instead of watching and listening to the opinions of mainstream news anchors.
