The News "Panel" Has to Change

The Point/Counterpoint Model Disserves Us All

Quick question: How much of the budget is Foreign Aid in the United States Budget FY2025? $500 Billion? $750 Billion? A trillion?

Actually, it’s only $58.5 Billion, or less than Elon Musk lost in a single day last week. This is down from $71 Billion the year before, higher due to more aid sent to Ukraine. Combined, that’s less than Elon Musk lost in two days last week.

You’d be forgiven if you thought it was substantially more, since the news regularly discusses foreign aid and there are disproportionate volumes of time dedicated to it. Most Americans genuinely couldn’t give you a good answer on how much is spent on various areas of the federal government. You want to know why? It’s NEVER reported in that context. Instead, we get partisan melodrama on panel shows as they discuss cuts or increases here or there. At one point this past week, I saw two partisan hacks arguing about aid to Ukraine, and I was completely aware of the fact neither had ever served in the armed services, neither had ever worked for in the Foreign Service, and neither (as far as I could tell) had ever had a job outside the partisan political commentariat.

This is not news, it’s politibabble. One reason they do this is to maintain “story balance” and “remove bias.” However, refusing to have a learned expert opinion on to discuss a topic specifically because they are unbiased hamstrings actually informing the public; putting a news reporter on as an analyst basically two sidesing the issue does a disservice to the topic, the news and skews the overall picture of the current situation. That’s not news, it’s indifference to the audience. It’s also cheap, increases the reporter’s “brand” and draws ratings, which is the reason news channels do it.

Roughly 1/2 to 2/3 of hour long news programs are dedicated to panel discussions or focused on political analysis by talking heads under contract to the networks. In other words, more than half of a news show is dedicated to opinion, not the news itself. Worse yet, the opinions are not from experts, but often from paid political operatives trying to slant the conversation one way or another, or news personalities boosting their on screen time.

The reasons news networks stay with this format are basic economics really:

• They are exceptionally cheap to produce. Much cheaper than gathering news.

• Using partisan hacks help ingratiate news networks with the parties giving them access.

• Keeping partisan commentators on salary helps maintain audience familiarity with the personas and allows the audience to identify with various personalities they agree with regularly, keeping ratings steady.

• It allows them to repurpose high paid journalists on salary as “political analysts”¹ in other segments throughout the day and week, getting more for their money. ²

And of course, there are all sorts of ways the format is slanted or derailed all too easily:

• Networks that want to put their thumb on the scale just need to give their favored speaker more time, or put them up against a less articulate opponent to debate. Call it the Fox News “Hannity and Colmes” model. Nobody remembers Colmes.

• Give the person whose opinion you don’t like less time to speak, and put them in a position where they are defending more often rather than offering suggestions on the topic.

• People with less of an argument just talk over the other panelists. It’s been said that in court, if neither the law nor the facts are in your favor, pound the table. That’s what these people do, rather than give just an inch.

• Weight the panelists. Have three on one side of an argument and one person playing defense. Call it the Fox News “The Five” model.³

• Instead of focusing on the underlying issues, focus on how those issues are covered in the news media and by others. This is the “Reliable Sources” model.

The end result is that we get less informed, with people not talking about the actual issues or underlying facts, but rather on horserace politics, partisan gibberish and hollow nonsense. As a test, the next time you watch a panel show, count the number of times someone says “I think…” or some variant of it. That’s the identifier of opinion right there. News should be reserved for things people KNOW.

Ways to Fix the Format

These networks all think that they have to keep the same standards and that this is what the audience wants. It’s NOT. There are easy fixes for this that can help provide a better all alround product for the news starved public.

• Shift the focus from opinion to actual news gathering and information. There is way too much “I think…” on these programs and not enough knowledgeable people offering actual insight into events and news.

• People associated with campaigns or political consultants should not be on as panelists. That goes for FORMER staffers or partisan representatives as well. Too often they talk around subjects and get bogged down in the tit-for-tat style of discussions. News should not be a debate 24/7. There’s information gathering and then there’s arguing—there’s been too much focus on the arguing.

• Instead, replace them with specialists and experts in areas where the policies are impacted. They are much more likely to provide actual information on subjects instead of partisan claptrap. Need to discuss housing? Have a housing specialist. Need to discuss climate change, have a climate scientist. Need to discuss veterans, actually have a veteran on discussing their experiences. There is absolutly zero reason you should have Scott Jennings or Van Jones discussing the war in Ukraine or having Kasie Hunt give an analysis on Immigration Policy. None of them are experts on those issues.

• Stop giving talking heads so much money. You want to know something? They’d do it for cheaper because they would do it just for the exposure. If you’re worried about someone walking to another network, let them walk. They’re not interested in news. There really is no reason to put half the pundits network have on on the air.

• Stop focusing on polls so much. Polls are a sugar high that get too much into a horse race style analysis. These are never covered accurately because there is a “margin of error” associated with every poll, and the way these “statisticians” usually cover them is that a small change of 1-2 points (within the margin of error) is usually covered as statistically significant. It’s not.

• Use a Mute Button. Panels don’t have to devolve to the point they sound like vocal versions of terrible online discourse. Mute buttons help remove from the discussion unwieldy decorum and should be used. Cut the mic on people attempting to interrupt others as a means to derail the conversation. Shorten faithless arguments that are not legitimate ideas but are actually thinly veiled versions of obfuscation and changing the subject.

• Refuse to put on people who regularly mislead, disrupt, or have senseless arguments. There is no reason Scott Jennings should be on CNN. There is no reason Al Sharpton should be on Morning Joe. There is no reason Hannity should be on TV at all.⁴

I genuinely wish networks would consider these options. Alas, I feel like these suggestions will fall on deaf ears and will go absolutely nowhere. There is too much money at stake and too little reason to change. It’s a pity, becuase their version of news is what gave us the most polarized political environment in modern American history and the election of a raving incompent as President.

PurpleAmerica’s Cultural Corner

The single best takedown of this format was done by Jon Stewart over two decades ago. In one show, he not only demonstrated how terrible the format is, but broke out exactly why and expressed our frustrations at it. The very corrossiveness “is hurting America.” For those youngins out there that have never watched this, or those that have and just want a good laugh again, please take the time and watch. It’s criticism perfection.

What is particularly frustrating about this, is that whenever Stewart starts to talk, if either Begala or Carlson don’t like the reponse they begin to talk over him, cut him off, and give him no room to provide an idea. Watch how many times they’re trying to get their digs at each other in, and don’t even care what Stewart’s response is. He’s not a “guest” on the show so much as he is someone for them to bounce their ideas off of, and you can see Stewart continually get angry at it, particularly when he called Tucker Carlson a “dick.”⁵

PurpleAmerica’s Obscure Fact of the Day

“Meet the Press” is the longest running show on network television, with it’s first episode dating back to November 6, 1947. It had actually premiered two years earlier as a radio program.

The concept was to give Legislative and Administration professionals an opportunity to discuss important current topics of discussion on a national news program. People didn’t pay that much attention to the partisanship of the person they had on, they just listened and absorbed what was being discussed and occassionally debated in a panel format.

In 2023, longtime host Chuck Todd, who was regularly lambasted for “platforming” various Republican leaders he had on his show, resigned. I feel stupid for having to say this, but that is and has always actually been the concept of the show, not just for Republicans, but Democrats too. Todd recently left NBC News altogether. His biggest complaint was how partisan siloed the political news world was becoming.

PurpleAmerica’s Final Word on the Subject

“It would be hard to top this group, in terms of absurdity.”

—Jon Stewart in the video above talking about the George W. Bush Administration in 2004.

Sorry Jon, I have some really bad news on that front.

LIKE WHAT YOU SEE? MAKE SURE TO SUBSCRIBE AND SHARE!!!

Footnotes and Fun Stuff

1. Either they are journalists or they are political analysts; it’s rare for people to straddle that line effectively, if at all.

2. The most ridiclous example of this was one time during the election last year, I saw the same commentator on MSNBC, a paid Democratic political pundit, every hour during the day from 8 in the morning until 6 pm that evening.

3. Kudos to Jessica Tarlov, who actually does a good job of defending four on one and even offering good barbs at the vacuousness of the rest of the panel from time to time.

4. But that’s FOX for you.

5. Carlson has only become more of a dick since then, actually sucking up to Putin and claiming Russia is some sort of paradise.