It’s easy to parody the familiar rhythms of TV news. Perky field reporters and self-important anchors—it’s so much background noise, perfect for a “Weekend Update” sketch or “Ron Burgundy” bit.
The more serious abuses of what passes for news are harder to spot.
“The IFC Media Project,” debuting Tuesday at 6 p.m. on the Independent Film Channel (Comcast channel 503), aims to promote media literacy, inspiring younger viewers in particular to question what they see. The half-hour shows take the mainstream media to task for excesses and lapses and train viewers to detect spin.
Among the topics on the six-part series’ agenda:
The goal is admirable and the style is fresh, thanks to correspondent Gideon Yago (formerly of MTV), executive producer Meghan O’Hara (a longtime collaborator with filmmaker Michael Moore) and co-producer Nick McKinney (“The Daily Show” and Morgan Spurlock’s “30 Days”).
The execution can be problematic. As in Moore’s earlier efforts, the tone is at times terminally hip and overreaching.
O’Hara, who served as a producer on Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” “Bowling for Columbine” and “Sicko,” is the creator of “The IFC Media Project.” Her interest is encouraging consumers to look beyond the surface to decipher the agenda of what’s presented as news.
Part of being media literate is knowing the origin of a message — is it corporate or government spin? Another part is not buying every criticism of big media.
The series’ animated segments about media motivations are calculated to appeal to young viewers. A recurring “media encyclopedia” offers tips on common practices, like use of the word “allegedly.” The idea is sound: Watch with a critical eye rather than let ideas wash over you in the mesmerizing blue light of the tube.
O’Hara’s stated goal is “to give a sobering wake-up call to anyone who takes the media at face value.”
Like Moore, O’Hara serves as provocateur, urging us to be more skeptical about the steady drumbeat of what we call news.
Skepticism is great, especially in regard to corporate and government-issued pronouncements. Cynicism is not so great, when applied in such thick doses. At a certain point, the show starts to sound pedantic. Sometimes, news is what results when well-meaning people pin down and disseminate information to the best of their ability on deadline.
Like everything on TV, this project requires viewers to exercise editorial judgment.
An interview with Valerie Plame in the second episode, for instance, offers insight into the former CIA operative’s understanding of her moment in the media glare. (Her cover was blown in 2003 when information was leaked to syndicated columnist Robert Novak as payback for a story her husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson, had written that was critical of the Bush administration’s Iraq war policy.) Plame talks about the “misogyny” in the media reporting — articles hinted that a pretty blond couldn’t have been in such an important job. And she claims that Judith Miller of The New York Times served as a “stenographer” for the government in selling the war to the American public.
By contrast, an interview with Tucker Carlson, in the first episode, offers nothing more than exposure to the former MSNBC and CNN commentator’s expanded ego. Maybe that’s the point.
An interview with Morley Safer about unrestricted access in reporting the war in Vietnam is informative, particularly for that generation whose only experience with war reporting is the “embed” dispatches from Iraq. A segment on the “pro-Israel lobby’s” effect on news coverage, designed as a personal video diary, is too short to do justice to the complex subject.
Media literacy is vital. An entire population watching TV news on autopilot is dangerous for democracy. But not everything beaming from the small screen is the cynical result of evil masterminds.
Joanne Ostrow: 303-954-1830 or jostrow@denverpost.com
