Frank Stanton

Frank Stanton, a pioneer of network television, a champion of the press' rights to oversee government, and a businessman who sometimes got in the way of the newsmen under him, passed away on Christmas Eve at 98 years old. Like the old guard of diverse, albeit opinionated and sometimes wrong newsmen, Stanton refused to depart life in the 80s and 90s despite the evolution of television into a more specialized and personalized form of entertainment. Now in 2006, the 6 o'clock news is dead.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because the internet provides more accurate information (via the ability to check multiple sources instantly) and because not all stories interest all people. With the internet, podcasts, specialized TV/radio channels and a plethora of other information vehicles, we can pay attention to the stories that interests us, and not waste time watching overconfident newsmen tell us their spin (or more accurately, their network's spin) on that same story. But the quest for personally gratifying information can also be problematic.

The one time I met Mr. Stanton, a lunch in Boston with him and my mom, he asked me what newspapers I read. I thought it a funny question; at that time, my newspaper was the sports section and the rest was recycling. I stuttered out a smattering of newspapers and magazines I figured were important (but didn't read), recognizing that I didn't read enough to meet his standards but not realizing why it mattered. Now I think I know why this question is important.

The question had nothing to do with newspapers; the question had to do with interests and information. By only reading the San Francisco Chronicle sports section, I was educating myself plenty about the Oakland A's, San Francisco 49ers and college sports, but I was narrowing my focus so that everything else was a blur. I knew nothing about business news (I found the topic boring), cared little about international affairs (except for what my teachers at school told me), had a scant knowledge of art (despite playing classical piano for over 14 years), etc. etc. Why? Because I wasn't interested. I was more interested in whether Jason Giambi would win the MVP for my beloved Oakland A's, and so I read about it.

There is something to be gained from having knowledge of other fields besides our "interests." First, we can't really know what else interests us if we never try. I cared little about Latin American politics, and never read about them - until one day this summer in China, exhausted from studying and no-one I could speak English with, I opened my crumpled Economist magazine and grudgingly read my final two unread articles about Latin America because it was better than another four hours of writing Chinese characters. Now, I look forward to the "Americas" section.

However, more importantly there is good to be gained when a lot of people know a little about a lot of things. In passing, conversations can be more fun and it's easier to learn faster. Most importantly, however, it helps people understand other people better. It's easy to simplify without knowledge; it's hard to have knowledge and be simpleminded. The marvel of ignorance is helped along by the boring cliche about bliss (yet contradicted by knowledge and power); however, it's my opinion that stupidity is not a prudent life-choice nor an achievement to be admired.

Unfortunately, there is little knowledge to be gleaned nowadays from watching network or cable news. It is narrow-minded, safe and boring - an ironic kudos to Fox News notwithstanding, not for good coverage, but for giving the downward spiral of news a sideways kick in the knees - with predictable stories and solemn, robotic anchors (juxtaposed with eccentric, loud and crooked statistics-wielding "news" pundits). Network and cable news resembles an old, unrefreshed page of AP or Reuters news that has been stuck on your web browser for half a day: World coverage of gruesome death tolls, outbreaks, disasters; national news of politicos and their scripted statements to the press; local news of the recent shootings, robberies, and girl scouts. No analysis, superficial facts. Pundits resemble the opposite; screaming caricatures with obvious agendas, who will predictably rant about whatever news was on earlier seen through the lens of their political leaning.

There is an audience waiting for the return of real news. The explosion of NPR is an ironic return to broad-based news coverage with ample analysis and opinionated, yet scholarly, discussion. It's ironic because NPR itself is a niche existing with thousands of others; it's a return because as it grows it will leave behind the title "niche."

What we choose read/watch/listen to/whatever beyond our envelope doesn't really matter; as long as we remind ourselves that we put ourselves at a disadvantage by only caring about what we're "interested" in, and tuning the rest out. Because "interests" are often used as a rationalization and excuse for a single course of action that is a zero-sum game. Knowledge is not. Frank Stanton saw that the "interests" of news subscribed to this theory of knowledge, a theory that hasn't disappeared but has long since departed the television box.

See: Frank Stanton, in the New York Times article about his passing