Is the Clinton scandal gripping the nation, or is there just nothing better on TV?

A couple of days ago I turned on my tube and found that the Lewinsky-Tripp phone tapes are being broadcast live.

Personally, I hope none of my phone conversations are ever broadcast anywhere.

I probably don’t have to worry because I rarely talk for more than four minutes without reciting a dirty Irish limerick unacceptable for television.

But honestly, I don’t know if anyone’s phone conversations are ever interesting enough to be broadcast in their entirety. I guess since the Chairman of the Board is dead we have to look for entertainment in strange new places.

So I wasn’t surprised this morning when I turned on my TV to find every channel save Animal Planet and The Nashville Network was covering the Clinton Impeachment hearings. If it wasn’t for the re-runs of Crook n’ Chase I would have had nothing to watch.

Because I sure as hell don’t want to watch the Starr testimony.

Let’s face it — the Clinton sex thing stopped being entertaining months ago.

Which is really a shame. I mean, we’re the land of Hollywood; can’t we even make a sex scandal more interesting?

I mean, there’s a lot of really dirty stuff involved in this story. But when I hear about it from these stiff Washington types, it just doesn’t do anything for me.

Why not let Barry White read aloud anything dealing with intimate encounters between the president and Monica? And the damn courtroom just isn’t sensual enough. Couldn’t they at least put up some red velvet and turn on a lava lamp?

Once they put this on TV, they were purporting it as to having entertainment value. I’m just suggesting that they go all the way with it.

And what’s with the one camera shot on Starr the whole time? Don’t these people watch MTV? These days it’s all about low angles and flashing lights.

Speaking of MTV, the hearings could use a thumping soundtrack of today’s hottest alterna-hits. They could even sell them on a compilation: Starr Jams, Vol. 1.

Maybe what I’m saying seems ridiculous, but I really don’t think it’s much more obscene than what has already gone on, and I’m not just talking about the Clinton thing.

The news cannot be put forth as entertainment without creating a significant amount of bias. And it seems to me that in the last few years the news has, more often than ever, been presented as entertainment.

How does the network or even your local affiliate select what will be on the nightly news?

It’s not necessarily the most important thing going on — it’s the thing the most people will watch.

Ever noticed if the network shows a made-for-TV movie about an earthquake or some disease, that same night your local news will run a feature on how likely those events are to happen in your area.

Is an outbreak of cholera any more newsworthy than it was the day before? No.

The only reason the story is running is to drum up interest in the network.

Once you start using the news to gain more viewers or sell more Tide, any position you take as an agent of truth is just an arbitrary line in the sand.

“But Ben, doesn’t everyone have some kind of a hidden agenda?”

Yes Sal, they do. But it’s important to be aware of exactly what is motivating the news that you watch.

I’m not going to say that National Public Radio is a virgin beacon of truth, but it’s pretty damn close.

Compared to most other places you’re going to find news, it has very little corporate involvement and isn’t locked too heavily into competition with any other agency.

NBC not only wants you to know the truth, they want to make damn sure you learn it from Tom Brokaw and not that bastard Peter Jennings.

So just remember to take your truth with a grain of salt.

And have yourself a merry little Thanksgiving.

---

Ben Godar is a junior in sociology from Ames.