Addicted to a new love

In America, we have become addicted to a new love. That phrase came to my mind this past weekend, as I watched Charlie Rose interview Fox News host Megan Kelly, on "CBS Sunday Morning." The interview was supposed to instruct me about the rift between Kelly, and the current presidential candidate, Donald Trump. What I actually learned included some startling statistics, regarding our "addiction" to the process taking place, practically every minute, of every news show on television.

Thirty years ago, English musician Robert Palmer, released a single record titled, "Addicted to Love." Here are the words from the chorus of that song....

"Whoa, you like to think that you're immune to the stuff, oh yeah

"It's closer to the truth to say you can't get enough

"You know you're gonna have to face it, you're addicted to love"

I contend, that just like those lyrics, millions of Americans, "can't get enough," and are addicted to political news. During the interview with Kelly, they presented some serious and intellectually provoking thoughts and statistics that back up my theory.

The first statistic leads us to the famous old saying, "money is at the root of all evil!" By most estimates, the value placed on the advertising dollars that will be spent on political news coverage, from the time the primaries began, to the end of the elections cycle, will likely be at least $10 billion!

The second group of stats that caught my attention, involved the age groups, that view, or as I might claim, are addicted to political news. Here were the estimates, the average age of conservative Fox News viewers for their political news shows, is 67. The more left leaning MSNBC network viewers came in at age 64. The reputedly more moderate CNN followers displayed an average age of 65. Perhaps the most surprising information was the stat for the young people under the age of 45. They rarely watch any of these news offerings.

Each of us can interpret this information in our own way, but here are my thoughts. When using the term addiction, this is the dictionary definition ... "the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming ... to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma."

The networks have learned that millions of Americans are addicted to the election process. If you turn on any of the three above mentioned news networks, a significant amount of their regular programming is dedicated to this election season. The last thing the networks want right now is for either party to complete their decision, on who will represent them in November's election.

If you are selling the advertising for your shows, you must provide the buyers of those ads with evidence, that viewers are watching your show. It is not a stretch of the imagination therefore, to say that the best thing for network news, would be to have no candidates in the process, have the nominations wrapped up before the conventions later this summer.

Should that happened, the countless hours of minute-by-minute coverage, would no longer be feasible. Even on the Democratic Party side of the process, they are keeping two candidates viable, for as long as they can. A protracted election season is simply good for business.

They are betting that Americans are so "addicted," that nothing will prevent their tuning in to watch. Imagine the alternative, where for example, Trump and Clinton have their respective nominations secured? What would these same massive news organizations offer their advertisers, to prove that viewers were still interested?

Currently, political news coverage is so compelling, that the hosts almost seem apologetic, when they have to alter their programming, to cover anything else. Heaven help them if there is some huge news story besides politics. They grudgingly cover terrorist attacks, plane crashes, or school shootings. The advertisers want their ads to be viewed by political junkies, not viewers interested in current events.

In that segment on CBS, they referred to the way things used to be. For example, back when Walter Cronkite was the news anchor for CBS, news shows were a losing proposition, in terms of dollars. News was considered a public service. Shows like the "Beverly Hillbillies," earned the advertising dollars, so that news could be provided to the public.

Today, the business of television has turned 180 degrees. Twenty-four hours news, in particular political news, brings in more money than almost any other programming. They target their ads to the age groups that are addicted to politics.

I was relieved to discover that most, younger Americans, rarely watch any network political news. In interviews with them, they indicated their utter distrust of these news media giants. They garner most of their news, via their smart phones. I'm not sure if that is a good thing or not, but it is a proven fact.

I had already become numb to the coverage of this "circus" of a political season, months before I watched the Rose/Kelly segment. As I told several friends, I find these never ceasing 24-hour productions, akin to "overkill." These same statistics regarding money and age put my lack of interest in perspective. Here is the real question. "Is this current political news coverage, providing viewers with facts, positions, and plans, or is it simply programming, designed to whet our addictive daily need for a political "fix?"

Most of us already decided long ago, who we would vote for in a primary or general election. Why then, do we watch endless hours of coverage of political wrangling that in the end will not change our minds?

Isn't the answer to that obvious? The programmers of network news have learned that most of us are "addicted to the love of politics." They are wagering that you don't have enough sense to turn them off. Ask yourself, "Am I addicted to political news?"