"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSpunky journalist Holly Hunter produces investigative news reports for a major news network. She's a motor-mouthed maverick, dazzlingly good at her job and with little time for romantic relationships. Enter William Hurt and Albert Brooks, two men who vie for her love.
Brooks is an old school journalist who adores Holly because she represents everything good about journalism. They both believe that the media exists to test the Gods, educate the public and fight for truth. Children of the sixties, they embody hippie values. They're defenders of the public good. Knights who fight valiantly with pen and camera.
William Hurt, in contrast, is a far more complex character. Initially awkward, clumsy and self-depreciating, he gradually reveals himself to be a sexy and manipulative high achiever, skilled at climbing the corporate ladder. Unlike Holly and Brooks, he's symbolic of modern media values: news as spectacle, journalism as entertainment, news anchor as celebrity, truth as subject to editing board. We want to despise him and his blip-time junk food journalism, but we just can't quite manage it. He's playing the game by its own rules. Do we condemn him for lacking a moral backbone? Do we condemn the game? Can the game exist if its rules are disobeyed? How have these rules evolved?
This isn't Lumet's and Chayefsky's \"Network\", and so the film never bothers to answer or raise these questions. Content to keep things on the level of light comedy, it ends with Hurt being promoted to London Division and Brooks being booted to a tiny community network. Holly, having rejected both men, remains caught between them. The last bastion of media integrity, this spunky reporter remembers her roots, mourns the loss of Brooks and warns herself to be on the guard of future William Hurts.
It's a cute ending, but compared to \"Network\" the film seems positively trite. Chayefsky's vision is one in which global media, despite its ubiquity, offers less meaningful information. He foresees a world in which globalisation has homogenized cultures, information has become subject to corporatisation and a handful of media monopolies control all international news. This is a world in which the truth is subject to shareholder meetings and economic interests. A world in which viewer ratings determine content and opinion polls dictate top stories.
Perhaps this is why \"Broadcast News\", which longs for the glory days of journalism, ends on such a bittersweet note. It knows what the future holds. Made in 1987, its been living it for at least a decade.
But today, in the digital age, things are even worse. Mergers and acquisitions have left a very small number of massive firms dominating the communication landscape. With this has come the hyper-commercialism of content, the barrier between the creative/editorial side and the commercial side all but collapsed. Today everyone might be able to start their own blog or website, but these are grass roots affairs. As the communication reach of the individual increases (due to technological progress - email, internet, electricity, air mail etc) the size of the individual's world increases likewise. He must project his voice both further and louder, futilely battling that deafening white noise, the incessant verbal static that is the global community.
So ultimately you need two things according to democratic theory. Firstly, you need a rigorous coming of people in power and people who want to be in power, both in the private and public sector. Secondly, you need a wide range of informed opinions on all important issues of the day. In a democratic society the media system as a whole should produce this sort of culture. Unfortunately, the structure we currently have in the global system works directly against the needs of democratic journalism and a democratic society.
8/10  This is lightweight stuff, but a witty script, some funny moments and a brief cameo by Jack Nicholson, elevate it above most other films about journalism. Interestingly, unlike most films about the media, it never dips into satire, and instead plays things as a straight love triangle.
Worth one viewing.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"