I love to watch Frontline, but as they've reported on areas where I know a bit more, it's become obvious how often they trade on outrage rather than detailed information.
For example, in order to really report on why prosecutions did not happen, you would think they would take some time to explain how federal law defines certain crimes. But, they never did that at all--instead they ask people for a sort of gut reaction as to whether something seemed fraudulent. But of course the word "fraud" has a number of very specific legal definitions in a number of different laws.
One could argue that that is ok, because the real point is that the language of the laws themselves allow people to get away with fraud (in a gut-check sense). But again, to make that point they would have had to get specific about what the law does and does not say.
So while I found this episode entertaining and interesting as always, I did not find it illuminating.
My biggest problem with them is that they often feel like prosecutors building a case. They lay out their arguments and pile on supporting evidence with what feels like the intent of proving things beyond a reasonable doubt. And I'm often convinced, but I never really feel like I get the defense attorney's cross-examination.
That said, it's really obvious how much work and thought goes into these. If you compare anything of this complexity against perfection, it will always come up short. But I don't know of another news show that consistently hits the level of quality that Frontline does.
Honest question: Does anyone have any suggestions for reporting they think is in the same league? I'd love to check it out.
The very best reporting is in print. A good print reporter, given the resources to investigate and write a story or series of stories, can fit much more detailed information into a smaller period of time (the time it takes you to read the story). Big newspapers, and some magazines like The New Yorker or Economist, still deliver a lot of value to society this way.
TV delivers a ton of information, but most of that information is emotional--i.e. facial expressions, tone of voice, etc. A voice on TV cannot speak facts nearly as fast as as you can read them.
For example, in order to really report on why prosecutions did not happen, you would think they would take some time to explain how federal law defines certain crimes. But, they never did that at all--instead they ask people for a sort of gut reaction as to whether something seemed fraudulent. But of course the word "fraud" has a number of very specific legal definitions in a number of different laws.
One could argue that that is ok, because the real point is that the language of the laws themselves allow people to get away with fraud (in a gut-check sense). But again, to make that point they would have had to get specific about what the law does and does not say.
So while I found this episode entertaining and interesting as always, I did not find it illuminating.
edit: forgot a word