Why I dislike TV1's Breakfast programme

TVNZ Breakfast programme logo

I don’t watch “Breakfast” on TV1, and haven’t done for some time.  Why I dislike the programme can be described using Aristotle’s three pillars of rhetoric;

The first is ethos.  Ethos is about the character of the presenter, how they behave, what they say and how they treat other people.  Making fun of people who are different to you is classic bullying behaviour; suggesting someone who is eminently qualified to hold a job shouldn’t have it because of their skin colour and name is simply racism; and having a middle aged man making salacious comments about younger females they find attractive is just offensive and disturbing.  Once upon a time our presenters were epitomes of gravitas, they represented how we are at our best, not our most base.

The second is logos.  I’ve probably misquoted, and I’m afraid I can’t name the source, but someone recently referred to forming an opinion based on the facts, instead of passing off opinion as fact.  The stories presented in which I had some background knowledge confirmed my belief that research and analysis – gathering the facts, forming an opinion based on fact -were not high priorities for this programme.  Research seemed to be obtaining comment from a couple of people and then editing to present a predetermined point of view (the bias being deduced from the nature of the questions).  Contrast and conflict were valued over the development of argument or analysis.  The best of our news media has created worthwhile, constructive debate; promulgated ideas, and given a voice to people who couldn’t otherwise speak for themselves.  Creating controversy shouldn’t be the end goal for the news media, it should only be a by-product of making us better informed.

The last is pathos, the appeal to our emotions.  In the absence of the above two, Breakfast relied heavily on this method of persuasion.  It aimed to bypass the forebrain and imprint itself directly on the amygdala.  Pathos is the main delivery method used in advertising, and in a sense Breakfast became an extended advertisement, where the product being sold was the programme and its presenters.  It is hardly surprising that it has high ratings: adverts are designed to appeal to us and “sell”.

That the foremost exponent of this presentation style has come to an ignominious end is in some ways quite sad.  Although his nature helped shape the end product, he existed in an environment which allowed it to happen, encouraged and amplified it, rather than controlled and moderated it.  He paid the price of many peoples failings, at TVNZ, and of the higher value we place on entertainment over information.  We used to refer to “bread and circuses” as a superficial means of appeasing the masses.  But bread has some substance and with Breakfast there was none.  In the end, all we were left with was the circus.