Age, news loses value

The debate between ABC and CBS about whether Ted Koppel and his news show, “Nightline,” should be replaced by David Letterman has brought out some most puzzling aspects of television executives’ views of American society. One of the principal reasons given by ABC for taking Koppel out of the prized late night slot was that he is too old and no longer can attract a prime market segment, i.e. viewers from the age of 25 to 40. Koppel is 62.

I have been particularly struck by this because I think it does represent one of the more unfortunate aspects of our current culture: the search for perpetual youth, the repudiation of those who are not young, and the concomitant fear of growing old.

In many other cultures, such as Chinese, age is believed to bring with it both wisdom and experience, and the older members of society are honored, revered and looked to by the young for advice. Those who have survived past youth and middle age are seen to be an important social asset. But this not widely believed by many in our society, apparently including those who control major television networks.

I suspect that in a more traditional culture someone like Koppel would be treasured for his many years of service and for all of his knowledge. In our culture, he is seen by some as used up and out of date.

Indeed, this attitude against aging and those beyond youth has, in recent decades, necessitated that the laws of this country be changed to protect those who are older. It is illegal to discriminate against an individual because of age. Anyone over the age of 40 is entitled to such protection against age discrimination. I must confess that I find it both sad and rather ironic that our Congress felt it was necessary to provide protection for people over 40, an age many of us would consider not to be properly categorized as old.

In a like vein, mandatory retirement rules based on age have been outlawed for most jobs. These laws recognize that older Americans have a great deal to offer to their employers and to society at large and that they should not be forced into early retirement simply because they have reached a certain age. The fact that we have had to create such legal protection for those over 40 suggests clearly the lack of respect our society has for these individuals.

One does not need legal rules unless there is a problem. That age is a problem in the United States is itself very troubling. There seems little doubt that the ABC executives who wanted to replace Koppel with Letterman (who is himself over 50) was based, in large part, on their judgement that Koppel was too old to appeal to a younger viewing audience.

One might wonder why we continue as a society to pursue youth and fear age. I suspect that one of the reasons is that our society, to a very large extent, is unable to accept that death is a fact of life and that instead of recognizing that all of us must die one day, we try to avoid thinking about death and to do so, we try to pretend that we will not grow old. One way to do this is never to be confronted by the elderly. Thus, the last thing we want, or so some think, is to see signs of age on our television personalities. I think, however, that in our relentless pursuit of youth we will lose an enormous amount.

A second issue in the debate about the fate of “Nightline” was whether there should be a late-night news broadcast on network television. In addition to the fact that some television executives believe that Koppel is too old to appeal to the young, they also seem to believe that younger Americans aren’t interested in the news any more and would prefer, instead, to see another comedian chatting with celebrities. If this is right, this is a terrible indictment of modern American society.

As I write this column, it is six months after the tragedy of Sept. 11. That day, hundreds of millions of people around the world sat by their televisions and radios and watched and listened as the terrible events of that day unfolded. For months after we were all “news junkies.” Now we are told that normalcy is returning. Yet we are still at war. People are dying around the world, and every one of us needs to understand what is going on. Does a return to normalcy mean that we are to forget about the world and turn our back on the news? Are we to spend our time listening to bad jokes and hearing about the antics of vapid celebrities?

Our future as a country depends upon having an informed public. Our dearest freedom, freedom of speech, exists in order to foster debate and the free exchange of information. Do we no longer care about such things? Should we believe the network moguls who tell us that people under 40 don’t care about the news or current events?

I believe that they are wrong. I hope that they are wrong. For the sake of our country, they must be wrong, wrong that we do not value age and experience and wrong that we don’t care about the world around us. Our future depends on it.

For the time being, because David Letterman, decided not to move, “Nightline” and Ted Koppel remain on the air. Let us hope that he continues to do so and that more serious news presented by experienced adults also finds its way onto television. Otherwise the networks may soon, indeed, become the refuge of what H.L. Mencken referred to as the “booboisie.”


 Mike Hoeflich is a professor in the Kansas University School of Law.