The WHCD is a tradition which goes way back. Basically, the idea was that for one night a year, the media would call a truce with the politicians they supposedly ruthlessly cover like bulldogs, and they would all get together for a few drinks, some heavy petting and more drinks. An honorable tradition... wink wink.
But now, sadly, things have gone off-kilter. See, at one point, this was just journalists and a few politicians trading favors in darkened restrooms and coat closets. But now, Hollywood has gotten into the act. Thus, luminaries like Tom Brokaw are upstaged by Lindsay Lohan (right). . . which made poor Tom denounced the WHCD.
Poor Tom, what has become of his noble profession.
Ok, enough facetiousness. Let’s state the obvious: this whole idea is rotten to the core. The theory behind journalism is that journalists are unbiased reporters of all the ugly things that powerful people don’t want told. Indeed, being unbiased and avoiding the appearance of bias is such a big deal that it’s part of their code of ethics. It’s also the excuse they use for horrible misconduct like the guy Bev reported about who watched someone get killed by a train rather than helping or for being disloyal, like when Mike Wallace claimed he would not warn US soldiers “if he learned the enemy troops with which he was traveling were about to launch a surprise attack on an American unit.” Apparently, his duty as a journalist comes first... humanity and loyalty come second.
So how can journalists be unbiased and avoid the appearance of bias if they attend a big old get-together with the people they’re supposedly covering so mercilessly? They can’t and they know that, but they still try to justify it.
Take for example, Roger Simon of Politico, who lashed out at those attacking the ethics of those who attend the WHCD. He notes that this is just a party and it’s no different than singing the Star Spangled Banner at the ballpark. Really? So let me ask this... assume that Fox News held such a shindig for conservative politicians, do you think Simon would just excuse that as a party and being no different than singing the Star Spangled Banner? I doubt it. He’d be attacking the ethics of Fox News.
The New York Times has taken a strange, hypocritical stance on this dinner. They used to sponsor a table, but now they don’t. According to the Times:
“[W]e came to the conclusion that it had evolved into a very odd, celebrity-driven event that made it look like the press and government all shuck their adversarial roles for one night of the year, sing together (literally, by the way) and have a grand old time cracking jokes. It just feels like it sends the wrong signal to our readers and viewers, like we are all in it together and it is all a game. It feels uncomfortable.”Interesting. So the problem is that this creates the appearance of bias because it makes it look like journalists and politicians are all playing a game together... YET it wasn’t a problem until all the celebrities started showing up and people started seeing what was going on. In other words, secret violations of ethics aren’t violations of ethics. Incidentally, the Times won’t criticize anyone who goes because they always protect their friends.
This is yet another dagger in the heart of the public’s perception of the media. According to a Pew Poll, 80% of the public thinks journalists are influenced by powerful people or organizations, 77% think they favor one side, 72% think they try to cover up their mistakes, and 63% think journalists are biased. Do you think attending this party will help or hurt those perceptions?
As an aside, here are some other interesting findings from Pew. Apparently, 46% of CNN’s coverage and 45% of Fox’s coverage in 2012 was devoted to news. The rest was opinion. Pew thinks that’s bad because it means the public is less information and it used to be well above 50%. Oh... and I should mention that MSNBC was examined too. They didn’t do so well: 15% news, 85% opinion. No wonder their audiences are idiots.
Here are some other things you may find interesting about the media:
● There are now 40,000 fewer employees in newsrooms than in 1978.None of this bodes well for the media. On the plus side, it does seem to open the door for whoever is smart enough to seize the market the media is abandoning.
● Local TV news coverage of government politics has been halved since 2000.
● One in three people reported that they stopped going to particular news sources because they felt they no longer offered them the news they were used to getting.
● In 2012, only 27% of statements about candidates records were from news reporters, the rest came from partisan talkers, which is a complete reversal of 2000, when 67% came from reporters.
Thoughts?
50 comments:
Obama sure came across as a jerk at the dinner. It's funny how all of his "self-deprecating" jokes actually make fun of the people who disagree with him.
The supposedly adversarial relationship between reporters and the subjects they cover has never been a rule of thumb (reporters like all humans have their likes and dislikes, which colors all that they do) so I don't care if the relationships are open or covert.
There's no ratings (for the network) or glory (for the reporter) in real reporting since nowadays its common for talking heads to focus on the facts other people have dug up.
Americans tune in to overtly partisan talking heads they trust so those talking heads can tell them what is important and what to think. The people who generate the news are both much more expensive (real reporting costs time, effort and money) and less watched.
Also, I don't see much difference between news reporters and partisan talkers. The talkers pick which stories they regurgitate for their herds, but the news reporters pick which stories they cover.
Some organization which decided to focus on the hard news space networks are abandoning would just be providing grist for the other guy's mills.
It just feels like it sends the wrong signal to our readers and viewers,
They key phrase. There is no expression by The NY Times that they feel the WHCD is itself wrong, only that it looks bad. If anything, they are telling their fellows to tone it down, it's starting to look bad. That's what I'm inclined to believe, as most print journalism nowadays seems written primarily for other journalists.
Anthony, I think you should care whether the relationships b/w pols and journos are open or covert. You may personally possess the savvy to determine bias regardless, but it's not a common trait. I'm not saying people are stupid, but we are all credulous at default. If you don't care about that, you essentially don't care if people are deceived. I don't know if you are really as blasé as you project or if you're just doing it for the shock value. I think you truly must care or you wouldn't be engaged.
tryanmax,
I'm not claiming to be especially media savvy. My point is that the relationships between the press and those they cover have always been there. Open bias bothers me less than covert bias.
'Yellow journalism' is a term as old as newspapers and we know that through its history the media has pushed the public in the directions the media wanted it to go (they had an easier time of it in the past back when there were a lot fewer media outlets and a couple guys could make deals in backrooms).
Bear in mind, I'm not claiming the media controls the world or anything (I'd argue they are less powerful now than ever before due to the range of media sources on offer) but their coverage has and does influence thinking.
Andrew, I am sure that you just didn't get into the journalism class in HS/college and you are just a frustrated wanna-be journalist and so you are hatin' on them for no good reason because everyone knows that journalists are ethical, open, honest, and unbiased. (as for those supposed polls that show that "everyone" doesn't believe the obvious truth about good journalists, those polls were probably done by Fox or the Washington Post or some other biased organization, not REAL news people!)
(gack-cough - the sarcasm hairball was larger than normal, excuse me - gack)
I would argue that in fact the media is MUCH more powerful that it has been because it is much more pervasive with the modern 24/7/365 news cycle and access. And journalists are not doing their jobs. I really don't care about the Correspondence dinner so much as I am glad that it is televised and publicized because it makes all the participants look exactly like what they are perceived to be...elites snobs who care about celebrity more than journalism. I have a name for that, but I am too polite to say it. These people don't really give a darn about us little people. And frankly, if they ever actually SANG the national anthem, I'd faint dead away.
As a side note: I was particularly offended by the "House of Cards" video where all of our leaders who should have been spending time on figuring out who dropped the ball in Boston and cutting our budgets, and the millions of out of work citizens were where making light and merry. Steny Hoyer particularly offended me by swearing - an action unbecoming to a sitting Senator in public.
And our President making light of his drug use made me livid.
But I agree with Anthony that this is nothing new. There has to be some kind of relationship and trust between our journalists and politicians for access. And frankly, journalists have protected politicians for generations from personal scrutiny (JFK's numerous women was common knowledge, yet went unreported).
But now it has expanded from not reporting on personal predelictions to not reporting actual events and issues that are their jobs to report - for example all of the information that was withheld until after the 2012 election about Obamacare, Benghazi etc. because it would make Obama look bad.
And then there's the willful misdirection/misreporting and the condemnation on the front page and sheepish retraction on the 16 page, but then that has been going on for generations too. The NYT is particularly guilty of this.
Kelly, Obama is as "aw shucks" as he is intelligent and respectful.
I think it was lost for the media when the fairness act was lifted in 87. It took a few years for things to kick in. But when it did talk radio took over, thus a different type of newscycle was born. The old media had competition because talk radio was telling the rest of the story the newspapers/tv didn't. Then the internet came in and really trounced on the old media. Suddenly all of us could be reporters, how did the media react? Arrogantly, only to find themselves loosing everything, and still being arrogant about it. While acting like they didn't know what to do about it.
Back in 78 the old media had dominance because of FCC mandates so of course there were going to be more people working in the area. Today we can say there are far more people working(not for pay) because nearly everybody has a camera, and many are not afraid to use them.
Kelly, You noticed that too huh? It's amazing how all of Obama's jokes are basically, "Those people who criticized me are retards. Ha ha ha." And then the media says, "he's so genuine, so clever and so humble."
Anthony, What bothers me is the hypocrisy. I can't stand it. They claim they are unbiased all the while acting in biased ways and finding ways to explain away their biased conduct. Then they have the nerve to turn around and attack others for having bias. That drives me nuts.
As for generating the news, I don't really agree with that. I look at someone like the Mail Online in Britain who have built a HUGE American audience because they report things 2-3 days before the grist mills pick it up over here.
I also think that if you were doing a newspaper or a television program, there would be a huge value (1) getting independent facts first, and (2) providing coverage other people won't, (3) providing genuine analysis, and (4) providing depth. Even if other papers come along and cherry pick your facts and opinions later, you still have that market for people who want all of those things and want them first.
Anthony, Let me give you an example of what I mean. Right now, everyone relies on the AP to go out there and get stories. Thus, they all print/post the identical stories with only their own spin added. Newspapers have essentially become the worst kinds of bloggers.... "OMG! Did you see what Drudge said!"
I'm talking about hiring actual reporters to get exclusive stories. Yes, those would be picked up quickly, but the point is that you would still have them first.
Moreover, to this, you add depth by having these reporters investigate stories rather than just reporting single facts so that you get more than just a headline quote. Instead, the whole article becomes meaningful.
To this, you add worthwhile analysis that you can't get these days. For example, look at what we try to do here at Commentarama. When someone says, "X is true!" everyone runs out and writes "analysis" spinning what X means. I start by asking, "but is X really true?" A good analyst should always start with that. Then you add a second article about what it could mean in as objective a way as possible -- this would be added to by follow up questions to sources. Then you do a third article figuring out how people could spin it and reporting on how they are spinning it. Finally, you draw connections and parallels and try to look at future to determine what this means in a bigger picture sense. That's the kind of in-depth analysis you just don't see because modern analysis stops and starts at: accept the truth of it, spin it.
Finally, to this, you add special "access" type stuff you can't get anywhere else. For example, we just had the NFL draft. Why not ask for permission to put reporters with each team so you can report (after the fact) on what the teams were thinking. Even if you need to agree to certain limits, that's the kind of thing that would blow away just the rumor coverage.
Those are the types of things news companies could do which would add value in the 24/7 news repeater world.
This is the type of story that really irks me. The media elites with solid contracts and no fear of being fired flirt their positions while making the public hate them even more. The result? Ratings fall and all the people on the ground level- particularly at the local stations- pay the price.
In the interests of full disclosure, I used to work as a writer/producer for the morning show at a local news station. And last year, I had a front row seat for NBC's implosion.
First, that pumpkin-faced wuss David Gregory took over 'Meet the Press' following Tim Russert's death. Personally i think he may be a success- at exceeding Brokaw's ability to suck up to liberals.
Then, Brian Williams drove the NBC Evening News into the ground. The suits' solution? More Brian Williams! With 'Playboy Club' cancelled, he got his own show, 'Rock Center.' It made my blood boil to watch this loser talk to Matt Lauer about how he was being 'called upon to help out the network even more.' If these two suffered from Pinocchio Syndrome, their noses would've grown so fast they probably would've impaled each other. And speaking of Lauer...
I'm sure everyone knows how the 'Today Show' plummeted last year. Eventually, it became the butt end of all our jokes.
-Ann wasn't a good replacement for Meredith. Send in Savannah! (I couldn't help but notice that Ann's first post-Today assignment was in Syria. With the desert as background, when NBC sends you into exile, they mean it!)
-We're at a dearth for likable 'Today' anchors. Bring in that Willie guy! (Yeah, bring in a guy from MSNBC. That rumble is the groaning from the control room.)
-And, of course, everyone's favorite game: what hairstyle will Natalie have this week? This is not a joke. My bosses were openly mocking NBC over this one. Simply the face of desperation.
Okay, I know this really wasn't much of a post. I just wanted to get a few things off my chest.
-Rustbelt
tryanmax, Everyone knows that bias is bad and that you should not trust someone who is biased... BUT, few people are good at spotting bias. To the contrary, people are really bad at spotting bias unless the person either admits a direct relationship like sibling/parent or they admit that they have a bias. In the modern internet world, people even take anonymous comments seriously without the slightest hint of who that person could be.
Most people just aren't thinkers.
Agreed on the NYT. Their concern is that they need to tone this thing down because people are starting to notice the event, which means people will start to see the bias. What's interesting is that they should know that if their readers won't like something, then there is clearly a problem... and the problem isn't just that the reader will notice it. It's like when you know that a spouse or parent wouldn't like it if they knew you were doing something. At that point, you know you are doing something wrong, whether the parent or spouse ever finds out about it.
And Andrew, while I agree with most of your article, I need to point out a few things about the 40,000 fewer employees in TV stations.
For the most part, the lower numbers are due to technological changes. A lot of jobs have been eliminated due to what computers can do. According to the old timers I worked with:
-There's no longer a staff that stands around waiting for the AP or UPI wire copy to come in over the telex. Now it's all on the Internet.
-There used to be a small legion of interns and part-time writers who printed off the script on those ancient mimeograph-type printers and then had to tape the papers together before rolling it up into the prompter. It would then be hand-cranked during the show.
-The art department used to be a world unto itself. Today, Full Screen Shots and Over The Shoulder graphics (where the anchor is slightly off center and a picture appears in the corner of the screen), are entirely in the computer system. 30 years ago, all of these graphics and maps had to be drawn by hand. You needed a ton of people to meet the workload and get it done on time.
Now, I won'r deny that people in the industry are losing their jobs for other reasons- mainly due to lost revenue because of declining ratings thanks to awful reporting by the 'faces of the networks.' This was just my two cents on one of the details in your article.
-Rustbelt
Kelly and Andrew - This is self-depracating humor:
George W. Bush
About writing his memoirs:
"This is going to come as quite a shock to people up here that I can write a book, much less read one."
About his new hobby - painting:
“People are surprised. Of course, some people are surprised I can even read.” BTW, apparently he is quite a good painter...
Anthony, I agree that I would rather have open bias than covert bias and I also agree that the media doesn't control the world at all. To the contrary, I think their influence is at an all time low.
What bothers me though, as I said above, is their continued claim to being unbiased when they are anything but. If they want to claim that they are unbiased then they need to act that way or they need to be exposed. Basically, if they want to pretend they are Consumer Reports, then they better act according to the rules of Consumer Reports or they need to be called on it so that people know they are just another product-pimp.
rlaWTX, LOL! Yep, all bias on my part.
Ironically, nope. I never once considered being a journalist in my entire life. Blogging was my first shot at any of this.
Even more ironically, the media has actually come up with a way to explain the polls showing that no one trust them. Get this: "If everyone hates us, then we must be doing our job right because when everyone hates you, that means you aren't being biased." Really?! Everyone seems to hate Nazi... the KKK... Microsoft... does that mean those people aren't biased?
Sorry about the hairball.
"you still have that market for people who want all of those things and want them first."
This touches on a problem I notice across all big-business platforms -- the notion that only the largest market segment matters. This leads to all sorts of faulty decision making. Mainly, it is big-business' way of ignoring the market while claiming to be listening. This is usually simultaneous to head-scratching about why the same old routine isn't drawing them in anymore.
In most markets, this opens the door for innovators. But in the areas of broadcast and print journalism, where the barriers to entry are so high and the channels of distribution so entrenched, you're not going to see the market response as quickly. Internet is less a barrier-buster than it is a circumvention, but it still doesn't get on people's TV screens or land on their doorsteps.
Bev, I share your anger. :) And I agree completely about our media -- elitists who hide facts more often than revealing them. It's stunning when the National Enquirer breaks stories that supposedly reputable journalists won't just because of their political bias. That makes them no longer journalists, it makes them advertisers.
(I agree about our pathetic political class too. Shameful bastards.)
I don't really agree about the power of the media though. I think they have the ability to upset and enrage and ruin discourse, but I see no ability to influence on issues. Indeed, despite decades of purely leftist, ideological coverage, the opinions of the public just haven't changed. And people no longer believe things they are told unless they want to believe them. So the media is just a confirmer of bias these days, not a shaper of opinion.
T-Rav, Isn't that the truth. The amount of self-deception to MSM must go through to keep seeing Obama the way they do is amazing.
Max, As with all monopoly industries, things went wrong when technology broke the monopoly. As soon as others could get into the business, the MSM needed to get into the business of adding value which others couldn't. They didn't. Instead, they got arrogant and claimed that someone the words meant more when they came from their pages rather than others... they tried to use Congress to stifle bloggers (SOPA)... they tried to hide their content behind pay walls... etc.
These are all the things failing monopolies try. And one day, they will either vanish or be overwhelmed by the new system or change their ways and have a revival. Right now, the plan seems to be to die.
Rustbelt, Interesting insider perspective! NBC does seem to be in the middle of an implosion. It sounds like diva central combined with incompetent management.
On a personal level, I've never liked any of the people you mention. I don't get the sense that they have the gravitas or that they are trustworthy enough to anchor news shows. But then, shows like the Today Show aren't my thing either. I find them to be total fluff.
Rustbelt, I'm not surprised that technology is the big reason for the loss of jobs, but it is also true that newsrooms have been slashed all over the world. Our local paper, for example, is about a third the size of what it used to be. They dumped most of their reporters and replaced them with wire service feeds. Most of what is left now is just a couple editors and then a few reporters to handle purely local news and sports.
There are also constant reports of television networks shutting down overseas bureaus and the such.
What I find interesting is why they don't form larger partnerships with locals?
Bev, That was something Bush was always good at and it definitely made him seem like a decent guy. Obama, by comparison, seems like a real arrogant jerk.
tryanmax, I agree. I always find it very frustrating that businesses seem to think that you need to aim for the largest market segment only. I've always believed that in any industry, you could make a killing by picking up all the niches that get forgotten by the other players because taken in total, the niches usually far outweigh the single biggest segment.
I agree about the internet. It doesn't yet produce news, though that is changing -- Boston might be a good example of this as people posted pictures and feeds -- so there is still the monopoly on news-gathering. But most of what journalists do has nothing to do with gathering anymore, it's just reading and spinning. That's why they're in trouble.
It must be tough for the MSM these days since their Obama fetish has gotten to the point where a substantial majority is aware of it. I'm sure when Hillary or Christie takes the next round they will dust themselves off, take a little something for the hangover and proclaim that was just a phase and resume their normal, less obvious levels of bias.
Andrew, I think creating bigger partnerships would be a bit of a struggle.
First, most affiliate stations are owned by third-party companies, not the networks. Both sides would inevitably be fighting over advertising revenues and control over what went on the air.
Second, content is a big issue. NBC only covers national and international stuff. According to a former co-worker of mine who used to work in Boston, that would be fine for Boston. He said local stations there focus on those kinds of stories for the first 10, 15 minutes of each newscast before mentioning the first local story. In Pittsburgh, however, the appetite is for local news with some national stuff thrown in. NBC wouldn't be much help there.
And third, I think it's just plain ego. NBC and the locals would be fighting over control all the time. Both sides would be out to protect their turf and would rather cut a few jobs than cede control of their territory or content.
And personally, I think NBC does such a crap job anyway, I don't think locals want increased cooperation. They want to see their individual stations as separate from NBC Nightly News and other NBC programming.
Example to follow...
-Rustbelt
Most of NBC's stuff that's run on locals comes from their VOD site. It's mostly written by stringers with specific beats to cover. Most of the time, we found ourselves completely re-writing their junk.
Here's my favorite example from last year's primary:
G-O-P PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFUL NEWT GINGRICH MADE AN UNUSUAL CAMPIGN PROMISE IN FLORIDA.
THE FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE PROPOSED BUILDING A MOON STATION BEFORE A CROWD OF SUPPORTERS.
GINGRICH SAID THE STATION WOULD SHOW AMERICA IS STILL THE LEADER IN SPACE EXPLORATION.
HE DID NOT COMMENT HOW IT WOULD BE FUNDED.
I read this and was pretty ticked off. You see, in the byline, it was noted that this took place in Cocoa, Florida. Since I was familiar with Cocoa, Florida, I re-wrote the story with what was left out:
G-O-P PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFUL NEWT GINGRICH MADE AN INTERESTING CAMPAIGN PROPOSAL IN FLORIDA.
THE FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE PROPOSED BUILDING A MOON STATION BEFORE A CROWD OF SUPPORTERS IN COCOA, FLORIDA.
THE CITY IS HOME TO MANY NASA EMPLOYEES WHO WORK IN NEARBY CAPE CANAVERAL.
MANY PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THAT AREA HAVE BEEN WORRIED ABOUT THE CITY'S ECONOMIC FUTURE SINCE NASA CANCELLED THE SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM.
See how much was left out? NBC's stringer didn't necessarily lie, but he didn't fully report the story, either. My guess he was hoping people simply don't know the region. (Admittedly, I only knew the details because I had visited Cocoa the year before to watch the final shuttle launch.)
-Rustbelt
I think the real crime is all these drama queens are suppressing some good writing. Off the front page, the NYT has good writers. I get the weekend edition of the WSJ and read it all the way through. To me it is better than any of the garbage weekly news magazines. Wired magazine also has good writing and investigations at times. It is sad that some of the more recent scandle breaks have come from the Enquirer.
I hope and pray that many of these garbage writers and shows starve to death allowing us to better find those gems hidden out there.
And on newspapers, the issue is cost.
I briefly worked for a city paper before getting into TV. It goes without saying, but the Internet has been a pain for papers.
With people using the 'net instead of physical papers, subscriptions are down. And online subscriptions have been a bust since people will just go to alternate sites where they can get news for free. As a result, newspaper websites are dependent on advertising revenue alone.
The revenue loss often leaves papers having to choose between using cheaper wire services or hiring reporters full time. They almost always go with the former.
Personally, I think people mostly don't care who reports the news as long as it's reported. That leaves weather and sports as the only true stuff that you need local reporters for. Just throw in a few editorial writers and you're covered.
And one more note on TV. While it's true that local TV reporters do cover some interesting stuff, they're mostly just around to cover disasters. On my shift, we often sent them out for what my station called the 'morning trifecta': fatal accidents, deadly shootings, and deadly fires. As my former producer once said, "In order for us to have a good day, someone else has to have a very bad day." (There's reason the directors called us ghouls.)
People say this stuff depresses them, but it sure does get their attention. Flooding, building collapses, etc. It's all just a race to see which station can get the reporter there fast enough and say they were first on the scene and are therefore the most trustworthy.
-Rustbelt
K, I think the media's Hillary fetish is much stronger than their Obama fetish. They seem to cover for him for ideological reasons (at least at this point) but they LOVE Hillary.
Koshcat, I used to read the Washington Post and Washington Times each Sunday for that reason -- they had excellent coverage of all kinds of things. But little by little, that got eaten away and those papers really became very flimsy. And since I could get all the news they printed online, there was no reason to keep buying them.
Rustbelt, In terms of partnerships, I'm thinking in the bigger picture sense. For example, rather than shutting down a Cairo bureau and relying on the AP, why not form a partnership with some Cairo news organization. That way you don't pay the full cost of having a bureau, but you still have access to local news and you have people you can call upon.
On your NASA example, that to me is the classic example of either bad training or bad policy. For example, a well trained reporter would know that you need to report all relevant facts. Similarly, a company manual or "report form" could require them to answer various basic questions:
1. Who said
2. What said
3. Who spoke to, provide details -- crowd size, configuration, response
4. Direct quotes
5. Responding quotes, with source names
etc.
That would force them to do their jobs since they apparently don't know how on their own.
To me, this is a training issue. When you train young lawyers to do things like depositions, for example, one of the first things you teach them is to always get ALL the basic facts before they try to get into anything clever, and then to be thorough in anything they think is important. You pound those things into them. And you teach them to keep asking because their own opinions don't matter... only what the witness says matters. Reporters don't seem to have that kind of training anymore.
Indeed, I've seen what you are talking about all the time. Having a little knowledge of various topics, I'm amazed how often I've seen articles that simply have no clue what they are talking about. They report things that don't matter, they miss the obvious, and they just don't seem to care. They really had an opinion about what the story was and all they did was ask for a fact or two to confirm that without ever bothering to ask how things really work. That's where editors need to step in and tell these people that they need to do their jobs better or demote them.
On newspapers, I've heard that about the net for years now and I don't dispute that the net had made the crisis worse, BUT... I can tell you that newspapers were dying long before the net came along. The problem in my opinion has always been that papers keep trying to "do less." To give you an example, our local paper used to be twice as thick as it is today. It covered national, state, local, sports, weather, entertainment. About 80% of each page was stories. It was worth reading.
Today, the paper is half the size it was. 80% of each page is ads. They use wire service reports for all national, state, sports and weather news. The only things they add are a small section on local sports and some local news stories which read like they are done by high school kids. That's why people have been fleeing the papers around here. The net just sped that up.
There is a market, but there's only a market when you add value.
Rustbelt, BTW, I've always thought that the ultimate idea for newspapers would be someone like USA Today creating regional editions. In effect, you would have a national paper combined with local papers in each major market.
For example, you would have USATodayDenver Ed. or USATodayDallas Ed. And each Edition would have the same national/international sections. Each would have similar business sections and opinion sections. Each would have similar parts of sports, weather, and entertainment. Each would also have a state news round up section (contributed to by each local edition group).
Thus, 80% of the paper would be the same all across the country.
Then the local edition groups would fill the other 20% with state news and local sports, weather, business, entertainment, and opinion.
Basically, you would have a national paper tailored to local interests.
I think the media's Hillary fetish is much stronger than their Obama fetish.
Merde.
Pardon my french.
Andrew, I have to run out and take care of a few things. I'll have some comments for your ideas when I get back.
-Rustbelt
Technology is always a game changer. In almost every facet of entertainment, what was once expensive and inaccessible is now inexpensive and accessible.
The news is no different, everything is changing so quickly it's hard to fathom what's next. What's apparent? The print media is gone(or leaving). Network(cable and otherwise) shows are holding on by a thread. Those that still hold on to the old ways are not looking at the real world around them.
What's hard to get is why they think doubling down on the old ways will increase the audience.
K, Yeah, I know what you mean, but it's true. They LOVE Hillary. So be prepared for amazingly fawning coverage of her starting soon.
Max, That's the response of monopolists. They come to believe that what's best for them is what's best for consumers because that's how it's always worked, so when they are suddenly faced with competition, they double down on the things they've always done, and they speed up the alienation of consumers in the process.
The MSM really is acting like a classic monopolist.
Andrew.....I dont know how long the "MSM" can stay in business, what with all the losses I'm hearing and reading about. Their business model is predicated on advertising, and advertisers look for the # of eyes and ears, and these old institutions are basically hemorrhaging both. How will they continue to operate at a loss? (BTW, I love the free market to solve these problems don't you?)
Another thing.....Most of Boston was under "martial law" during the hunt for the bombing suspect, and not ONE newspaper or house organ saw fit to comment on it. I wonder what the law...and press....would have done if that guy who found him in his boat had an "assault weapon" and took the guy prisoner until the cops showed up?
You think citizens in Amarillo TX would have stayed cowering in their homes if they knew this clown was running around their streets?!
"You think citizens in Amarillo TX would have stayed cowering in their homes if they knew this clown was running around their streets?!"
Patriot, that's not exactly a good thing. We did't need vigilantes out hunting these guys down in a posse doesn't help. However, sitting on the front lawn defending the homestead is quite another thing.
Patriot, The MSM is in major flux and it will be interesting to see how it sorts itself out. They seem to be trying to kill the net at the same time they embrace it, but I don't think they know how to do either. So they have a problem. My guess is that only a small number of them will survive.
On Boston, it is interesting that none of the papers thought to comment on it, but I'm not sure what they would have said. I guess you could talk about civil liberties, but I don't think you could really win by taking either side of the issue.
Bev, I agree. I don't think vigilantes would have been a good thing at that point because who knows who would have gotten killed in the process. Plus, I understand why they wanted him alive, even if I personally would have just killed him after questioning.
Still, I would imagine he would have thought twice about breaking into someone's house in Texas.
Well, finally got back.
Andrew, I like your ideas about partnerships between bureaus and regional editions. I spent the evening trying to think why newspapers wouldn't do such things. Then I remembered something we said fairly often at the station: these ideas will never be used because they make too much d*** sense!
It sounds like an oxymoron, and it probably is. But it's a phrase we got used to. The news industry is infamously opposed to change and is always being led by dinosaurs who suffer from permanent cases of "back in my day" syndrome.
Just to show how nuts this industry is, we once brought in consultants to help reverse a downward ratings slide. According to one of the directors, a conversation went like this:
Consultant: "They say the noon shows are too much for just one writer and one producer to prepare. How about if the morning show AP (associate producer) writes for the noon when done writing for the morning show?"
Director: "But then they have to set up the 7AM cable show."
Consultant: "But once its set up, they can write for the noon, right?"
Director: "No, then have to produce the 7AM."
Consultant: "But then they can write for the noon, right?"
Director: "No! Then the have to write and produce the cutins!"
Consultant: "But then they can write for the noon, right?"
Director: "No, because they're done at 10! And that's when the cutins are over! The EP's (executive producers) say they have to leave then so they don't get overtime!"
Consultant: "Umm..."
In short, if these are the problem solvers, God help the people who deal with them. I mean, they didn't even bother to find out what everyone did before making suggestions!
And should someone come with an idea that makes sense and could work, (an extra morning writer, live reporter on weekends, someone to man the desk on weekend nights, etc.), well, for some reason it will always be the last idea considered. We'll just file it in that book another AP and I were thinking of writing: "Excellent Ideas That Will Never Be Used Because They Make Too Much D*** Sense!"
-Rustbelt
-note: cutins are the brief local news segments that appear at the end of every half hour during the Today Show/Early Show/Good Morning America.
And on the problem being training, I have to agree and disagree.
First, you really can't get a job without taking writing tests to prove you know what you're doing. Really, it's stuff you should learn in high school. As for one the job training, it varies from station to station. Some do it better than others. My trainer hated my guts. (I was replacing her friend, who was moved to another shift.) Her idea of training was 'figure it out yourself.' I was lucky other producers were willing to help me learn the basics. A producer who came to us from another station said her previous place had a more team-oriented attitude and was better with training.
But to get to my point, I think the problem is cultural. The stringer I mentioned above probably had all the basic skills down. The problem is that stringers and AP's are at the bottom of the totem poll. AP's write individual stories. They report to line producers (LP's) who set up the rundown, or order of stories in the show and decide how long each story should be. Above them are the EP's who act as overseers and decide what types of stories will be included.
The problem, as I see it, is not the need for editors- EP's in TV- to get more involved. At least on the national level, I think the problem is they're too involved.
(continued...)
-Rustbelt
To connect this to the WHCD, all those people you see on the Today Show (Matt Lauer, Chuck Todd, Savannah Guthrie, etc.) and Good Morning America (Charlie Rose, George Stephalumpigus) are also the producers who decide what content goes on the air.
If something goes wrong- and I've seen this happen time and time again- the anchor complains to the EP, who then complains to the LP. The LP says it wasn't them because the AP wrote the story. The AP then assumes ultimate blame. (It's practically rule of thumb that the only time an EP EVER talks to an AP is when that AP is in BIG trouble.) Thus, the AP gets a mark on their record and is one step closer to being axed.
In the case of NBC, this stringer and his cohorts are probably working on stories for Todd and his goons. At some point, in carefully worded language, the stringer or AP's will realize what they have to please these bosses. They then learn the prime rule: properly informing the audience takes a back seat to keeping the bosses happy. It's a game of survival. AP's- who all ALWAYS part-timers and can easily be replaced- become afraid of running afoul of the bosses and write to please them instead of writing stories worthy of good journalism.
Last year, when NBC edited that 911 tape of George Zimmerman and got caught, the story's writer was the first one fired following the revelation. (Though Lauer clearly dictated the path the story would take.) A few higher-ups were also let go when the outcry got nasty, but the point is the same: stringers and AP's write to please their bosses- and keep their jobs- with quality news-writing coming in second.
Thankfully, I rarely had to deal with this on a local level. (My bosses were good enough to strive for mostly objective news and we rarely had problems with politics, though discussions could get heated.) Still, I could spend up to 30, 40 minutes re-writing NBC's garbage. (Oh, the stories I could tell you guys about that stuff!) I don't think I could ever work for NBC's political department today. (Chet and David must shaking their heads in disgust while watching from newsman Heaven.)
OK, I probably rambled on longer than I needed to. I'm just saying it's more of a cultural issue than anything. Those scumbags at the WHCD and their goons dictate the culture, and everyone else either follows suit or risks losing their paycheck.
-Rustbelt
Rustbelt, It definitely sounds like a cultural problem. That's usually the case in dysfunctional enterprises -- people have their own agendas, their own unwritten rules of protocol and you just don't do anything different because that's the way it is... the end. That's how industries die.
The government works a lot like that. Your rights and obligations are established by regulations, rules, (sometimes) union contracts, the MSBP rulings, and tradition... and whoa to anyone who dares to suggest a change.
Still, it strikes me as a management failure. It strikes me as an industry that needs someone at the top to decide to do a re-think. To change the structure, change the duties, change the culture. But that doesn't sound possible.
On the regional/national idea, this was an idea that hit me in 1992 and no one has ever given me a reason why newspapers couldn't do it. The best some newspaper friends could do was "uh, the profession is changing right now, so we can't do that." That is, of course, an evasion.
To me, this makes a lot of sense because it combines the best of local papers with the best of national reach. It provides the company with its own highly effective inter-company wire service. It allows costs to be cut dramatically because you can eliminate all but truly local jobs at the local level. It allows a lot more money to be shifted to the national level to raise the quality of the shared sections.
It should improve the reach because it fits both the desire of people who want a national paper and the people who want a local paper. That means increased circulation and increased value to advertisers. Essentially, the national buyers get people they never would have gotten before and the locals don't get priced out of the market in the local sections.
You could even do things like combine the classified online to get a national classified section.
In terms of production, you can roll it out too. Basically, you pick the big cities. As you get comfortable in those markets, you spread out to second tier cities. Maybe you even find a way to do it economically in smaller towns.
To me, this is the model newspapers should be using and I really can't see why they don't. Instead, they are going the other way and getting smaller because of it.
If I was a billionaire, I would seriously look at doing this... but I'm not... yet.
Rustbelt, Again, it sounds like a situation where there is no management. It sounds like a situation where someone built a structure and then left. Now the whole thing moves on its own under that structure and without any guidance from anyone with the power to make decisions.
Okay, I think I lowered this thread's mood enough for one day.
Just for a moment, let's go back to a time when there actually were reporters who cared to tell the news correctly and were dependable.
LINK
Just fast forward to about 13:00 and let it roll. I dare you to try and not to chuckle at the exchange between Huntley and Chancellor.
Also, interesting note on international coverage at 15:54.
-Rustbelt
Post a Comment