Public perception of the press tends to rise following terrible events like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, and subsequently plummets back to its typical nadir somewhere between Al Qaeda and child molesters. Big events make the public understand the importance and necessity of the media, and answering this need helps the media rediscover its goal of informing the public. But why does the public hate the media so consistently?
I always get a chuckle whenever the media is forced to do a story on itself, especially when they’ve just been outed as scumbags in any public opinion poll. Why do a story on why people hate you? The answers lie in how the media operates and how it affects overall media credibility.
· First, most of the media is not issues-driven. It is events-driven. Reporters could do an ongoing investigation and explanation into how City Hall works, or they could cover a breaking news story on the one mid-level manager who is arrested for embezzlement. Guess which one makes the news?
· In newsrooms across America, conflict is king. An inner city neighborhood can spend years getting cleaned up and revitalized without any press mention, but if there’s a single shooting on that street once a year it makes the news and will be stigmatized thereafter. Many local newsrooms have a mantra: If it Bleeds, it Leads.
· While some journalists are excellent and knowledgeable about the topics they cover, most are as lazy as the rest of us, and don’t bother digging into a story to discover what has led to the conflicts they cover. A journalist might cover a strike, but not bother going into details or specifics on why the two sides could not work out an agreement.
· A lot of news, particularly local news, needs to be “easy” so the general population will understand it. Most newspapers and newscasts are written at a sixth grade reading level, with exceptions being well-regarded publications like The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. People tend to read newspapers quickly and stories are getting shorter in most publications as newsrooms are cut.
· Reporters should maintain objectivity. Many don’t. Some news organizations such as Fox and The New York Times barely disguise most of their coverage slanting left or right, offending independent readers no matter how good the coverage may be. There’s another side to objectivity; on news magazine shows like Dateline, reporters often go overboard to report divergent views on any topic, often interviewing extremists whose absurdity undermines the entire show. This happens every day.
· The media often acts with a mob mentality. If one reporter is covering something, the odds are good that several reporters are there too, and you can get the exact same report from any of them, although sometimes these events are truly newsworthy.
· There’s fierce competition to be the first with “breaking news” among reporters. Unfortunately, being first also means you have the least amount of time to get your facts checked, and wrong information is often reported. This happened in last year’s election when Dan Rather issued a false report about the President’s National Guard duties, which cost Rather his job. Recent reports about widespread crime in the Superdome during Hurricane Katrina were also exaggerated by the media.
If the press is at its best during times of crisis, I would say the press is at its worst when covering elections and politics. Many voters get their political information from the news, and it’s unsurprising that even blanket coverage is unable to get a majority of voters to the polls on Election Day.
· Events, Not Issues: The press rarely covers political issues because campaign events like stump speeches are visual and makes better TV. An event is usually fast and – here we go – easy to cover and report.
· The Horse Race: The media tends to cover the race on who is winning – in votes, popularity and fundraising – rather than what the candidates’ platform is or the issues that affect voters. In fact, the whole campaign gets screwed because the media has a serious addiction to poll numbers. Why? Because it’s easier to do than reporting on substance.
· Scandalmania!: When a scandal hits, all bets are off and a media feeding frenzy ensues. The media can easily and quickly destroy a candidate over an issue that most voters will find irrelevant, such as Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky or Bush’s National Guard record. Political candidates are unfairly held to higher standards because of the media’s scandal scrutiny, and I am positive many fine potential candidates have eschewed public office because of a very minor and explainable lapse in their past. The focus on scandals has also helped undermine trust in political institutions and the media in general. Reporters also routinely ask candidates personal and controversial questions they would never ask private citizens.
The media, of course, would retort that it is giving the public what it wants. And that is partly true. The media wouldn’t focus on the superficial if the public wasn’t watching it. While I’m sure the average person who reads The New York Post and tabloid-style local news would agree how vapid it is, the bottom line is that is still how they are getting their information. And while high quality media outlets exist, the people who read and view them tend to be better educated and informed than the masses who don’t. It’s a chicken and egg situation.
With the Internet and additional news sources permeating all the time, people have a wider choice than ever to get new information. If you complain about the news or hate the media, try to find alternate ways to get your information. And if you’re a member of the media, stop taking the easy and acceptable way out. People want to know more than you think, and providing that is the key to regaining trust.
More Information:
Arthur Chrenkoff’s Blog – “Good News from Iraq.” An Australian, wondering if anything good was happening in Iraq that wasn’t being reported, starts his own blog and finds remarkable progress going unmentioned in the mass media. He claims he has stopped publishing, but we’ll see. Somewhat right wing, but still has good stuff.
Frontline: Why We Hate the Media – Old (1987) and long, but interesting. Includes comments from Mike Wallace and Peter Jennings about combat reporting that will make your jaw drop.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment