|
The theme of this entry was inspired by a discussion that I saw in a friend's journal; I'll ask her permission to name her and edit the entry if she grants permission later.
Late last week, she wrote a letter to the ombudsman of The Washington Post; she complained that they were giving too much coverage and media attention to the couple who "crashed" the state dinner at the White House while taking time and space away from, you know, news that might actually matter to more than five people and the Secret Service---or news that people might actually need to know. The ombudsman actually replied. The essence of his/her letter was that "we are giving the public what they want, see, that piece of news was always in the top five most visited of our webpage, so I disagree---the public is getting what they need."
Allow me to respond in high-falutin Latin: Non sequitur, quoniam "want" non "need" est. OK, I probably mangled that last bit. But you probably got it.
This is not a new idea; it is in fact getting to be an old and tired one---is it not disingenuous of newspapers and news media in general to hide begind the idea of "if we do not give the public what they want, we will not survive, because we live to sell papers/website clicks/ads after all" so exclusively?
They do have a point. But I have to notice that there is a middle ground---newspapers in Turkey still seem, all in all, more relevant (and closer to being a real political power) than newspapers in the USA seem to think they are, and they do succumb to sensational news and stretch some news stories for days, yes, but they always also seem to find space for stuff that matters more or makes for a more informed public. Some of them, yes, sing their parent corporations' tune. But they at least sing it in a nuanced and in-depth way. Some of them are outright political party mouthpieces---Zaman, for instance, has always been the fundamentalist Islamist newspaper. Some of them even eschew sensational-news-of-the-day altogether and make for political and informational coverage only---I know, *gasp*---and here's the thing: They are the worst sellers, but they survive, and have survived for twenty years. If people stop reading them, it is because the readers' political views have changed and they have switched to another paper with similar quality but a different viewpoint.
So it can too work if you keep some actual real journalism in the mix.
There's another side to it: Considering "giving the public what it needs---" well, who are they to determine what we need? Shouldn't we worry our pretty little heads about it? But once again, I have to point to the Turkish examples: The readers ultimately choose what they think they need, and they have a number of in-depth choices to go with.
(Also, I am ignoring the sort of propaganda Fox News, or on the other side... um, I'm not sure who is on the other side, routinely engages in.)
I should probably provide an example of what I think would be a more proper path. Yes, cover the couple-who-crashed-the-White-House for two days or so; it's interesting; it's got security ramifications. Then take it off the front page, however, and assign your front-page-quality reporter to provide preparatory research articles for, say, the health care discussions that began in the Senate this week. It is not like there is not enough depth in that particular subject to make for couple of weeks of front pages; it is not like those discussions are not going to matter five years from now. Five years from now, no one will remember anyone even crashed the Obamas' first state dinner.
Or rather, no one should.
Ever since I started the "You Haven't Seen That?" movie night series, I noticed that one sub-genre of movies I really like watching are the Good-Investigative-Journalist and the In-Depth-Newsman genres. All the President's Men, State of Play, Good Night and Good Luck, even Shattered Glass from the "through a mirror, darkly" angle---you name it. Every time I watch one of those, I feel a twinge: They are heroes; where are they now? I want a few of them more than I want a Superman. |
|
|