If you have ever read the online newspaper Politico, you might find this article by Glen Greenwald in Salon Magazine to be interesting. Greenwald points out that the CEO of Politico is also also the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Not only that, but he worked for Reagan as Assistant to the President. He donated money to George W. Bush. He also works for the company that is financing Politico. Interestingly none of the major mainstream media outlets that reported on the recent Republican Presidential debate that was held last week at the Reagan Library reported on the ties of the Library's Chair to either Politico or to Ronald Reagan.
Now, why wouldn't they report on these facts? Well, maybe because the elephant in the room that readers aren't supposed to comment on is the issue of the political bias of owners of media companies. We are supposed to believe that reporters never worry about what their bosses think and that they will print the truth regardless of the biases of their bosses.
Frankly we don't buy it because reporters, editors, and other people involved in the news business are human. They want to keep their jobs. They know the biases of their supervisors and the owners of the media companies where they work. They know the culture of the organizations where they work. They know how far they can go with their opinions and their writing. This is especially true with organizations where reporters and other staff personnel are not protected by a collective bargaining agreement.
This is not to say that all organizations police the stories of their reporters, but it is to say that such biases are a legitimate subject of discussion. Only that discussion can't take place if news media organizations act as if it doesn't ever happen or demonize those who argue that the media emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
Showing posts with label media power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media power. Show all posts
Monday, May 07, 2007
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Reporters Can Dish It Out, But Can They Take It?
Deborah Howell is the ombudsman for the Washington Post. She has a column in which she writes about readers' concerns over articles and editorials that appear in the Post. This last week, she had a column discussing the comments section that appears at the end of Post articles that appear online. This quote is from her column: Complaints first came from the newsroom. Reporters don't appreciate the often rude feedback, which I get, too. (A sample reader comment on my column last week: "I think we can all agree after reading Howell's lame comments week after week that the Post should save money by eliminating her position entirely. She is worse than a dupe.")
No one likes to receive criticism, not reporters, not politicians, so the reaction of reporters is a common human reaction. Here's the thing, though, in the past, reporters were insulated from readers' reaction to a much greater degree than today. As Howell notes at the start of her column: Not so long ago, the only way to talk back to The Post was to write a civil letter to the editor, with a verifiable name and address, or to contact the ombudsman. This meant that a person had to sit down, write or type the letter, mail it, and hope that someone in the paper actually read it. Further, there was no way to know if the person who read it was going to actually show it to the reporter who wrote the article.
Now, however, not only can readers post comments at the end of Post articles, but they can also send emails to the reporters who wrote the article. This is because the Post, like most newspapers with websites post the email addresses of the reporter writing the article. Like in so many areas, this means that the Internet is changing the relationship between reporters and their readers. No longer do readers have to be passive in their relationship with a newspaper. Now, like with blogs, they can be interactive with the newspaper.
Reporters are not used to reader accountability. They are used to employer accountability, but not reader accountability. A lot of them tend to be people who are much better at dishing out criticism than receiving it. Maybe they will come to have more appreciation for the people they write about. Maybe they will realize how hurtful a thoughtless comment can be, whether it appears in the comments section of a newspaper posted by a reader, or in an article written by a reporter.
In any event, the next time you read an article online that you disagree with, or one that you like, take an extra minute to see if there is a comments section or an email address for the writer. If there is, then leave a comment or write an email. Refrain from vulgar, obscene, or threatening language, but don't be afraid to give the writer your reaction. If Howell's column is any indication, reporters apparently read them.
No one likes to receive criticism, not reporters, not politicians, so the reaction of reporters is a common human reaction. Here's the thing, though, in the past, reporters were insulated from readers' reaction to a much greater degree than today. As Howell notes at the start of her column: Not so long ago, the only way to talk back to The Post was to write a civil letter to the editor, with a verifiable name and address, or to contact the ombudsman. This meant that a person had to sit down, write or type the letter, mail it, and hope that someone in the paper actually read it. Further, there was no way to know if the person who read it was going to actually show it to the reporter who wrote the article.
Now, however, not only can readers post comments at the end of Post articles, but they can also send emails to the reporters who wrote the article. This is because the Post, like most newspapers with websites post the email addresses of the reporter writing the article. Like in so many areas, this means that the Internet is changing the relationship between reporters and their readers. No longer do readers have to be passive in their relationship with a newspaper. Now, like with blogs, they can be interactive with the newspaper.
Reporters are not used to reader accountability. They are used to employer accountability, but not reader accountability. A lot of them tend to be people who are much better at dishing out criticism than receiving it. Maybe they will come to have more appreciation for the people they write about. Maybe they will realize how hurtful a thoughtless comment can be, whether it appears in the comments section of a newspaper posted by a reader, or in an article written by a reporter.
In any event, the next time you read an article online that you disagree with, or one that you like, take an extra minute to see if there is a comments section or an email address for the writer. If there is, then leave a comment or write an email. Refrain from vulgar, obscene, or threatening language, but don't be afraid to give the writer your reaction. If Howell's column is any indication, reporters apparently read them.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
See What the Media is Covering & Why It Matters
The website www.journalism.org is sponsored by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Its website has a lot of interesting information. One of the items on the website is a survey of what stories are appearing in newspapers, television, cable television, and the Internet. You can read the latest survey here. What the latest survey shows is that the 2008 presidential campaign gets more attention from news organizations than Iraq policy. Which, of course, exemplifies the problem with the media in America.
Several years ago a journalism professor named Thomas Patterson wrote a book about the way the media covered the 1992 presidential campaign. One of things he pointed out was that while the public looks at political reporting from a governing schema, the media looks at political reporting from a campaign schema. This is a critical difference. The public wants information on the candidates so that voters can decide who to vote for and what they will do if elected. The media, however, wants to look at political reporting from a campaign schema. Reporters looking at the campaign from such a schema are going to focus on such things as tactics and fundraising but not on the issues or what the candidates will do once elected.
Why this difference? Because in the final analysis it is a lot easier, and probably more fun, to cover the campaign than it is to cover what a candidate actually says about the issues.
Several years ago a journalism professor named Thomas Patterson wrote a book about the way the media covered the 1992 presidential campaign. One of things he pointed out was that while the public looks at political reporting from a governing schema, the media looks at political reporting from a campaign schema. This is a critical difference. The public wants information on the candidates so that voters can decide who to vote for and what they will do if elected. The media, however, wants to look at political reporting from a campaign schema. Reporters looking at the campaign from such a schema are going to focus on such things as tactics and fundraising but not on the issues or what the candidates will do once elected.
Why this difference? Because in the final analysis it is a lot easier, and probably more fun, to cover the campaign than it is to cover what a candidate actually says about the issues.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
The Obama Factor or Why the Media Has Trouble Covering What They Can't See
Readers of this blog will remember that we have previously remarked on how video clips of Barack Obama on You Tube were getting many more views than clips of other candidates. (See this entry: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/2008-candidate-views-on-you-tube.html ) Now we see that Obama has raised far more money than anyone expected just a few weeks ago and has raised it from about twice as many people as Hillary Clinton. All of this seems to have surprised the political reporters and commentators. (See this article from the Washington Post, for example.)
The question is why is this catching most reporters by surprise? We think that its because it is happening out of their sight and therefore out of their control. The media is used to top-down organizations. By that we mean that a candidate forms a core group, that group reaches out to more people, and so on, but the campaign is controlled by a relatively small number of people headquartered in one place. Such a group is easy to reach and easier to cover. The media knows where they are and develops contacts within the organization.
Internet driven campaigns, which is what Obama may be conducting, are much more diffuse and much more spread out. Let's say a volunteer tapes Obama giving a speech and puts it up on You Tube which is then seen by a 1000 people. All of that doesn't really catch anyone attention, yet Obama's message has been seen by a 1000 viewers, all of whom had to make a conscious choice to watch that video clip. Some of those viewers may then be motivated to contribute or sign up to work as a campaign volunteer. None of which is necessarily going to be seen by the media covering the campaign, most of which are based in Washington.
Not only is it going to surprise the media, but it makes their job harder and decreases their power. The more that people can access the Internet and obtain information on their own, the less they need political commentators and reporters. The media didn't react well in 2004 when Howard Dean began the heavy use of the Internet in presidential politics. Whether they react well to Obama's use of the Internet will be one of the more interesting stories of the 2008 campaign.
The question is why is this catching most reporters by surprise? We think that its because it is happening out of their sight and therefore out of their control. The media is used to top-down organizations. By that we mean that a candidate forms a core group, that group reaches out to more people, and so on, but the campaign is controlled by a relatively small number of people headquartered in one place. Such a group is easy to reach and easier to cover. The media knows where they are and develops contacts within the organization.
Internet driven campaigns, which is what Obama may be conducting, are much more diffuse and much more spread out. Let's say a volunteer tapes Obama giving a speech and puts it up on You Tube which is then seen by a 1000 people. All of that doesn't really catch anyone attention, yet Obama's message has been seen by a 1000 viewers, all of whom had to make a conscious choice to watch that video clip. Some of those viewers may then be motivated to contribute or sign up to work as a campaign volunteer. None of which is necessarily going to be seen by the media covering the campaign, most of which are based in Washington.
Not only is it going to surprise the media, but it makes their job harder and decreases their power. The more that people can access the Internet and obtain information on their own, the less they need political commentators and reporters. The media didn't react well in 2004 when Howard Dean began the heavy use of the Internet in presidential politics. Whether they react well to Obama's use of the Internet will be one of the more interesting stories of the 2008 campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)