American journalism--how to fix it?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

GePap, I think we actually agree with each other here. My point about Cramer is not that he should get off because he's a mere entertainer, but rather that his defenders need to drop the argument that Stewart has no right to criticize him because Cramer's a serious figure and Stewart's a clown.

But I think Imran has a good point. What journalism or news "really" is is a matter of social construction, not absolute definition. It's pointless to say that Anderson Cooper isn't a "real" journalist just like it's pointless to say that the Philadelphia Aurora wasn't a real newspaper because it didn't conform to mid-20th-century notions of what a newspaper is and does. The definition of journalism isn't frozen in the years 1950-1980.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's not frozen in time, but you can compare the definitions across time periods and try to figure out which one is better for the society as a whole, as opposed to the people who are making money off producing whatever happens to be called news today.

[GePap]

But I think Imran has a good point. What journalism or news "really" is is a matter of social construction, not absolute definition. It's pointless to say that Anderson Cooper isn't a "real" journalist just like it's pointless to say that the Philadelphia Aurora wasn't a real newspaper because it didn't conform to mid-20th-century notions of what a newspaper is and does. The definition of journalism isn't frozen in the years 1950-1980.

I agree with you that what counts for journalism is a social construct - I believe EVERTYTHING in society is a construct. The idea of journalism as even and unbiased is a modern thing, as opposed to the highly partisn and openly and proudly partisan press of most of the 19th century. The problem is that I disagree with Imran in claiming that the public has agreed to a new paradigm of "news" that is in fact entertainement. The reality that the purveyors of news do in fact complain when someone like Stewart calls them out on it to me is solid evidence that they do claiim to be followers of the old banner of "objective journalism." And no, I don't think that the rating of news shows are a valid arguement either. First, the 6:30pm national broadcasts are still by far the most watched news programs on TV, and while they are not good journalism, they are still not as bad as cable programs, all of which have far smaller audiences in these fragmented markets. Second, as I said in the other thread, the drive to dumb down and cheapen news is not always audience driven. Think of reality TV. DId viewers somehow demand Reality TV? No, but producers had an impetus to create reality programing (far cheaper than scripted shows) and when they saw that people would watch, and that in fact they could be very profitable, they began to turn to that format. There was audience aquiascence to this new trend, not audience demand for it. Those are different things.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Yes, we're in complete agreement (not sure how we ended up at odds before. My fault, probably; mea culpa). The gap between the nature and value of current journalism, on the one hand, and the perceived nature and value of current journalism by journalists themselves is staggering. And that, of course, is what makes them such ripe objects for satire.

But I disagree with your analogy to reality tv; or rather, I agree with teh analogy, but only because your key assumption is actually wrong. Remember tv line-ups from ten years ago (hell, you can probably Google them). Every single early reality program was up against programs that weren't reality programs. In fact, reality programs were frequently put up against really strong shows, on the assumption that if you were going to lose a timeslot, you might as well lose it with a reality show, since it costs less (as you point out). So reality shows head out as just one more kind of show in a varied mix -- and sometimes as sacrificial lambs -- and they come back the most popular tv phenomenon of teh last 20 years. So, no, audiences didn't ask for reality shows -- but they flocked to them when they showed up, in spite of having other choices. No way is the audience off teh hook for the debased nature of tv entertainment, and no way is it off the hook for the increasingly debased nature of news programming.

[Impaler[WrG]]

GePap seems to understand the Daily show is a Satirical commentary on Journalism, by using the format of a "real" news show while telling jokes that are actually MORE informative then the "real" news outlets they show the hypocrisy of modern journalism. That's been the central point of the Daily show from day one, the deep joke underneath all the little jokes.

My feeling is that market forces are fundamentally incompatible with modern investigative journalism. Market forces will produce either a shoddy Tabloid journalism that ignores the important issues of the time or a highly partisan media that serves only to reinforce the opinions of a group either liberal or conservative. Tabloids and Partisan media are the natural state of affairs, real journalism of the quality we once had can come about only under some umbrella that protects it from the Market. That umbrella can be provided by government such as Britain provides to the BBC, public charitable donations provide to PBS (the vast majority of funding for PBS is donated privately not supplied by government) or as was the case in the US the newspaper owners were independently wealth corporations or families who put journalism first and basically ran their papers as a public service.

It was the removal of this public service ethos from the largest paper and TV networks that was responsible for the decline in journalism over the last 20 years. I believe that journalism is a public good and should be thought of the same way a police or fire department would be, we shield these institutions from the marketplace and Journalism will only be restored when and only when that protection is restored. It could come through any of the means I've described or through something totally new and I'm somewhat indifferent to the method so long as it works.

[GePap]

But I disagree with your analogy to reality tv; or rather, I agree with teh analogy, but only because your key assumption is actually wrong. Remember tv line-ups from ten years ago (hell, you can probably Google them). Every single early reality program was up against programs that weren't reality programs. In fact, reality programs were frequently put up against really strong shows, on the assumption that if you were going to lose a timeslot, you might as well lose it with a reality show, since it costs less (as you point out). So reality shows head out as just one more kind of show in a varied mix -- and sometimes as sacrificial lambs -- and they come back the most popular tv phenomenon of teh last 20 years. So, no, audiences didn't ask for reality shows -- but they flocked to them when they showed up, in spite of having other choices. No way is the audience off teh hook for the debased nature of tv entertainment, and no way is it off the hook for the increasingly debased nature of news programming.

I did not claim the audience is of the hook. As I said, they acquiasced to the change - accepting something is making a choice, and thus becoming responsible in part. That does not mean that they have changed what they consider to be journalism. They are just willing to accept less of it, or more debased forms.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Government-controlled news, while potentially a constitutional issue, is still qualitatively pretty good. BBC is controlled (at arm's length) by the UK government, and its reporting is generally good. Voice of America (US State Dept's broadcast organ) is constitutionally not allowed to broadcast on US soil, but it broadcasts everywhere else and has been well respected for it generally.

I saw a content analysis back in Journalism School about VOA, Xinhua (Chinese wire service), possibly AP, and Itar-TASS (Russian wire service). Voice of America ranked high for balance and accuracy, though this was about a decade ago and things may have changed since then.

I personally don't see what would be wrong with a gov't-paid news outlet similar to BBC. The fact that you still have other competing news outlets means the gov't outlet would have checks on its ability to distort the truth.

Alternatively, journalism might do what the AP did when it was founded, which was to strip away all but the bare facts of very neutral, un-nuanced reporting. AP didn't do this as a labor of love or charity, though, it did this because it wanted to be able to fill the wire gap in local newspapers. And local newspapers could be conservative or liberal - the AP wire service didn't want to pick one side and alienate the other. So they went middle of the road and left it up to the newspapers to do their additional reporting and add their own spin.

Yes, the US media situation is becoming very concentrated, with only a handful of major corporations controlling most of the news outlets. As such, it's become profit driven, rather than service driven. Perhaps having one competitor supported by the government would give them something to shoot for, rather like Channel 4 and ITV in the UK compete directly against BBC1 and BBC2 for terrestrial broadcast viewers. (Channel 5 was not worth watching while I was in Britain in 2001. Things may have changed since then.)

[Saras]

To answer tread title - get Lithuanian journalism. You'll want you current one back the next morning.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I did not claim the audience is of the hook. As I said, they acquiasced to the change - accepting something is making a choice, and thus becoming responsible in part. That does not mean that they have changed what they consider to be journalism. They are just willing to accept less of it, or more debased forms.

Acceptance is changing what they consider journalism. If they hadn't, there is no way that these type of news programs would be as popular as they are. Hell, the reason Fox News exploded is because their viewership considered to be unbiased in their reporting compared to the rest of cable and network news.

The fact that there isn't a widespread march towards PBS indicates that people's ideas of what news is has changed dramatically.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

The fact that there isn't a widespread march towards PBS indicates that people's ideas of what news is has changed dramatically.

Or, alternatively, that this was always the people's idea of news, it just wasn't available before because news wasn't as market-driven before the mid-eighties. Either way, your point about PBS is spot-on.

[GePap]

Acceptance is changing what they consider journalism. If they hadn't, there is no way that these type of news programs would be as popular as they are. Hell, the reason Fox News exploded is because their viewership considered to be unbiased in their reporting compared to the rest of cable and network news.

The fact that there isn't a widespread march towards PBS indicates that people's ideas of what news is has changed dramatically.

No it doesn't.

If I accept that I can't afford steak when I buy meat, so now I buy ground beef doesn't mean that I have changed my definiton of steak. The continuing decline in public trust of the press to me is clear evidence that they have seen th change in quality, and know what they get is crap.

As for the second argument, it might be clear that the demand for non-news programing is strong out there and that perhaps people don't want hard hitting journalism. The fact that people avoid journalism and watch the crap does not equate to your arguement that somehow they have changed what they define as journalism. Perhaps (and this is as valid a theory), they know what journalism is, define it the same, but simply always wanted the choice of something less thoughtful. As for evidence oif this, i again state the fact that the televised press continually decries people who attempt to label them as just entertainment . Thy haven't change their own self-definition, so what evidence do you ahve for your contention besides the ratings (which I have shown could be answered just as well by an alternative theorty)?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Or, alternatively, that this was always the people's idea of news, it just wasn't available before because news wasn't as market-driven before the mid-eighties. Either way, your point about PBS is spot-on.

That may be true as well. One must also take into account the massive amounts of yellow journalism & newspapers wearing their political affiliation on their sleeves throughout most of the country's history. This idea that the news is supposed to be objective and serious may have existed for a few decades at most (and most would argue it never actually happened - ie, its something that is idealized).

As for evidence oif this, i again state the fact that the televised press continually decries people who attempt to label them as just entertainment . Thy haven't change their own self-definition, so what evidence do you ahve for your contention besides the ratings

Oy. You still don't get it. Why exactly do news organizations have to accept a definition of them being entertainment? If that was the case, you'd just point to that to demonstrate they aren't really news.

Do most people say (hell, do ANY people say), when they are watching NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, FOX News, CNN, MSNBC that they are watching entertainment? No, they say they are watching the news... or I heard this on the news, etc.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

That may be true as well. One must also take into account the massive amounts of yellow journalism & newspapers wearing their political affiliation on their sleeves throughout most of the country's history. This idea that the news is supposed to be objective and serious may have existed for a few decades at most (and most would argue it never actually happened - ie, its something that is idealized).

Agreed. I think the forty years from the end of WWII to the middle of the Reagan years were actually an historical aberration for the news, rooted in two developments: journalism professionalized (for example, Columbia University School of Journalism graduated its first masters students in the late 30s) while the networks ran their news operations at a loss in order to insulate them -- somewhat -- from both popular tastes and sponsor pressures (as Good Night and Good Luck depicts). Starting in the mid-eighties, all of this started coming undone, and news began reverting to what it was before WWII -- crass, opinionated, and catering to the lowest common denominator.

[GePap]

it. Why exactly do news organizations have to accept a definition of them being entertainment? If that was the case, you'd just point to that to demonstrate they aren't really news.

There is a clear perception out there of news being something more than entertainment, as in having some greater intrinsic value - which is why one might speak of a "mere" entertainer. That the nws channels resist any attempt at reclassification is tied to them trying to maintain the aura of respectability that being part of a free press gives, that an the idea that their position in society makes them an integral part of our democratic fiber. L

Do most people say (hell, do ANY people say), when they are watching NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, FOX News, CNN, MSNBC that they are watching entertainment? No, they say they are watching the news... or I heard this on the news, etc.

If I go into a place and a order a hamburger, and they give me a terrible hamburger, and you ask me what I am eating, would i be wrong to answer "I am eating a hamburger"? No. The item is marketed as news, I chose it because I wanted something marketed as news, and the fact that it is mostly filler, with very little news doesn't change that. The argument here between us is wether the fact that most of what is marketed as news is filler (entertainment for some, perhaps) the people's acceptance of this filler means that they have accepted a new paradigm of what gets called news, or whether the public can distinguish between the good stuff and the filler, but prefers or simply accept the filler an inevitable. And I would also challenge the asumption made here that a lot of the people watching these self-marketed news channels know that this is all filler - as with many things, the public has assumptions about the quality of what they receive, not always fully aware of whether what they get has been tampered with or not.

[Victor Galis]

I could quote my "have you watched the 'news' in the last 10 years" post again.

I might have if someone* would broadcast some


* Ok, technically PBS still shows news.