header image

Repetition in the news

Posted by: | December 8, 2009 | 1 Comment |
from DirecTV.com

from DirecTV.com

As Mitchell Stephens points out in chapter 16 of “A History of News,” much of the news offered today is repetitious. This held some truth before the advent of pay television (cable and satellite) and the Internet. Now, with so many media options available to the audience, stories often feed on themselves and the repetition cycle becomes vicious. The media may operate on a 24/7 cycle but that does not equal 24 hours of information per day.

Blame Gordon McLendon for creating the repetition cycle in the news. McLendon founded North America’s first all-news radio station, XETRA, in 1961 out of Tijuana, Mexico. The station did no original reporting but merely repeated news from the wire services. XETRA was an inspiration for other news stations such as WTOP in Washington, a station that does its own reporting on important city affairs.

In 1980, Ted Turner took the all-news format to television with the creation of the Cable News Network (CNN). Now television viewers did not have to wait until 6 p.m. or 11 p.m. to get their news. While the same in equality existed with having 24 hours of time to fill, CNN had more free reign to cover breaking news compared to the “Big Three” networks. The network demonstrated this with its landmark coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Still however, the same inequality exists with the 24/7 media cycle. New information and new news does not always happen all the time. A frequent complaint that Stephens states is that some find it hard to “keep up” with the amount of news available to us at a particular time and on many platforms.

As we have often talked about in class, news abhors a vacuum. Meaning that if the audience feels uninformed about the world, then it will actively seek out the information it wants. All audiences do is feed the media beast by constantly wanting something new and interesting. It is up to the individual person to decide how often he or she wants to tune in. It is also up to the person to tune out when it is just too much.

under: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,

Newspapers and magazines are both considered periodicals, which means they are produced on a regular schedule. But, what makes them so different? Some of the most common differences between newspapers and magazines can be seen through their audience, content, distribution, and design and layout.

1. Audience:

Newspapers have a very broad audience. One newspaper can attract people of different ages and interests because generally newspapers have a variety of information that satisfies most viewers’ needs. However, magazines have a more specific and targeted audience. This is because magazines provide information on usually one specialized topic, such as sports, entertainment, fashion, or art.

2. Content:

Newspapers provide viewers with the most up to date news that is written objectively. Newspapers rely strictly on the truths and facts. Because of this, newspaper writers do not usually have much room for creative expression. Because magazines focus on one specialized topic, magazine writers have a little more room for subjectivity and creative expression in their stories.

3. Distribution:

Newspapers are usually produced daily. After one day, a newspaper becomes old. Magazines do not become old until the next publication, which is usually a week or month later.

4. Design and Layout:

Newspapers are known for having a simple layout and design. The content is usually in black and white, and the style and font is fairly consistent throughout. Magazines have much more visual expression than newspapers because magazines are not subject to one consistent layout. Magazines use lots of color, different types and sizes of fonts, and tons of colored images.

under: Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

Graphics overwhelming

Posted by: | December 8, 2009 | No Comment |

Previously, I wrote a bit on how news can be presented, both positively and negatively.  At the time, I ended by saying I would go into the history of news graphics and presentation, but have since changed my mind on what I would base this on.  I was watching the news on TV this whole evening and night, primarily MSNBC with some CNN and Headline News, or rather HLN as they are now called, thrown in, when I came to the realization.

As much as I enjoy televised news, they really are bombarding us with graphics and presentations.

Everything’s Better With Graphics!

In my previous article, I mentioned how one must take care to not go overboard with information.  Yes, people want information, this is true, but people want that information coming at them at a speed at which they can actually process it.

If you’ve ever watched a news program, whether it be a mid-day news report on MSNBC, Issues with Jane Valez-Mitchell, or some other talking head, you’ve surely seen some variant of the news ticker screen graphic.

In theory, it is a decent idea.  While the talking head blabbers on about how many mistresses Tiger Woods had or some other tripe, the channel will run small story bits along the bottom of the screen so you can be up to date about other goings on.  Its efficiency!

Or it would be, except that some channels run the words across the screen at a higher rate of speed than you can truly comprehend.  Or you may be distracted by whatever the talking head of the moment is saying and only catch part of what it said.  Lewis Black said it best regarding this, “So you could only pick up things like “Terror in your neighborhood”-What the ****?  “…giant dung beetle…could cause scabbing.””

Change is Good?

Sometimes a news channel will change the graphics it uses.  This may be due to rebranding or some other reason.  Recently, MSNBC went through just such a change when it went HD.  Gone were the angled red, blue, and gold of old.  In came a new design that was both simple yet complicated.  The news ticker along the bottom now found itself joined by a bar on top of it that often included information important to whatever the talking head was saying.  This bar could also show things such as how the Dow Jones had been doing that day.

Furthermore, sometimes they would add in a graphic to the far right of the screen, adding in even more information.  This could be things such as, in the above picture, the schedule for that evening, the weather, and so on.

For me, it took some time to adapt but I do have to admit that, despite how cluttered it can get at times, the information is displayed a bit better than previously.  Of particular note is the new news ticker.  While it still cycles through various news bits, it now also shows the category for which they belong to, so even if you don’t get the whole message, at least you are left with some idea of what it was.

Balancing Act

Going back to my previous article, I do have to concede that it is a very hard balancing act.  On the one hand, journalists want to give the people as much information as they can possible handle, but on the other hand people can only process so much at a time before being overloaded.  Over time, it is obvious that the graphics of news channels will continue to be tweaked.  MSNBC’s recent change with the HD conversion is a good indicator of that.  While I have my own complaints about it, I can also see what they are going for, so I can’t really blame them for trying.

And I am sure, when a news channel, HLN, Fox News, MSNBC, or someone else, finally finds that balance, something new will come along to screw it all up.  That’s the way things go, really.

under: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,

And knowing is half the battle

Posted by: | December 8, 2009 | No Comment |

Ask just about anyone if they think news is important, and they likely will agree that, yes, it is vital, though you might get some comments on how the talking heads can get too preachy or alter the news as they see fit.

News is an important resource to everyone, from a subsistence farmer to a king.  It is vital because it is knowledge, and without knowledge, we, well, we wouldn’t really know anything, would we?

News’ importance to us exists for a few specific reasons though.

Human Contact

It may be strange to think of it as such, but news is a sort of human contact, even if it is often a one-way street.  Whether one is reading a newspaper, a blog item, listening to the radio or watching one of the aforementioned talking heads, information is being delivered, or exchanged if the news is being told person to person.

One of the most basic needs a person has is the need of human contact, to feel connected with others.  It can be comforting to know there are others out there, to know we are not alone.

We’ve seen this in a number of places in A History of News, but one that stands out is the example of how the British all rushed off to their coffeehouses to talk about the news.  Yes, the exchange of the news, the gossip at times, was a factor in the popularity, but so too was going to such coffeehouses and talking with other people, to hear opinions, to have contact with others.

Hence, it is one of the reasons we people need the news.

Critical Information

Another reason people demand the news is because, at its most basic, news is information, and information can be very vital indeed.  For the earlier mentioned farmer, it would be good for him to know if, say, there’s an increased demand for corn so he can adjust his crops accordingly or that a storm is coming to help his parched fields.  Similarly using the earlier mentioned king, it would be good for him to know if the king from that neighboring country that he thought was an ally is now marshaling an army on his border.

Knowledge is very important in many situations.  Sometimes people can make assumptions and act on them, but most will likely agree that it is wise to know something about a situation before acting.  News is the avenue that much information takes, hence we demand for it.

Now We Know

News is of vital importance to people.  Many may not know it, but they do know of it, at least in a sense, when it is absent.  They demand, they seek, and they will find it, because, as Francis Bacon once said, knowledge is power.

under: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

In the fifth chapter of Schudson’s book, Discovering the News, he writes of the roles of objectivity, news management, and the critical culture that arose in journalism around World War I and beyond.

Objectivity

Schudson details that around the 1930s, many journalists began to find fault with the ideals of objectivity and instead wanted to dig more into their stories, to find what they believed to be the real truth.  This caused some conflict among the more “Old Guard” reporters who felt that objectivity was still something to reach for, not something that should be thrown aside.

What the younger reporters who fought against the ideals of objectivity did not realize, as Schudson writes, is that, in not being objective, they themselves often “were “political” unwittingly or even unwillingly.” (Schudson 162)  Essentially, in not striving to be at least somewhat objective, they opened themselves up to being affected by their own biases.

News Management

U-2 plane

In a bit of a connection to objectivity is the management of news by the government that Schudson writes of.  Schudson details a number of cases where journalists knew that the government at the time was telling a lie, such as the involvement of the U-2 flights over the former USSR.  They simply accepted what the government handed them and printed it.  This is especially obvious in the case with Senator McCarthy.  There were some that actually questioned what McCarthy said, did some honest-to-god research and investigation, but they were in the minority and not often read.

The reason for this, as Schudson writes that Douglass Cater said, is that many thought of this interpretative reporting as “the writer’s private property.”  (Schudson 168)  Essentially, even though it may be telling the truth, people did not wholly buy what these investigative reporters were putting out, thinking that they may be biased or otherwise misinterpreting the information.

It is amusing to note what brought the journalism industry to put a foot down to being controlled by the government.  In brief, the government acted as gatekeepers to information and only released what they wanted to be known, as has been previously said.  Most journalists went along with this act, knowing the truth but putting out what the government wanted.  To these journalists, this was fine and dandy, so long as they (the journalists) knew the truth, even if it was hidden from the reading public.

What brought a major shock to journalists whas what Arthur Sylvester, a spokesman for the Pentagon under both presidents Kennedy and Johnson, said.  He said that “I think the inherent right of the government to lie…is basic.”  (Schudson 171-172)  Journalists felt threatened, realizing that they were simply a tool of the government at that time, not what they likely thought of to be an equal partnership (or if not equal, then semi-equal).  This, coupled with the exposure of lies and all the hubbub surrounding Vietnam, lead to the third part of the chapter.

Critical Culture

As was often the trend of the younger set around the time of the war in Vietnam, people began to question everything, be critical of everything.  It led to journalists delving into stories more, trying to find the truth behind the lie.  And as journalists did just that, it led to an upsurge in people watching.  No longer was it simply a visual radio, reciting what was said.  Now it had a face, now it had a story to tell all its own.

under: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

The downside of Twitter journalism

Posted by: | December 6, 2009 | No Comment |

NOTE: This post isn’t directly related to the class readings, but I thought it would be nice to end the semester with an issue in journalism today.

Many journalists in 2009 have a good grasp of new media techniques they can use to increase their online readership. Many beat reporters have blogs to publish insider information that otherwise would not crack the small word limits of printed articles. Many reporters host online chat sessions to answer readers’ questions directly. Other journalists link their Twitter accounts to their cell phones and post 140-character updates from wherever they happen to be located.

Professor Steve Klein does not hesitate when it comes to whipping out his iPhone to show students its usefulness in helping him stay updated on today’s news. The staunchest advocate of Twitter, TweetDeck (a personal feed organizer) and Lance Armstrong‘s Tweeting ability, Professor Klein can rattle off a list of these products’ benefits in a heartbeat.

----- TweetDeck -----

----- TweetDeck -----

But on Friday, Oct. 23, at a new media panel discussion at Mason, an anti-Twitter argument manifested itself in the form of a professor from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va.

The Liberty professor argued that the lines between tabloid journalism and news are increasingly being blurred by Twitter, a web site that encourages users to obtain “followers” to view their profiles. Professor Klein and former student Forrest Kobayashi, a USA Today intern, both provided examples of how Twitter is bettering their lives.

Professor Klein found out about the death of Walter Cronkite by checking his Twitter account. This news appeared on Twitter about seven minutes faster than it appeared on any wire news service, according to Professor Klein.

According to Kobayashi. 19 percent of Internet users in the U.S. use Twitter.

One point made in this session threw ice water on the bright Twitter praise-fest.

“We have a lot of information, but judgment is not included.”

I cannot remember who said this, but the rest of the discussion centered around this statement.

Treating Twitter like a legitimate news source because of a few breaking stories equals classifying TMZ as a news agency because it broke two or three celebrity stories. Random updates from non-newsmakers remain the site’s biggest offering. And are the country’s main news organizations dominated by Shaquille O’Neal and Ashton Kutcher?

The consensus among the experts at the session: Twitter is here to stay, but instructors must teach good judgment in journalism schools.

Some other notes and quotes from the session:

  • One of the panelists compared Twitter to “junk food.”
  • Professor Steve Farnsworth said today’s journalistic environment does not lend itself well to educating good news consumers. “It is very hard for people to be responsible citizens in this environment,” were his exact words.
  • “There will be a very distinct for good journalists,” Kobayashi said. “Quality content will be highly sought after.”
under: Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

Is it really anybody’s business?

Posted by: | December 6, 2009 | No Comment |

When we discuss press freedom in our History of Journalism class, we usually center our discussions on government restrictions on publications throughout history. These governments would target newspapers which blasted authoritative figures, examples being kings and the Catholic Church.

Today, the press has various high-impact public figures to blast, and restrictions (at least in the U.S.) are subtle at best and nonexistent otherwise.

Photo from CartoonStock.com

-----Photo from CartoonStock.com-----

These contrasting times bring up an interesting dilemma:

Are the personal lives of high-profile celebrities everyone’s business?

Sensationalists writing for 16th- to 18th-century publications seemed to believe so.

Because press owners dominated journalism, they concentrated on gaining readers – and in turn, focused more on making their publications entertaining than accurate. Incorporating big-name celebrities and political authorities was a surefire way to gain reader attention, even via falsehoods. In Mitchell Stephens‘ “A History of News,” sensational journalists falsely reported the deaths of various rulers, and even wrote that Joan of Arc was alive, long after she had died.

In those days, sensationalism was a survival tactic.

Now, sensationalism is an entertainment hook.

Think about some of the stories that have made the news over the past year:

And recently, the (extra?)marital affairs of the greatest golfer in the world, Tiger Woods.

With the future of newspapers dependent on a lot more than celebrity escapades, one has to wonder why media outlets are ruthlessly pursuing a story inconsequential to everyone except for Tiger Woods and whoever is involved in his marriage. Now, more than ever, it is more important that senseless sensationalism does not come to dominate the news, especially with the U.S. engaged in multiple wars and shaky relationships with other nations.

While TMZ continues to pursue this story (along with thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of others), and while it does make Saturday Night Live fodder, some columnists have become sickened of this coverage.

Take a good look at all this coverage. Is it saving newspapers? No. Is it increasing television viewership? Maybe. Are people sick of it? Absolutely. Does this fall into the sensationalism category? Yes. Is this story the sole life of any single publication or news organization? Absolutely not.

Has the use of sensationalism evolved?

You betcha.

under: Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

Syndication in Newspapers

Posted by: | December 5, 2009 | No Comment |

When the 20th century arrived, Journalism enters the print syndication world.  Print syndication are articles, columns and comics are made available to newspapers, websites, and magazines. Print syndication often reprints  articles and publish them on paper and online with copyright consent.

Newspaper companies like the Tribune Company, the New York Times, and The Telegraph Media Group Service are examples of print syndication in today’s journalism landscape.  However,  like newspapers, syndicated newspapers rich history goes back to the pre-20th century days.

In the Washington area, the Washington Post had its own syndicated newspaper called the Washington Post Writers Group. This syndicated newspaper is owned by Kaplan, and was publish in 1877, the same year the Washington Post was created. Today,the Post writers groups owns over hundreds of local newspapers, television stations, and websites around the country.

Cartoons, and comic strips have been a tradition for syndicated newspapers since the 1800s. Famous cartoonist such as Jack Elrod and Charles M. Schultz became very popular with their cartoon work.

So what does the future hold for syndicated newspapers? Will it fade out just like other small newspapers? Or will it survive within the next decade due to its presence in big market such as Chicago, New York City, and Washington D.C? These questions could be answered within the next decade or so.

under: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

The opening chapter of Michael Schudson’s Discovering the News is basically a celebration of the brilliance that was the penny press. Schudson talks about how the penny press forever changed the face of journalism and of the dissemination of news, beginning in the early 1830’s. Schudson called the penny press a “revolution” for news.

Bennett published NY Herald

Bennett published NY Herald

Schudson also discusses, towards the back-end of his opening chapter, about a man named James Gordon Bennett. Bennett was the publisher of a paper written for middle-class readership called  the New York Herald. With that said, the bulk of the chapter was on the penny press and how it changed the face of journalism.

Before I tell you about the background of the penny press I think I should answer the question you are all asking yourselves. “When did the first penny paper come about and what was it called?”

Well, I hope you aren’t in my history of journalism class if you are asking that. If you are, you didn’t pay enough attention in class because we talked about it at least 17 times this semester. But hey, this is a public blog and you may not be in our class, so I will answer the question for you anyway.

The New York Sun was the first penny paper. It was published in 1833 by Benjamin Day. But why was this so important and why does Schudson love the penny press as much as Jack loved Rose? Why is it important enough to have been the focal point of the first chapter of his wildly popular book?

Schudson says that the penny press was revolutionary in that it turned editorial fluff into factual news. You see, before it came along newspapers were distributed by publishers who were linked to politicians and wealthy dignitaries who were looking to spread their opinions. As you can probably assume, the papers that were being distributed typically showed great bias.

They were also far more expensive than the penny papers, and as a result were available to future papers. In the pre penny press days you would have had to cough up six cents to buy yourself a paper. What’s worse was that even if you were able to dig up six cents by looking through your couch cushions and emptying out your piggy bank, you still might not have been able to get yourself a paper.

Many papers were only distributed based on subscriptions. So you had to have a steady six cents that you could shell out for a fresh issue of the paper. That was not the case for most people back in the early part of the 19th century.  

As you might have already assumed, penny papers were sold each day for one penny. They were walked around town by newsboys and distributed to anybody and everybody who wanted to pay a cent for that day’s news. You didn’t have to have subscription to the paper, you just had to have a penny, and a hunger for news.

As an aside, (If Wilbon can do it why can’t we?)… Schudson did not go into detail about the newsboys in his chapter. I, however, would like to talk about them for just a moment. When I was a child I used to watch a movie called “Newsies” all the time. In this movie, newsboys sold papers for Pulitzer and Hurst, and eventually decided to strike because they didn’t have any of the rights they thought they deserved.

“Newsies” was an epic film that culminates with the newsboys fighting against the ‘goons’ that the paper companies sent after them. It ties in very well to our class and I think we should have watched it already. Since we haven’t, I’ve found a clip from the film that I want you to watch. Remember, this relates to my blog and to this class very well because the newsboys are selling penny papers in the clip. So don’t feel bad about watching the opening scene of the newsies.

Schudson’s first chapter attributes a great deal of the success of penny papers to the fact that their circulations quickly surpassed that of their six-cent rivals. The spike in circulations, according to Schudson, should be chalked up to the fact that the papers were cheaper and that people were now buying them day-in and day-out.

Another plus that the author pointed out about the penny paper was that most of them were independently produced. This meant that the publishers behind them weren’t trying to satisfy any wealthy politician by promoting their views or by leaning towards one political side or another. They were more “centered,” which is part of the reason why Schudson said penny papers turned “editorials” more “factual.”

Schudson stated that penny papers succeeded in their advertising strategies by being less picky than their predecessors. The biggest difference in advertising between penny papers and the newspapers that were around before them was the idea that the advertisements in the penny papers were geared towards a more common group of people. They weren’t just going to advertise “to the elite,” but instead to the “people who had a penny.”

At about this time, the nation was becoming more literate. I suppose this is something of a chicken-or-the-egg question as to which happened first, but Schudson states that the spread of literacy throughout the nation inspired the growth of newspapers and the journalism field as a whole.

under: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

In the 3rd chapter of Discovering the News, Schudson discusses two types of journalism in the 1890’s that influenced the journalism standards we see today. These two types of journalism are “journalism as entertainment,” and “journalism as information.”

Schudson starts out by asking two important questions about these two types of journalism. “What is it about the story that seems to attract the working-class reader,” and “What is it about information that seems to appeal to the educated middle class?” In order to find explanations for these questions, Schudson discusses two different newspapers, the World and the New York Times.

When looking at “journalism as entertainment,” Schudson refers to Joseph Pulitzers, New York World in 1883. The World was known for its sensationalism. It included attention-grabbing stories that were unusual, yet entertaining.

During this time, the majority of people in America were immigrants. Because these immigrants had a limited English vocabulary, The World was well suited for them because the stories were written simply and clearly.

Along with immigrants, the World appealed to women as well. This is because there was a “New Woman” movement going on during this time and Pulitzer gave space in his paper for women’s issues. These issues were not particularly about women’s rights, but rather domestic things such as fashion, beauty and cooking.

Bold illustrations, large headlines, and sensational stories were elements of the World that classified it as “journalism as entertainment.” The World placed emphasis on entertaining and grabbing the reader’s attention, rather then just informing the reader.

In contrast, Schudson discusses “journalism as information” in the 1890’s by looking at the New York Times. The New York Times established itself with standards much different from the World. It was concerned with providing readers with “pure,” factual information. This type of journalism was appealing to wealthy and educated people. These types of people were more attracted to the truth-value of news, instead of sensationalism. Because the New York Times was more popular to these types of people, it was more socially approved and respected then the World.

Both newspapers would not have been nearly as successful with out the penny press, according to Schudson. The penny press caused both newspapers to increase their circulation dramatically in only one year.

In the end of the chapter, Schudson discusses these two journalisms in relation to objectivity. Objectivity was not as important in journalism in the 1890’s as it was in later years. Because of this, both story-based and information-based newspapers still caused for later skepticism.

Story-based news was filled with biased, sensationalist stories, while information-based newspapers were giving out facts without any context to back them up.

These two types of journalisms “influenced journalism in the 1920’s and 1930’s and gave rise to the ideal of objectivity as we know it,” according to Schudson.

The two different standards of journalism seen from the World and the New York Times would eventually come together to form a more balanced type of news that still told a story, but in an objective way.

As Schudson says in his book, the newspaper has 3 functions: to inform, to interpret, and to entertain. The World and the New York Times helped influence these 3 functions of a newspaper that we see today.

under: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Climactic change in objectivity?

Posted by: | December 3, 2009 | No Comment |

News of Tiger Wood’s automobile accident and the White House party crashers blanketed the airwaves and front pages of newspapers. Sure, it was Thanksgiving holiday and not much happens during that time, so media need to find something to feed the masses.

Something else newsworthy happened over the same time period.  The servers of the University of East Anglia‘s Climate Research Unit were hacked.  Thousands of e-mails were stolen and the contents made public.

As I was writing a review for the introduction to Michael Schudson‘s book “Discovering the News,” I couldn’t help but notice one sentence concerning objectivity.  “Discussion of objectivity as an ideal (or ideology) in science, medicine, law, the social sciences, journalism, and other pursuits tends to two poles: either it seeks to unmask the profession in question or glorify it.”

Schudson goes on to state, in certain circumstances “science, generally understood as opposed to ideology, threatens to become ideology itself.”  I immediately thought about the issue of climate change and the hacked emails.

Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit, is reported to have said, “My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well.”  That’s an understatement.  What some of the e-mails show is that there are two poles to climate science — the colleagues and the skeptics.

The colleagues are scientists such as Jones and Michael Mann, Director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State.  The skeptics are any scientists that disagree with or refute their data or findings.

What was most surprising in the e-mails was not the utter lack of objectivity from the colleagues, but it was the conspiracy of the colleagues to silence the skeptics.  This conspiracy didn’t involve rebuking published material by the skeptics.  This conspiracy involved silencing the skeptics through a form of prior restraint.

One supposed e-mail shows that the colleagues had long criticized skeptics for not being published in peer-reviewed journals.  When one skeptic paper was published, the colleagues called it a skeptic coup of the journal, moved to have the journals board members removed, proposed to publicly de-legitimize the journal and encourage colleagues not to submit or cite papers from that journal.  Talk about a coup!

John Stuart Mill would have a field-day with this.  Mill’s argument is let everyone have their say — regardless of accuracy.  The search for the truth will show which argument is correct and which one isn’t.  The colleagues, however, failed to understand one simple fact.  Silencing others because you disagree, even if you are right, only leads others to believe that either you are lying, you have something to hide or you’re hiding the fact that you’re lying.

Science, like journalism, could use a little more objectivity and transparency.

under: Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

The modern day owner of the press

Posted by: | December 3, 2009 | No Comment |

In class, we like to talk about how we’ve come full-circle in many aspects of news coverage.

Using the Internet, we have expanded our “Edge,” much like people did hundreds of years ago with the invention of written news. Our wire services are influenced by a collaboration between New York newspapers, who sent reporters on boats to get news from U.S. ships. Today’s issues of press freedom are nothing compared to the Church-controlled printing system during the time of Martin Luther. You think today’s press is nasty? Take a look at the Philadelphia Aurora.

“That’s vitreol,” Professor Klein would say.

freedom-of-the-press
Picture taken from Ron Coleman’s blog

Strangely enough, the days of the owners of the press being the ultimate decision-makers regarding news coverage is not over. Benjamin Franklin has now been replaced with editors of foreign news operations with correspondents in the U.S.

In “Through Their Eyes: Foreign Correspondents in the United States,” author Stephen Hess talked to a number of foreign correspondents based in the U.S., many of whom complained about the influence their editors have on their writing and story coverage. Even today, a lot of coverage is based on a whim.

Takeshi Yamashita of NHK-TV in Japan describes something Hess calls a “CNN Effect”:

“Always they are watching, and they get [ideas] from CNN and they call us. This is kind of embarrassing.”

Chang Choi, a Korean television correspondent, echoed these sentiments:

“Now with the Internet and CNN and all the information fed directly to our headquarters, with our foreign news department watching the video clips or all the information on the Internet… or they type in the keyword “Korea” on New York Times and all these stories come up on the screen. We correspondents are very concerned about that situation.”

While the D.C.-based correspondents are undeniably more familiar with American news audiences and culture, the ultimate story choice decisions may come from higher up – across the pond. Judging by Yamashita and Choi’s remarks, and others who Hess surveyed, these decisions sometimes come laced with stereotypes and ignorance.

One reporter said the home office always wants stories “more stereotypical” than others. Another correspondent says her editors like to showcase stories that symbolize the negatives of American society, such as violence.

With this iron grip on the press, is the current foreign news outlet situation that much different than when owners of the press dictated circulated material?

After Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1450 (though I’ve seen way too many 1439s to think this is a mere error), only those with wealth and status were able to secure ownership of these new tools. Beginning to print newspapers, these early publishers – devoid of reporters – began to print news in the only way they could to sell a paper. They began copying other publications, writing of the hearsay they picked up in conversations, and finally, to fill space, they wrote opinionated columns, showcasing their views.

When you think about it, does this degree of control mirror an editor who only wants to focus on violence?

under: Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Categories