.
Self-Loathing or ‘Objectivity’? Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies “says the news media, in general, don’t do a good enough job of telling the world its good news,” reports National Public Radio ombudsperson Alicia C. Shepard.
“We do a HORRIBLE job covering our successes. Horrible. And there are consequences: 1.) The public thinks all we do is screw up. 2.) Folks under-appreciate the role of good journalism. 3.) No one even recognizes good journalism when they see it. 4.) And we tend to underestimate our own ability to change the world.”
—Kelly McBride, ethics specialist, The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, discussing how NPR and other news media do and don’t report their successes, yesterday.
(Thanks to alert WORDster Colleen Almeida of the Tulsa World)
Editorial Comment: But good news isn’t news, right?
.
Says who??? Objective news reporting should report changes in condition, and leave it to the readers to decide whether it's "good" or "bad." And that goes for reporting on our own industry, too.
ReplyDeleteI agree. But 1) good news isn't defined as "news" and b) journalists are notoriously shy about covering their own industry.
ReplyDelete"Journalists are a self-loathing bunch who are engaging in classic self-fulfilling prophecy."
ReplyDeleteRoger (a newspaper publisher who should know....)
Will writes:
ReplyDelete"The idea that I might 'change the world' scares the shit out of me. Isn't it bad enough already?"
The WORDman replies:
"Seriously, how much worse would WillWorld be?"
Part of the problem lies in the growing conviction in the "brief" media -- radio and TV -- that every possible tragic event nationwide be covered, and now, so as to avoid being beaten out by competitors. The result? Murders, smallcraft air crashes, dramatic police chases shot from the air, the hiker or skier lost in the mountains, etc., etc., etc. eat up limited national coverage when they should be, at best, in local news. Needless to say, all this petty sensationalism eats up time better devoted to matters of national concerns, needs, or interests. Newspapers suffer less since they have room for both, but they are a dying breed while all the fast and dirty media are taking over.
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as good news, positive pictures of human behavior, progress in significant areas of need --- hey, who needs dull stuff like that. Life is a downer, but some of it is sure spooky exciting and that adds excitement to what, you know, is nothing but a downhill ride to bleep.
Does anyone see a u-turn developing in this miserable trend? A turnaround? Please speak up.
McBride is right, of course, but there's no way this is going to change. Your point of "good news is not news" is true in a general, traditional sense (even though there is much more good news reported than the general public would have us believe). Second - and don't expect the media-bashing public to understand this - while most journalists probably have a healthy ego, they'd rather die than appear to be congratulating themselves or doing something self-serving. Third, there are ways their successes COULD be reported, but it would take a PR mentality to figure out how to do that, and media people hate that mentality even more than the traditional constraints.
ReplyDeleteJS
(PR man)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHarry,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. Newspapers (and magazines) have been the only places you can find both traditionally. But now even newspapers don't have room ... space is shrinking every week. Even more importantly, beat writers don't have time to cover both. As an education reporter, I'm still trying to figure out how to stay on top of long-term issues while making it to board meetings, science fairs, PTA meetings and key lectures, covering awards, recognitions and bond approvals, just spelling out what budget is getting cut and by how much and taking the time to cut my 16-inch stories about all of these things to 10 inches so it will fit in the paper. Once you add the time it takes to produce a video for the live site, write a midday for the Web and Twitter and Tweet yourself into cyberspace, there's little time left over for investigation. It's not impossible, it's just harder than it was six months ago. Largely because our beats have gotten so much larger due to attrition, restructuring and layoffs. I'm required to write/produce/share less news about more topics in more ways. Thoughts anyone?