Just a quick thought -- if a newspaper just prints what various people say, isn't that just a gossip column?
During a political campaign, it's common for the media in general just to quote the candidates, to tell readers what the candidates (or their advisors) have to say about each other (most commonly) or some issue or other.
When the editorial staff wants to show some responsibility and respectibility, they do a "fact check," which is often little more than a scandal check against assertions the candidates have made.
No analysis of the positions or proposed programs. Do they make sense? Do they have good internal sense? Are they based on reality? What do they gloss over? What do they assume? Are those assumptions valid?
If a newspaper just gathers statements, then it's not much more than a conglomeration of opinions -- and opinions are pretty cheap no matter the source.
If people are just presented with a mass of opinions, they're bound to turn more towards those they like and away from those they don't like. It's the nature of opinions, none are any more valid than any other, it's just a matter of taste and preference.
So, in this way the front page of a newspaper differs little from its op-ed page, and a newspaper differs little from talk radio. No matter that the reporters and staff think better of themselves...
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Sagging newspaper readership
Just a quick one -- I've been skating on my writing...
I read (quickly) an article in The Atlantic saying that newspaper articles are too long, that they have too many words because the rely on old style conventions, and so on. Pithy reading.
But I doubt that newspapers (or any other written news source) are losing readers or losing money because of the number of words used in their article. It seems to me more of a matter of the words not containing news, that is, useful information or insights.
It's that facts and assumptions thing. Most of what is reported is little more than a compendium of quotations from various individuals somehow involved in the matter, often loaded with unstated assumptions of questionable (but unquestioned) validity, and lacking any real substance.
Do I get any useful insights about the quality of my local schools from an article written after a school board budget meeting, in which the reporter quotes a representative of a teachers union about the need for more money to be spent on education, and throws in a quote from a school board member about sky-high local property taxes? Every reader already knows what each side has to say, so this is not news.
Questions about how this districts' teachers work with this district's kids, about how they use school time, about how parents relate to their kids' education, about how well buildings and vehicles are maintained -- such questions aren't addressed in such quicky articles.
It's like a courtroom in which the witnesses determine what testimony they want to present. Reporters should have at least enough understanding of the subject to get to some substance, and not be satisfied with what is presented to them.
Readers today may no longer have the time or patience of their ancestors, and don't care to read empty articles -- unless they find them amusing confirmations of what they already believe (without actually having any good basis for that belief), or annoying propoganda pieces they only want to tear apart (again, based on little more than their own sentiments).
If news media want to gain some readers (and make some money), they should get out of the rut of being little more than the community gossip, and also do some soul-searching to find that self-doubting, selfless investigator lurking deep inside them. They need to ask questions -- not just of the people they may interview but also of themselves and of other knowledgable sources.
They need to search out facts and identify assumptions, and then attempt to confirm or validate their findings. And they need to follow their findings where they go, no matter that they may lead to contrary or uncomfortable conclusions, or betray a complexity denying simple conclusions.
I think readers would respect those writers and flock to those sources. Respect our intelligence, respect reality, report what you find faithfully. The product of this work ethic will have value. Sound good?
I read (quickly) an article in The Atlantic saying that newspaper articles are too long, that they have too many words because the rely on old style conventions, and so on. Pithy reading.
But I doubt that newspapers (or any other written news source) are losing readers or losing money because of the number of words used in their article. It seems to me more of a matter of the words not containing news, that is, useful information or insights.
It's that facts and assumptions thing. Most of what is reported is little more than a compendium of quotations from various individuals somehow involved in the matter, often loaded with unstated assumptions of questionable (but unquestioned) validity, and lacking any real substance.
Do I get any useful insights about the quality of my local schools from an article written after a school board budget meeting, in which the reporter quotes a representative of a teachers union about the need for more money to be spent on education, and throws in a quote from a school board member about sky-high local property taxes? Every reader already knows what each side has to say, so this is not news.
Questions about how this districts' teachers work with this district's kids, about how they use school time, about how parents relate to their kids' education, about how well buildings and vehicles are maintained -- such questions aren't addressed in such quicky articles.
It's like a courtroom in which the witnesses determine what testimony they want to present. Reporters should have at least enough understanding of the subject to get to some substance, and not be satisfied with what is presented to them.
Readers today may no longer have the time or patience of their ancestors, and don't care to read empty articles -- unless they find them amusing confirmations of what they already believe (without actually having any good basis for that belief), or annoying propoganda pieces they only want to tear apart (again, based on little more than their own sentiments).
If news media want to gain some readers (and make some money), they should get out of the rut of being little more than the community gossip, and also do some soul-searching to find that self-doubting, selfless investigator lurking deep inside them. They need to ask questions -- not just of the people they may interview but also of themselves and of other knowledgable sources.
They need to search out facts and identify assumptions, and then attempt to confirm or validate their findings. And they need to follow their findings where they go, no matter that they may lead to contrary or uncomfortable conclusions, or betray a complexity denying simple conclusions.
I think readers would respect those writers and flock to those sources. Respect our intelligence, respect reality, report what you find faithfully. The product of this work ethic will have value. Sound good?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
