Pincus -- Newspapers with agenda's welcome

[bmags]

Soxtalk posters,

This, unfortunately, is a long post, but I do say possibly interesting? I decided it would be best to put all my thoughts down first, because I fear the repercussion of merely putting the article down without placing what my ACTUAL question is.

 

------

 

Yes, I know, another thread by me on journalism. I might as well just put up a journalism thread for me to muse to myself.

 

but so anyway, longtime columnist and reporter Walter Pincus throws his hat into the ring for the decline of newspapers.

 

http://www.cjr.org/essay/newspaper_narcissism_1.php?page=all

 

Ignoring what I find to be a useless and outmoded argument about those darn fangled Web sites! I find interesting the first half and his discussion about what newspapers were. (yes Walter, newspapers make 10x more in print advertising in online, but when the median age of yr. print readers is 60+ and yr. talking about writing for your readers, how the hell is that going to attract more young people to read print. It would be an AARP manual.)

 

His point was this: The majority of the newspapers were family owned, and started by businessman hoping to get a voice. They had agendas (and for this, don't always think Democrat-Republican, I'll give an example soon hereafter), but also deep stakes into the product of their paper. This was before the surge of 40% profits.

 

When I thought of the problem of the conglomeration of media by big companies hoping to rake in a sure 20% profit, I've always thought of it as a problem for a diff. reason. I thought the lack of hands on interest in the paper, and mere worry about profits led to a lack of creativity in the downfall, when the solutions were to just cut printing and personnel costs.

 

But so then lets make it a point of Political agenda (I really don't want this to turn into a sophomoric argument of "well all newspapers already have an agenda blah blah blah" so check it at the door, assuming anyone replies to this post, to which I'll put that at 5% chance.)

 

His point was that when paper's had an agenda it wasn't necessarily a bad thing, it presumed people would have access to different viewpoints and could make up their minds to that. The current model tries to have one paper be a one-stop shop, showing all viewpoints in one article to make up your mind from there. He states that this has lead to boring reporting that doesn't ever get beneath an issue. It's hard to argue that news has NOT become saturated with mere balance, okay let this guy get a couple quotes and this woman get a couple quotes and there's a story!

 

-So this makes the Fox news model okay. And I wonder if that is a valid point, one that I bring forward and he ignored, I have no doubt this Pincus fellow probably loathes fox news. BUt take this, Fox takes on a story such as teabagging or rev. wright and runs it ad nauseum. Say no other outlet covers it. They get thorough onto the story and it's presented into the national conversation regardless of whether everyone watched it. The players (Obama, White House) are forced to answer to it at that point. Say MSNBC, counters this coverage of their own, deriding the actors (teabaggers, conservative blogs for Wright thing) and shows why they think it doesn't matter. Both view points would enter the dialogue. Citizens could decide. Two sets of reporting with agendas, and could it lead to more truth?

 

In town here we have the Columbia Daily Tribune. Family owned. I work for the Missourian, runs through the school, both serve the community demographic (I say this to contrast it with the school paper). The owner of the paper here is on many boards throughout the town. In a series of editorials he continued to support a measure allowing the city council to enact eminent domain over a piece of land that the owners contested. He never was as transparent as he should've been. We took the side, though I don't think it was discussed as agenda, more skepticism, of the landowners and "was this necessary?" In the end they found a more suitable piece of land that made so much more sense and eminent domain not needed. It would be easy for me to deride the owner of the Trib for his agenda, but it created interesting dialogue in the community and the people helped decide what I consider the right move. (I doubt we had anything to do with it, nobody reads our paper, more conversation in general was raised).

 

------

 

This is something I would've never thought about before this piece. I think it's inevitable that we may see the rise of more openly partisan media. IT goes against everything I've been taught, but perhaps as long as there is good reporting and it isn't misleading - and with the access everyone has to so many sources - it would maybe be better?

 

I don't know the answer, but it's an interesting question.

 

Sorry for the long post.

[kapkomet]

I think the term he uses (activist) for media is what is important. But, what is an activist? Someone who wants to actually dig for the truth, or only stop at what the surface will tell you? And behind that, if they stop at the surface, at the heart of it all, what profit can this generate a newspaper?

 

I would contend that "lazy" journalism is the cause of the tendency toward biases. It's too easy! I think integrity AND the ability to accurately describe a story is a lost art. Editorial staff changes and such are probably pretty important, no? How much influence does editorial staff play in these decisions?

 

I would hate to think that we need to have "bias" beyond what exists. It's sort of a sad thing, to me.

 

[bmags]

I think the term he uses (activist) for media is what is important. But, what is an activist? Someone who wants to actually dig for the truth, or only stop at what the surface will tell you? And behind that, if they stop at the surface, at the heart of it all, what profit can this generate a newspaper?

 

I would contend that "lazy" journalism is the cause of the tendency toward biases. It's too easy! I think integrity AND the ability to accurately describe a story is a lost art. Editorial staff changes and such are probably pretty important, no? How much influence does editorial staff play in these decisions?

 

I would hate to think that we need to have "bias" beyond what exists. It's sort of a sad thing, to me.

 

Well, not bias for bias sakes, I think themes. Okay, I mean, eliminate balance - not meaning you don't give the other side an opportunity to respond should there be two sides in a story - rather, just because you write a negative story doesn't mean you have to balance it with a positive story.

 

I think what I appreciate is the idea of a theme the paper hammers. The best stuff that happened in the tribune was Blago, OBama-Rezko and (back a little) the death row inmates scandal. They took a while to develop, but it was stories the Tribune owned and it forced politicians to answer for them. I wish the same effect could be had of Daley.

[kapkomet]

Well, not bias for bias sakes, I think themes. Okay, I mean, eliminate balance - not meaning you don't give the other side an opportunity to respond should there be two sides in a story - rather, just because you write a negative story doesn't mean you have to balance it with a positive story.

 

I think what I appreciate is the idea of a theme the paper hammers. The best stuff that happened in the tribune was Blago, OBama-Rezko and (back a little) the death row inmates scandal. They took a while to develop, but it was stories the Tribune owned and it forced politicians to answer for them. I wish the same effect could be had of Daley.

So my question is, why don't you think that could happen re: Daley?

 

Wouldn't the Trib (in your example) make a s***ton of money off of a top-blower of a Daley corruption scandal, or would they lose more money by doing it because no one would scoop them on anything else?

 

 

[bmags]

So my question is, why don't you think that could happen re: Daley?

 

Wouldn't the Trib (in your example) make a s***ton of money off of a top-blower of a Daley corruption scandal, or would they lose more money by doing it because no one would scoop them on anything else?

 

It would take so much money to report and they don't have the resources to do it right now. With what they have right now, if they committed to it, you could get some notable scandals but I doubt they'd find anything concrete above the alderman level. Status quo.

 

To cover everything they are trying to cover: Washington, municipal, int'l, community, arts, business, etc. etc. with the staff they had - It'd be impossible.

 

---

 

Previous misspeak: What I meant was that it was inevitable, imo, that news outlets become more specialized to their audience, so in that, some would be more politically biased.

[southsider2k5]

Well, not bias for bias sakes, I think themes. Okay, I mean, eliminate balance - not meaning you don't give the other side an opportunity to respond should there be two sides in a story - rather, just because you write a negative story doesn't mean you have to balance it with a positive story.

 

I think what I appreciate is the idea of a theme the paper hammers. The best stuff that happened in the tribune was Blago, OBama-Rezko and (back a little) the death row inmates scandal. They took a while to develop, but it was stories the Tribune owned and it forced politicians to answer for them. I wish the same effect could be had of Daley.

 

I really wonder why no one has taken Daley down yet. So many people have bit the bullet for him, and yet no one has ratted him out yet. It's odd.

[bmags]

I really wonder why no one has taken Daley down yet. So many people have bit the bullet for him, and yet no one has ratted him out yet. It's odd.

 

A machine this embedded and thorough, I'd imagine that very little of what could be leaked would have any contact with Daley.

 

And so you'd have to go through hundreds of sources to find a few who will talk, and then talk with their name attached. Beyond that, I imagine that the city would run up the tab on newspapers trying to get documents through open government laws - claiming the only person that can get it is this or that manager, and at so many hours of their time x salary. Then if it's ridiculous (see federal gov't charging WaPo millions for some documents) they still have to go through court, then legal fees, etc. It's unbelievable.