The last two weeks has been, for me, a complete bombardment of extremely poor journalism emanating from every media outlet. It's not the topic of the news but rather how the stories and facts are, or not, being delivered without bias, sensationalism, or down right lies.
All the news about this war is crammed through too many filters to be of any real value as a source of information. I'm surprised that on this gig, the reporters not the producers, editors, or censors, share some blame for molding their reports into convenient packages for consumer consumption.
Peter Arnett is the perfect example. Shortly after being fired by two American media companies and then hired by the leading British anti-war newspaper; Arnett's tone and reports changed to meet the demands of his new audience. It took Peter exactly one day to change his whole persona! That's fine if he had just been fired from management position at Enron, but Peter is a journalist who's work ethic should have prevented the whole situation.
Journalist are supposed to report events as they unfold, as they have been observed. When a reporter starts to add bias and his/her own thinking to the story, it stops being news and becomes commentary.
Like I need someone to do the thinking part for me.
I want raw data — who, what, when, and where. I want to see statistics that I can compare with similar, or historical data. Don't tell me how the war is going, give me tables of data to help compare this conflict with others. Give me percentages of increase or decreases based off year to year figures or event to event figures. I want live first person accounts that haven't been edited.
Give me the data and I'll do my own thinking if you don't mind.
Dave Winer (the blogfather) made a $1000 bet with Martin Nisenholtz (CEO, New York Times Digital) that blogs, or amateur journalist will help resolve the Gerber Babynews problem. Dave writes, "We're returning to what I call amateur journalism: created for the love of writing, without expectation of financial compensation. Informed people will look to amateurs they trust for information they want."
It's already happening. Consider Where is Raed?, a blog written by a young Iraqi who has written first person accounts of the war in Iraq. It has become a primary source of news that has been validated and considered trust worthy.
Imagine what this war would look like from a news standpoint if we had a hundreds of Raeds on both sides of the conflict or any major news event.
Down with the corporate police car chase sensationalism! I want my reports from the people who were really there, not some pretty head who's sitting on top of a hotel and two countries down from where the news is actually happening.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
I was at a party for a local am news station a few years back during the Lewinsky scandal, and the glee of the sales and management folk there was palpable. Bad news=more listeners=mo' money. Period. Ad rates and the demand for advertising air time goes 'way up during times of crisis. While I'm sure no one in the media is happy about the war occuring, it is shall we say, a tremendous opportunity for the media industry.
Not only that, think of what a career and resume building opportunity this war is for all levels of people in the journalism field. I can't say I am optimistic about the ability of blogs to make a dent in mass media; they simply don't fit in to the equation, either from a personal or business level. And with people like Gary Hart getting into the act, the word that comes to mind is dilution.
Greg, I've actually gone on sort of a news embargo. I check Yahoo's most emailed and most viewed pages each morning, as well as the front page of news.google.com. On the drive home every night I listen to Marketplace on NPR. That's the sum total of my news exposure.
This is a very conscious choice. In the days after 9/11 I found myself absolutely glued to the news. It had become part of my life, and I was beginning to internalize it. CNN will tell you one thing and then FoxNews will tell you the opposite.
I think that overexposure to news during the war is unhealthy. I keep informed, but don't let the news become part of my life anymore. Rose-colored glasses? Perhaps, but I don't think that trying to maneuver the various, often contradictory viewpoints into one complete view of "reality" is a worthwhile exercise.
Arnett is, as you've said, an asshat. So is Geraldo. Even ABC ran a story by a reporter at a "location we've been asked not to name" and then showed that location on the coast from the air. I'm sure it would be trivial to figure out where they were with any $5 map.
As to "blogs-as-journalism" I'll tenatively agree that great strides CAN be made in that direction. I recently read the Biography of John Adams, and it contains many stories of the "newspapers" of the day. That's where I see us at. For every Raed telling a compelling story, there's some other jerk off spouting senseless, biased dogma. A hundred Raeds on both sides of the issue is a great concept, but it's just a concept. How do you find them out of the thousands of sites out there? It's like finding a needle in a stack of needles. Newspapers in Adams' time were so biased and inflammatory, Adams actually passed the Sedition Act which made making "scandalous" comments about the government a jailable offense. The papers were so over the top (In ways that nicely parallel many of the warblogs/peaceblogs) that it was threatening to pull apart the young country. (The sedition act was a horrid idea, and Jefferson rescinded it immediately upon taking office).
Professional journalism may be skewed and unreasonable today, but it's a damn sight more realistic than your average *pundit in his underwear. Not expecting money is great, but it also means you don't have realistic limits in what you can do or say.Many people use their bully pulpit this way and become no more than the crazy man on the street corner screaming about the end of the world.
What? You don't think Paula Zahn is unbiased in her reporting?
Beerzie Boy, there was a story on NPR recently that talked about how that wasn't true during war. Many many companies have drastically cut back on their advertising outlay. Many companies are thinking "Is it going to piss off consumers to advertise an SUV at a time when the US is fighting a war that a large chunk of Americans think is all about Oil?"
Being overseas, I've seen scant little of CNN, less of NBC and more of the BBC but for what war news coverage I have watched I can not recall having seen any commericals. For my money, the BBC coverage has been the most worthwhile for its lack of sensationalism.
However, I do not consider it, nor any news to be unbiased. As much as one would like to think they are reviewing raw data, said data is useless without an application of context and context can only come from interpretation (reading a situation) and interpretation is subject to bias. While Raed may be on the ground in Baghdad he is only one set of eyes and seeing things from one prespective. Take the news you get as a viewpoint and nothing more. Assign what worth you wish but never expect something that is not synthetic (read this as the compliment of analytic.)
It is no different then how one chooses to string words together or frame the lens of a camera. All reporting is, in its special flawed way, a creative act.
Thanks for the info, Chris. I have cut 'way back on my already meager TeeVee consumption since the war started, but if "Many many companies have drastically cut back on their advertising outlay", it doesn't seem to be translated into fewer commercials. But that could just be my perception, too.
I am dropping in via Zeldman's Externals...
I keep reminding myself the World Wide Web is aptly named. I can now read op-eds and analysis (I agree raw data is scarce) from outside the U.S. at my convenience. I can still penetrate the U.S. propaganda machine and dominant news by reading what the other side reports.
Hundreds of blogs doesn't seem impossible: Anil Dash (March 27 http://www.dashes.com/anil/index.php?archives/005631.php ) is predicting that in a few years the average web surfer will be, in essence, reading 10,000 web logs!
Advertising spending has maintained its fervor at the mediums Clear Channel represents (radio, television, outdoor, transit & airports). I agree with Beerzie boy. More trauma = More eager eyes/ears = Mo' money. Greg, it is SO frustrating to watch the news given to you in "flavored" tidbits. I understand- and I agree. Unfortunately most of the world likes the variation between tangy BBQ and cool ranch when they shop for "unbiased" reporting. Which leads me to wonder- what flavor would Geraldo fulfill?
raed is gone :( errors keep popping out of his supposed blog. is that just a coincidence or his blog was terminated?
Geraldo has to be a grape soda. I'm surprised he hasn't been fired already for being an idiot. I forsee him reporting on the new love between Batboy and Sasquatch in the near future.
Gail, I'm able to pull up the site just fine though It hasn't been updated since March 24th, most likely to the disruption in telco services in Iraq.
Make the same observation on 4/2 as well:
2003.4.2 | boysen
Now here's a good idea—Iraqi-Americans who want to fight Hussein and work towards an Iraqi democracy. Three cheers! How come you don't see this news on ABC, CNN or MSNBC? I imagine that'd be too "pro-war" for their tastes. Remember, despite what Edward R. Murrow wanted, the purpose of news is to be comprehensive, accurate and timely; not select only certain stories to run and how to run them.
Boysen: I would be careful about pointing to Fox "News" as a paragon of journalism. In fact, turning off the Tee Vee altogether has a wonderful effect on the mind...