Latest example of why I don’t feel bad for the journalism industry
By Solomon Kleinsmith | Related entries in NewsAccording to Google News, there are currently 223 articles written about this very important subject. CNN, the New York Times, Reuters, AP and even the British rag The Guardian, have all chimed in. The Washington Post, American Free Press, Newsweek and Politico have gotten in on this serious debate as well. At a time when we are working on such unimportant issues like health care reform, unionization rule changes and trimming defense budgets to meet 21st century needs, I’m so very happy to see the fourth estate assures that the American people are aware that… President Obama wore frumpy jeans when he threw out the first pitch the other day.
I don’t think we should stay totally serious all the time, but there is just a point where I see things like this and the amount of time spent on Micheal Jackson, (not to mention the LACK of time spent on Iran) and I stop feeling sorry for the journalism industry. My apparently mistaken assumption is professional journalists are supposed to produce a better product because they spend all day working on finding real substantive stories, and then digging into them deeper than us amateurs have time to do. Then they spend that time writing about garbage like this.
Good riddance. Let the purge continue.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 21st, 2009 and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 21st, 2009 at 6:48 pm
And according to Google News there are 43,938 news stories on healthcare, 10,781 stories on defense spending and 1,090 stories specifically on the “Employee Free Choice Act”–who knows how many storoes on the generic “union” stories.
Meanwhile there are 70 million + bloggers who think that what they do vaguely passes for journalism instead of commenting on the labors of real journalists.
Oh, we’ve got plenty of bloggers and blogs that think they are contributing to the conversation, but mainly we have a lot of opinionated folks with just enough technical acumen to type in an form box and turn on a computer.
Every newspaper that closes is tragedy that furthers the erosion not only of the public discourse, but the day to day history of a community or region.
That will be irretrievably lost when the last newspaper printing press idles.
Meanwhile, bloggers will simply spin and comment on the latest talking head commentators’ spins and comments.
Do newspapers always get it right? No. Do they avoid all bias? No. But they are a far better source of news than the blogging community as a whole will ever be.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I’d like you to show me where I claimed bloggers are better than journalists? I don’t expect high quality from bloggers, we’re a bunch of amateurs. I expect more from professionals, and if they ever want any of my money again (more than web ads anyway), they can be sure that it wont come until I have an option to buy a product that is devoid of this sort of thing.
There are all sorts of potential business models flying around the web right now… including a promising idea of allowing newspapers to go nonprofit (which makes a lot of sense to me). Something I’d like to see is a service that takes only hard news articles from out of papers from across the country and delivers it to you at your doorstep, and allows you to access it online as well. I’m not going to pay for a subscription to a newspaper or magazine that is comprised with 80+% ads and garbage that I’m never interested in reading. I’m not going to subsidize this kind of junk gossip journalism by paying for a subscription to a rag that I can read the worthwhile stuff online.
If something like that ever is developed, consider me on board. Until then, they’re earning their road to insolvency.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Like publishing and entertainment, newspapers publish the stories above the fold that draw our eyes and sell the paper. As a culture, we get the stories we tend to fund and thus deserve. You might as well blame the shallowness of American culture instead of the journalist who markets what we’ll buy.
And your little elitist, condescending snit solves nothing.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:28 am
I don’t think I said you claimed boggers were better. I simply stated that bloggers are beholden to the labor of real journalists, but many bloggers seem to think they are somehow a news source or are replacing the media.
Bloggers blog–they have opinions. They do not gather news, and what news they disseminate is filtered through the noise of their opinions.
What bothers me about the blogger world is they seem to think they are somehow supplanting news—they are not. People blog because they feel strongly about something, not because they are setting out to dispassionately gather and spread news.
Most people would agree that a problem with the mainstreet media is that bias creeps into the news coverage. Now take a blogger and multiply it 10-fold. If anything, the new media and its emphasis on personalities has accelerated the division in this country.
People look at Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olberman as if they are somehow “news anchors” reporting news instead of talking heads with opinions
Bloggers are just smaller versions of the O’Reillys and Olbermans–but the sheer number of them generates so much noise that it drowns out the real news. And the traditional media you are so willing to flush down the toilet responds the only way a corporate-owned entity without any kind of journalistic integrity would–copy that which is popular.
You don’t want to pay for something that is 80 percent unimportant to you, but that 80 percent subsidizes the 20 percent you do want. You say you’re not going to subsidize the junk gossip journalism–well, for the vast majority of celebrity worshipping non-news junkies, they don’t see why they should be subsidzing you.
The new media is “succeeding” because their cost structure is next to nothing, but a big reason it is next to nothing is because unlike real newspapers they don’t have to put boots on the ground. They simply put their boots on the desk and pontificate about the most base news stories spilling out of the television.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:01 am
I’m reminded of a National Lampoon album line. “We play a lot of shit, but that is what you want to hear.” McNeil Lehrer/CSpan/NPR/BBC. Better info and Much lower ratings unfortunately. Perhaps we could go back to a model where the News was not a profit center but a civic responsibility for the right to have license to the airwaves. Not sure how you’d implement that but IMO it would be a nice goal. I’m still flabbergasted about America’s Rose.
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:49 am
Even the best of McNeil Lehrer/CSpan/NPR/BBC is still little more than an talking head reading the newspaper. Television news never bothered to take its civic responsibility much past that and the occassional news truck that runs out in front of a burning building.
When the last newspaper finally rolls of the press, the TV news and the bloggers will lament a once great industry for about a week and then for the next week or two they will talk about what the other tv news people and bloggers are talking about and then hopefully, finally go dark themsevles.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:20 am
gerryf-
McNeil Lehrer and CSpan are designed to talk about the news so not sure that is a legitimate criticism. NPR still does reporting and the BBC goes places most people would never have heard of without them
I like newspapers too and am sorry that all news is where it is but there could be better news everywhere. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Perhaps the newspaper reporters could switch to a video blog format for some of their stories.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:51 am
The Fourth Estate (what is left of it at any rate) is not trusted by a fair number of Americans. To be candid, there seems to be a dearth of people who actually report the “news” and an excess of journalists who push their opinions upon us whether we want them to do so or not and the media is now ratings driven and that throws in a different variable. CNN e.g. has to keep up with MSNBC or Fox News . T be honest, a lot of Americans don’t want to use their gray matter excessively so they let Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, Laura Ingraham, Arian Huffington – you know whom I am talking about don’t you?- speak for them. And then Americans bitch and moan about how bad it is. I cannot figure out for the life of me why anyone would want to be President of the United States with the current state of the nation !
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:57 am
If I were Solomon, I’d lighten up. The “journalism industry” delivers hard news and soft stories because more people like the latter than the former by miles. And when everything Obama says and does — not to mention his wife anf kids — apparently is fascinating to large numbers of Americans, it’s a good bet that people will notice even his choice of jeans,
Roll with it.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:01 am
Word,
NPR and BBC news gathering is limited. It mostly (not always) consists of reading an article in the newspapers and saying “Hey, I could do a story on that.”
The radio and tv format just doesn’t allow for the kind of news gathering that I am talking about. Are NPR and BBC more substantial than other TV news? I will give you that, but by and large they are not the entities that break the news or do the kind of investigative reporting that the print media does.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:58 am
gerry-
We don’t disagree. I don’t think anyone on here has necessarily. There are examples of places who do it right and by and large they are not the popular places where people get news. So, it seems like a lot of this is “our own fault”
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:27 am
Who do you guys consider the best hard news sources out there on American Politics?
I’ve been liking WaPo more and more lately myself… of course the NYT and WSJ, the articles on National Journal that I can read are usually good.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Been visiting this blog on a regular basis, first time posting here.
I work for a newspaper in a community of about 7,000 people. There have been some good points made, but I can tell you from experience in the newspaper industry that some of the talk about “newspapers are going down” is getting blown out of proportion.
I don’t disagree that soft news tends to be more popular, and when it comes to hard news, it tends to only generate interest if it’s something on a larger scale. Iraq, for example, generated lots of interest, more so than other national issues have.
But, yes, I shook my head at the amount of coverage devoted to Michael Jackson versus the amount of coverage toward the health care debate. But this is how our society has become… too many people are more concerned about celebrity status than they are about issues that have a greater impact on their everyday lives.
As far as what newspapers are doing, I think a bigger problem newspapers have had is that many have tried to be all things to all people. I’ve found newspapers generally have better success if they keep their focus on their local communities, with some focus on the state and national level depending on what their markets are. For example, the paper I work for focuses solely on local news… we are not an AP member (and while I don’t know the exact costs for AP service, I do understand it’s not cheap) and, if any national or state issues get covered, we tend to take a local angle with them.
Certainly, ads tend to dominate newspapers, but that’s where newspapers make their money. Again, I don’t have exact costs for newsprint, but I know it’s fairly expensive and no way would a newspaper be able to cover its expenses on the pocket change it generally charges for a copy of the paper. Like it or not, advertising is where the bulk of the revenue for any media outlet comes from.
That being said, I can sympathize with those who don’t like that some media outlets let “soft news” dominate their coverage. But that being said, those people need to let it be known that the general public needs to pay closer attention to the issues that truly impact their lives or certain media outlets will see little reason to change.
As far as new methods of delivery of news content go, I’m certainly open to that… but if that method of delivery alone does not provide sufficient revenue to cover expenses, there will have to be another source of revenue coming somewhere to make it work.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
[...] Solomon Kleinsmith of Donklephant.com suddenly does not feel so bad that the journalism industry is …. “What’s clear from the vote on Thune’s amendment [regarding gun owners and their ability to carry concealed weapons across state lines] is that although Democrats portray themselves as one big happy family, there are significant undercurrents of concern among some of their membership about being portrayed as insufficiently centrist on social issues.” [...]
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Bloggers have evolved because the mainstream news media abdicated their responsibilities. They cover nothing in depth, no longer ask the hard questions, and spend too much time sitting in the studio asking each other what their opinions are of this issue or that issue and then congratulating themselves on how smart and clever they are. You can’t blame bloggers because the news media left the door open and the bloggers walked in. Besides, bloggers have their purpose. During the 24/7 Michael Jackson circus, it was the blogs and the print media that kept the real issues on the front burner while CNN and the other networks pushed everything else off the stove.
But, the main thing the media can’t seem to grasp is that blogs exist because people read them. Some blogs, like Politico, the Huffington Post and the Drudge Report get huge amounts of traffic. They are evidently filling a need, or people would stop reading them. Instead of attacking blogs and bloggers, the more traditional media should really be asking themselves why blogs are so popular, and what need it is that blogs fill that the traditional media doesn’t or can’t. It’s quite possibly as simple as the fact that most bloggers talk like real people talk and don’t treat their audiences like they’re a bunch of five year olds. Bloggers give their audience credit for having some capacity to understand the story, without having their intelligence insulted by Wolf Blitzer or the other zillion talking heads night after night.
Oh, and one other thing. Boots on the ground is not what it used to be. That’s the other place the print media are having a hard time grasping. A lot of what those boots on the ground used to go and do is now online. A good blogger with a computer and the right access can come up with a world of information that used to take a boots-on-the-ground reporter all day to gather. Boots on the ground have their purpose, to be sure. But, that purpose isn’t what it used to be.
http://www.thedeallucille.com
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:01 am
And what, pray tell, is the door that bloggers walked through, Mac?
I think that is my point (one of them anyways)–Bloggers are not news, bloggers are for the most part commentors on news.
They are not much different than the O’Reilly’s of the world in that they preach to a choir who already agrees them about things they think, or prattle on about things that are important to them and not even their audience cares about.
It is the “we’re the new media” thing that drives me nuts.
I don’t want to pick on you, but look at your blog.
Post 1: Reference to a Newspaper story
Post 2: Why Buchanon matters–how is that any more significant than why Michael Jackson matters?
Post 3: My Memories of Walter Kronkite–how is that any different then memories of Michael Jackson. Kronkite spent his life trying NOT to be the story, and you just made him THE story.
Post 4: Somewhat newsy, but your referring to another blog post, throw in a few opinions and links from other places, and now we’re calling that news?
Walk through the door? You didn’t even go in the same building.
There is nothing wrong with what you or bloggers do–but journalists you ain’t. Bloggers are talking heads without the talking part.
It is the loss of journalism that I lament and the giddy “we are the new media” crap that makes me shake my head.
If this is the new media, we are in a freaking lot of trouble.
Bloggers aren’t by and large watchdogs of the government–they are either cheerleaders for their team, or hecklers for the other team.
What few blogs practice journalism are doing it with a definite bias more pronounced than anything the MSM ever did.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:28 am
Journalists aren’t watchdogs of the government either, Gerry. That might be part of the problem–journalists have become too much like bloggers. Do you think the NYT, WSJ, WP, CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc. are acting as watchdogs? If you do, please help me out because I absolutely can’t see it from any of them. I see thinly-veiled political leanings (both sides) driving editorial decisions, story choice, framing, context, depth, and tone. But perhaps if we can sort through bias on both sides, we as individuals–through consumption of multiple channels and sources, while recognizing the biases–can tease out something that resembles truth. IMO, a plurality of news sources (and related commentary) is critical to understanding what’s really going on in the world.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
EI,
Clearly, you are not paying attention. While you can certainly argue that journalists don’t always do a great job, they do a far better job than bloggers.
Pick up a newspaper.
There are dozens of example of the watchdog every day, from the annual Pulitzer’s to the local newspapers.
The Detroit Free Press’ dogged pursuit of the corrupt Mayor of Detroit resulted in him resigning from office in disgrace and getting a jail sentence.
Bob Morris’ newspaper serving a community of 7,000 had a reporter at last week’s city council meeting. Just that reporter sitting there and writing a council story was performing a watchdog function. If you don’t think those council members weren’t aware of the presence and behaved differently because of it, you don’t know people.
Last month, the local paper in my town had a story about water rate increases and the next meeting there were 100 people packing the council chambers.
Being a watchdog doesn’t just mean an investigation that reveals corruption ala watergate–the little things count too, and that loss of the little things the newspapers do is going to cost us all in the long run.
Newspapers are the collective memories of a and conscience of a community and once they are gone, all the bloggers in the world won’t make up for it.
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:20 pm
The business of reporting must keep up with the times. There are hundreds of thousands of bloggers and similar online entities who make similar efforts that are close to what journalists do. Some even only do it as a hobby. Some as forced habit. In all of these, how does journalists fare?