Lack of quality in the media, failure or success of the free market?

[motivez]

A new story entry has been added:

Is the horrible coverage we suffer through here, the lack of hard questions, little focus on issues that matter a prime example of the market failing the people? Or is it a success of the market because the people want bullshit news instead of real substance?

...

More: Lack of quality in the media, failure or success of the free market? | The Liberty Lounge

[JaJae]

I think the free market has a vital role in the quality of news we receive. As you stated there was a time when the news was doing a service to the people by presenting the facts of a story. But with ratings now taking precedent over substance we're beginning to see a shift in mentality of those running our news.

Time Magazine recently came under fire for this cover as well as the story:


I have no intentions of turning this into a debate of global warming so please ignore the topic of the article (which is why I am not posting the story), but rather the argument being presented for it. There were a lot of people offended by the references made by the cover as well as the stance taken by the article and therefore the Time editor had to make a public announcement.

When asked about the strong position they took the editor, Rick Stengel, said live on MSNBC:

The cover story, I mean there's been so many stories about the environment and we see them all the time. And they're often just descriptive. And what we decided is we wanted to do something something that was prescriptive.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Rick, was it a difficult decision for you all to take a position where you actually were advocates for a position or is it something that the entire editorial staff decided was the direction you needed to go?

STENGEL: I think since I've been back at the magazine, I have felt that one of the things that's needed in journalism, is that you have to have a point of view about things. You can't always just say "on the one hand, on the other" and you decide. People trust us to make decisions. We're experts in what we do. So I thought, you know what, if we really feel strongly about something let's just say so. And we've done that a number of times since I've been back. We did the case for national service, a cover story last summer. The end of cowboy diplomacy where we said that foreign policy had to change. I think readers expect that. I think, look. You guys are up there all the time. On cable television, people are giving you their point of view, giving their opinions on something and people want to know that.

Now he makes references to how journalists should approach the telling of the news, but also makes direct references to cable news. He discusses how people give opinions in their news and people want to know those opinions.

This all begs the question, are opinions news? Should our news incorporate opinions into their broadcasts and present them as a matter of fact? I would say absolutely not. However, Stengel says people want that. And that's apparently what sells. So in a lot of ways I have to strongly agree the free market is not doing a service to promoting quality news simply because the consumer does not want quality news. The consumer wants to be entertained by Bill O'Rielly and Keith Olbermann. The consumer wants their opinions to be reinforced in the broadcasts. They prefer this over neutral and informative stories.

[6SpeedTA95]

Wow, this is a pretty good article motz...and a great topic of conversation.


I don't think there is a single media outlet that doesn't sensationalize the news. Facts seem to be few and far between and when facts are presented they must be checked for accuracy regardless of the source. Furthermore, I have found that more and more news outlets are mixing in a fair amount of truth/facts with twisted and bogus information to simply support their cause. I find this even more disturbing than the normal sensationalism that happens at the media outlets.

To address a few of your points specifically, I think the media largely throws softball questions at individuals and makes it very difficult to extract valuable and meaningful information from the interview process. Is this a free market failure? No, I dont think so, you look at news in other countries, England, Germany, France and they are sitting through the same sensationalist bullshit that we are with just a different POV. In fact a couple of friends of mine have spent a LOT of time in England, France and Germany and they all think the news is worse there than it is here...while the news is partly free in those countries there's more government control then there is here.

So I dont think this is a failure of the free market, it could be exacerbated by the free market and our relatively easy lives though. Compared with those in most of the world we've got it pretty good here in the US. The result is complacency and for some reason people care about whats going on in hollywood instead of in DC. I believe this is due primarily to how good things are in the US. For the most part people have no reason to get plugged in or don't feel the processes in DC have become truly damaging to their way of life. So I guess in taht respect it could be a result of the free market.

Cable news outlets are definately worried about shareholders, and whoever has the biggest appeal will attract more viewers which leads to revenues for the shareholders. This isn't a bad thing necessarily, but it does mean that all "facts" should be explored because everyone has an agenda.

Personally I think NPR does a pretty good job but they're still providing a primary POV. However, they do tend to play down the sensationalism which makes it more tolerable for me at least. I also think a reason behind the study results is that people who listen to NPR are the types of people who try to stay informed. You'd also find a high number of NPR listeners listening to talking heads like Rush or Glenn Beck. I'd also bet that if you took a poll of viewers who watched Fox, CNN or MSNBC AND listened to NPR that they'd be far more informed than the average TV watcher. I think that comes down to a personality type more so than the data being presented via the airwaves.

I do not feel the media outlets pushed the war wagon for ratings. I believe that all of the outlets are far more responsible than that. I could be wrong, but I just think given the data at the time and the country having just been attacked they were fully on board the rise from the ashes and kick someone's ass movement.

The question of responsibility is an interesting one. I think if you're a journalist you should bear some responsibility for facts, if you're an opinion host not really....

Publically traded companies have an obligation not just to shareholders but to stakeholders, which in the case of news organizations would be the people viewing. For this reason you could extend some responsibility to them for reporting errors and sensationalism. In business schools across the country and in articles all over the place you're seeing more emphasis on "stakeholders" and not shareholders, so maybe this fundamental shift in ideology will push its way through to the media????.......eventually.....

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think the free market has a vital role in the quality of news we receive. As you stated there was a time when the news was doing a service to the people by presenting the facts of a story. But with ratings now taking precedent over substance we're beginning to see a shift in mentality of those running our news.

Time Magazine recently came under fire for this cover as well as the story:


I have no intentions of turning this into a debate of global warming so please ignore the topic of the article (which is why I am not posting the story), but rather the argument being presented for it. There were a lot of people offended by the references made by the cover as well as the stance taken by the article and therefore the Time editor had to make a public announcement.

When asked about the strong position they took the editor, Rick Stengel, said live on MSNBC:




Now he makes references to how journalists should approach the telling of the news, but also makes direct references to cable news. He discusses how people give opinions in their news and people want to know those opinions.

This all begs the question, are opinions news? Should our news incorporate opinions into their broadcasts and present them as a matter of fact? I would say absolutely not. However, Stengel says people want that. And that's apparently what sells. So in a lot of ways I have to strongly agree the free market is not doing a service to promoting quality news simply because the consumer does not want quality news. The consumer wants to be entertained by Bill O'Rielly and Keith Olbermann. The consumer wants their opinions to be reinforced in the broadcasts. They prefer this over neutral and informative stories.

This time article is a perfect example of agregious and sensationalist media at its finest. This was a truly offensive cover, the two marines I know at work all were at this crap. This is exactly the kind of crap that decreases their credibility on a topic they probably want MORE credibility on.

Also, I have decided to not renew my subscription to time as a result of this cover so they lost at least one subscriber.

[Rouger2]

Well we are the human animal so are going to be turned on by sex, and violence. Of course since we were born society, our parents, teachers church have all tried to turn us into civilized beings, so we can contribute to society and not kill each other, but they do a better job on some than others. We are still animals underneath but of course we need to always have control over that animal. The Media knows that titalizing us with sex and showing violence that we have so well covered up but it is still there in us, will hook us. The middle class is always the one who tries to overcontrol our animal instincts while the lower class has always actually clung to it as their culture and it seems since the fifties lower class culture has won out over middle class culture. Fonzie has won out over Richie. Our kids especially have taken to lower class culture and the minorities have led the way with the bad attitude, chip on the shoulder, easy sex culture, because it makes them the leaders. Middle class people have always been drawn to lower class culture because it is in us, we are animals, but intelligent people have always known that middle class culture was the best and made it the thing to strive for. The Media don't give a dam about our society and have used the weakness in all of us to hook us, and it is destroying America. All of us owe society, including the media, for everything that it gives us from childhood on. We all have a stake in it continueing including Media but they are idiots and cannot see beyond their own noses.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

This time article is a perfect example of agregious and sensationalist media at its finest. This was a truly offensive cover, the two marines I know at work all were at this crap. This is exactly the kind of crap that decreases their credibility on a topic they probably want MORE credibility on.

Also, I have decided to not renew my subscription to time as a result of this cover so they lost at least one subscriber.

It is basically a professional troll attempt. A good portion of those who are upset by use of the image will actually pick it up and read the article. Though on a tangent, it reminds me a lot of the movie about Howard Stern. During the movie it was a scene they were going through the ratings. The average fan listened for around an hour while the average person that hated him listened for twice as long, both listing the same reason for listening (I want to hear what he says next).

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Publically traded companies have an obligation not just to shareholders but to stakeholders, which in the case of news organizations would be the people viewing. For this reason you could extend some responsibility to them for reporting errors and sensationalism. In business schools across the country and in articles all over the place you're seeing more emphasis on "stakeholders" and not shareholders, so maybe this fundamental shift in ideology will push its way through to the media????.......eventually.....

The problem is the stakeholders or the viewers. The media is providing the garbage news and the stakeholder is eating it up. You could use shareholder vs stakeholder as a check/balance system, but in this situation there are so many checks written it is nearly impossible to balance.

There was SO much news they could report on Iraq, from province to province. They reported on the bad because it sells. The news of 12 soldiers who fell victim to a car bomb is going to get watched over the news that power has been on for an additional hour. If I had to put a number on it, I would be willing to bet that the actual news from Iraq could be considered 70% bad and 30% good. Due to ratings the actual reported ratio is probably 95% bad and 5% good.

Al Gore plays his global warming card this way, Time magazine uses controversial images, it is all clever and intellectual trolling.

In the end if we are looking for a Pass/Fail for the free market on this issue, and the desired outcome is unbiased genuine legitimate news, the free market has failed on providing us that. It's not really the free markets fault as it just goes with demand. The question is should we take the free market out of the equation to allow for actual legitimate (low rating) news?

[TankRizzo]

I've said it before, 24/7 news channels are some of the worst things to happen in the last 20 years. Having to fill the void of a slow news week with sensationalism isn't easy, but it works. I'd even go as far to say that a slow news week could ruin someone. Take Imus for example, had something happened a week sooner, he probably wouldn't have been fired, but since it was a dry spell he was on TV all day long.

Our saving grace is the internet. Before that, the news channels were the only thing most people had, but now the world is at your fingertips. I think TV in general will slowly lose more and more market share to the internet. TV is either going to have to adapt or integrate.

[kombayn]

24/7 News Channels are really more of an opinion-based programming not news. Out of the 3, I think CNN does the best job of reporting news. I use to watch CNN International all the time because it was unbiased reporting of the World and United States. But DIRECTV got rid of it because of low ratings, which sucks I really enjoyed that station. When I watch these opinion based shows such as Countdown, Anderson Cooper 360, Larry King Live, Real Time with Bill Maher, the Daily Show or the Colbert Report I take what they say with a grain of salt because it's based on opinions or comedy. The only time to really watch the news anymore is if it is breaking news. I mean even the Nationally Syndicated shows like CBS News or NBC News, it has these dumb stories such as flowering and other weird shit that has nothing to do with the news. It's too much over exposure, not a failure of the Free Market.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

I've said it before, 24/7 news channels are some of the worst things to happen in the last 20 years. Having to fill the void of a slow news week with sensationalism isn't easy, but it works. I'd even go as far to say that a slow news week could ruin someone. Take Imus for example, had something happened a week sooner, he probably wouldn't have been fired, but since it was a dry spell he was on TV all day long.

Yeah, but is it because they're trying to fill a gap in stories or because they're looking for ratings that they sensationalize stories, focus on stuff like celebrity gossip, missing girls for months, etc.. instead of having lengthy discussions about important issues like FISA or the war, etc..?

I'm sure some of it is the former, but I really feel like because ratings = profit, and profit is their goal, that's what's really behind the decision..

The Imus story was entertainment news, but certainly didn't deserve the amount of coverage it received..

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

Our saving grace is the internet. Before that, the news channels were the only thing most people had, but now the world is at your fingertips. I think TV in general will slowly lose more and more market share to the internet. TV is either going to have to adapt or integrate.

I agree the internet has made it a lot easier for more people to get access to the news, but there's so much anonymity and it's relatively easy to manipulate the masses if you're someone with a popular website (see various drudge "scandals" that were proven to be nothing after he got the headlines and generated the stories that lasted for days) that I kinda feel like news on the internet is a more fragile thing than it is with newspapers

I agree it'll lose market share, but I don't know how they'll adapt aside from integration with the internet itself. Television as a media gives users little control and little in the way of participation, the internet has plenty of both of those..

[Dispatcher]

I also listen to NPR. And I have oftened wondered why the news media was so eager to believe everything coming out from the Bush camp.

[Metallicaownsyou]

The G. Gordon Liddy Show ftw...

[avsp]

Just as examples of cheap, poor journalism
Meet the make-believe strategists of TV

Meanwhile, the 'hard' end of BBC news is 'dumbing down' in search for a larger audience precisely because of the way its funded there is a lot of 'ratings' pressure. I prefer the old skool thinking that the funding justified & allowed a wider range of services.

[Shads71]

I have to agree about the BBC dumbing down. I think the Dr David Kelly affair, the Huton enquire etc put the righteners on them. There have beena lot of changes in management and in the way the whole corporation is structured - they are doing a lot of worrk of new media technologies - there may well be hope for the future, but for now, most of the BBC news output is fearful, dumbed down and overly conservative.

If I get home from work in time, I will watch theBBC 6.0'clock news. I then switch straight over to CH4 and watch their news at 7.00pm. You would think you were living in a parallel universe some days. CH4 News is so much punchier, more open, more revealing, unafraid to tackle difficult questions and the interviews of ploiticians in particular much harder than anything the BBC (except possibly Paxman on newsnight and Humphries on the Today show (radio) have to offer)

Right now, I don't believe the licence payer is getting their moneys worth but I have recently done some delving into the BBC - for an academic study which included delving into BSkyB - and I hope that over the next five years the BBC will get it's act together and start to be more forceful in their approach not only to news, but to its programming generally. They are getting a lot more money now from their commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, which is doing well selling many products abroad but it remains to be seen if the new BBC Trust (there is no longer a Board of Governors -those who were so instrumental in getting rid of Greg Dyke et al) will gather some courage together and start reporting and proramming for the 21st century.

[Photon1001]

Every time someone uses their TiVo's and DVR's top skip over the commercials (or just downloads the program ad-free), at least during a real news program (as few as there may be left), or documentary, we all get a little smarter, imho.

btw, wow, I'm glad I missed that Time cover, damn, thats almost as bad Fox Mulder and Dana Scully standing in front of the OKC aftermath in that movie.

[Heres Johnny]

I like TIME for the most part. I've seen them talk about where politician's have gone right, and where they've gone wrong. Seem like a fair amount of neutrality.