Apparently the nation is very interested that Obama Predicts a Florida Victory in tonight’s BCS National Championship game – just like we were dying to know whether Obama likes the BCS system. I don’t mean to pick on these stories, but they serve as good examples of some of the thoughts I am having as I read Breaking the News. What our President-elect thinks of collegiate sports is suddenly very important despite the fact that we have no proof the Obama is any more an expert on the subject than I am. Obama is not claiming to be an expert, he’s simply offering an opinion when the question is asked because that’s what any fan would do. This really is not a problem as far as what Obama is doing, but it is indicative of a problem that is widespread through the media – all too often what gets published is fluff even when there are important issues that we should be informed about. In fact, even when the important issues are covered the result is often fluff.
Because everyone knows who Obama is it may intrigue many to know his opinions on college sports just as a matter of curiosity – nothing wrong with that. The problem is when virtually everything gets the same level of treatment, whether it’s his guess on the outcome of tonight’s game or his plan for stimulating the economy and cutting the waste out of the federal government. To a large degree, our press today had tried to reduce important offices, such as the presidency, to something that is much easier to understand and report on – celebrity.
That seems to be indicative of the major problem that is spreading through media (old and new) – there is a tendancy to publish what is easy to cover in order to make sure that something is published. I have am not immune to that urge myself. It is very difficult to maintain any influence in the conversation, or keep the attention of any regular readers, if you cannot have some level of consistency in publishing. (Note that consistency and frequency are not the same thing, although they can influence each other.) Those who write primarily for themselves may take the time to really cover an important subject with some depth. (Those tend to be my favorite kind of articles.) Those who write in any noticable degree for an audience will feel the pull to get anything out, and thus will feel the urge to look for something manageable or dependable – often fluff.
You are correct about the urge for those that publish regularly to just get something out there. It is natural to see that kind of thing in blogging. But the MSM is being paid to produce content. Hence, they should have a much greater incentive to produce — what?
The answer to that is: a product that sells well.
Most media organizations make their real money from advertising. (Subscriptions usually only pay for the cost of distribution.) The main point is to publish (or broadcast) something that gets enough circulation to make advertisers believe that they are getting their money’s worth. They actually do have ways of measuring (to a certain extent) an ad’s effectiveness.
This puts the MSM at odds with the widely promoted myth that they are in the business of purveying truth. Nor is there much incentive to appropriately prioritize ‘news’, to treat issues with appropriate depth, or to steer clear of bias.
I’m not complaining about the model. It is what it is. Advertisers and consumers are free to pick and choose. But I believe it is important that we recognize the MSM for what it really is. The system would be far healthier if we generally jettisoned the myth of a truthful and unbiased media.
I agree that it would be helpful for us to let go of that myth. I would also go further than you when you say that there is not much incentive to appropriately prioritize what is covered as news – I would say that there are built in disincentives to do so.
I think the thing that helps perpetuate the myth is that there was once a time when reporters believed that the purpose of news was to publish the truth and they actively attempted to do so. Now they all seem to have recognized that “news” is just another area of entertainment. Unfortunately, there are serious consequences to society when the very purpose of our news organizations has changed in that way.
IT’S NOT FLUFF!!!!
The media brought it to my attention that Mr. Obama supports West Ham United. I was going to give him a chance and refrain from uttering what I call, “Oblasphema” (which, being interpreted, means “Obama blasphemy”). Now that I have learned from hard hitting reporters that he supports a team that competes with Manchester United, I can no longer support our “President”.
😉
Even after Manchester United lost to the likes of Derby? 😛
Look at the ignoramus talk. Did you happen to see anything more than the scoreline? United second string, away from home, in the Carling Cup.
Did you happen to see United thrash Chelsea in the Premier League?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/7808369.stm
Given the time stamp on your post, I’ll say that you had not because the Chelsea game was played two days later.
It’s worse than that. I didn’t even read the article or game summary – I simply saw the headline.