JOURNALISM
I read this editorial:
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4329
in the American Journalism Review. It is yet another article about Jon Stewart and the Daily Show, discussing the questions of:
1. Is The Daily Show real news?
2. Why is it that the fans of the show are so well-informed?
3. Why is it so popular?
4. What can mainstream journalism learn from The Daily Show, or should they try?
All of the editorials, columns, etc., I've read on this topic are written by, and usually for, journalists, and every time I read them, I get the sense I do when listening to marketing types in Hollywood: You guys really just don't get the obvious, do you?
Mind you, this article is better than the majority I've read, and the writer does not seem completely clueless. But it makes me feel like I want to sit down and explain it all patiently to them.
The Daily Show is not "real" news. They have people standing in front of pictures of Baghdad, pretending to be in Baghdad, and it's funny. They get opinions from "The Daily Show's Senior Black Correspondent" on racism. They photoshop pictures of political figures to include things like chickens and funny hats. They often act disrespectfully. None of these things are elements of "real" news, nor should they be.
What The Daily Show is is a daily hour of, "Here's what's so funny about the news." In order to make fun of the news, you have to make sure that your audience at least partly knows what the news is. It makes discussing the news entertaining, which leads to people becoming interested in it, and following stories for themselves so that they, too, can be in on the joke.
It's so popular, because, believe it or not, people like to be informed on current events, and like to discuss them. And it's so popular, because the "real" news doesn't actually provide any f*&^ing news.
(And, yes, it's also popular because it's funny.)
In the article I referenced above, like most of them, they say a lot about how real journalists can't be like The Daily Show because they have to be "balanced" or "objective." When they say, "how can we be popular like The Daily Show," they immediately talk about being young and trendy, or being more openly biased. And again, I just feel like I'm listening to clueless Hollywood Executives.
Listen: It is not "unbalanced" or "inobjective" to play a speech of George W. Bush saying, "I never said there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq," and then playing a video shot six months earlier of him saying exactly that. That's fact-checking. That's good journalism. That's SOMETHING PEOPLE WANT TO SEE.
Saying that the existing news has no bias is disingenuous. It's hard not to see any Murdoch-owned outlet is a bit right-leaning. The San Francisco Bay Guardian is a bit left-leaning. Should they try for objectivity? Sure. But that just means reporting facts and exposing lies regardless of who says them.
The thing is, although The Daily Show never claims to be anything but biased and fake, they will skewer anyone left, right, or center, who engages in hypocrisy. If the Republicans happen to be more hypocritical, then they should get more airtime. That's not unbalanced, it's presenting an accurate view.
I think that a big problem is that the mainstream news wants to be objective, balanced and unbiased, but they don't actually know what the words mean.
If there are more murders in Washington than in Oregon, is it unbalanced to report on more Washington murders? Or does it mean that, because there are more of them, a Washington murder is less newsworthy? If we report more Washington murders, does that reflect an anti-Washington bias? If we report equally on both, will that lead to the perception that there are an equal number of murders in both states, and is this false perception an example of balance or bias?
Making the decision on what to and what not to report automatically shapes perception to some extent. Even the words we choose. And regardless of what our intentions are, when we decide what constitutes "news," someone will accuse us, perhaps rightly, of bias. At some point, we need to be able to know that we are doing our best and just deal with the flak.
Right now, in the UK, the media is obsessed with the story of a little 4-year-old girl who went missing in Portugal. I really feel for the parents, and I think this story is a tragedy. But at the same time, I get frustrated with the media for the complete obsession for a couple of reasons:
1. The little girl is white and blonde and cute. How many other children are missing right now? How many go missing every day? Why are their stories less important? Is it because of their race or color? How must it feel to be one of the parents of these other children?
2. This story is getting at least 1/5 of all of the news coverage overall, even when there are no new developments.
When people complain about the level of coverage, the media, as one, has said that the level of coverage is what the people demand. I completely disagree. I believe that the media is trying to generate hype for the "story of the minute." When something big happens, like September 11, or the July 7 bombing of the tube trains, everyone is glued to the news sites, wanting to know what is going on. The news media is greedy for this attention, and when it does not exist because no catastrophes have presented themselves, they will try to create one.
Covering this kind of hype story, or even a real catastrophe, is easy. Find witness. Point camera. Shoot video. Print press release. Everyone involved gets to run to the scene and feel important and excited. I'm there. I'm on the spot. I can make the viewers at home feel like they are on the spot, too.
Researching the video archives is hard. It's boring. It's like researching an essay for school. We all hated that.
Why go through all of that effort, when you can just print the press releases issued by politicians? Reprint the dirt that one has dug up on another, without researching it? Researching it to see if it is true is "bias." Printing it and saying "This is what Nancy Pelosi said," is "reporting." You're reporting that she said something. If someone else contradicts it, then you can report what they said, too, but you can't fact check that one either.
Since when?
The Daily Show is popular because they do that research. They believe that comparing what a politician says today to what he said six months ago is part and parcel of the job of journalists, and that the journalists themselves are not doing it. So they do it for them. They laugh at the politicians, and simultaneously hold both them and the journalists accountable.
What the mainstream media can learn from The Daily Show is that there is an audience for news that isn't the hyped-up overcovered story of the day. If we want to know whether or not OJ is found guilty or Paris Hilton is going to jail, we'll look at whichever newspaper or television show we land on first, because they're all regurgitating the same information. But if we learn that one network or one newspaper or one magazine or one comedy show is consistently researching the facts behind the stories they're handed by politicians, consistently holding our leaders accountable, and not remaining silent when they backtrack like President Bush or try to redefine one of their votes as un-votes like Hillary Clinton, then we will actively seek out that network or newspaper or magazine or comedy show.
You cannot try to manufacture interest to get people to impulsively click on your site twelve times a day to see if there are any new developments in the latest manufactured case AND try to develop a loyal audience that takes the time out to watch your show every day because of the depth of your reporting. And I don't think the media really wants to do both. They're only interested in that up-to-the-minute happenings buzz.
People don't click on your site eight times a day to find out whether President Bush lied in his State of the Union address. And they're not going to want to sit down to an hour-long program devoted to what they've heard on the radio/read online every fifteen seconds from every available outlet since this morning. One's grocery shopping, the other's an impulse buy.
I cannot imagine why that isn't blindingly obvious.
I read this editorial:
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4329
in the American Journalism Review. It is yet another article about Jon Stewart and the Daily Show, discussing the questions of:
1. Is The Daily Show real news?
2. Why is it that the fans of the show are so well-informed?
3. Why is it so popular?
4. What can mainstream journalism learn from The Daily Show, or should they try?
All of the editorials, columns, etc., I've read on this topic are written by, and usually for, journalists, and every time I read them, I get the sense I do when listening to marketing types in Hollywood: You guys really just don't get the obvious, do you?
Mind you, this article is better than the majority I've read, and the writer does not seem completely clueless. But it makes me feel like I want to sit down and explain it all patiently to them.
The Daily Show is not "real" news. They have people standing in front of pictures of Baghdad, pretending to be in Baghdad, and it's funny. They get opinions from "The Daily Show's Senior Black Correspondent" on racism. They photoshop pictures of political figures to include things like chickens and funny hats. They often act disrespectfully. None of these things are elements of "real" news, nor should they be.
What The Daily Show is is a daily hour of, "Here's what's so funny about the news." In order to make fun of the news, you have to make sure that your audience at least partly knows what the news is. It makes discussing the news entertaining, which leads to people becoming interested in it, and following stories for themselves so that they, too, can be in on the joke.
It's so popular, because, believe it or not, people like to be informed on current events, and like to discuss them. And it's so popular, because the "real" news doesn't actually provide any f*&^ing news.
(And, yes, it's also popular because it's funny.)
In the article I referenced above, like most of them, they say a lot about how real journalists can't be like The Daily Show because they have to be "balanced" or "objective." When they say, "how can we be popular like The Daily Show," they immediately talk about being young and trendy, or being more openly biased. And again, I just feel like I'm listening to clueless Hollywood Executives.
Listen: It is not "unbalanced" or "inobjective" to play a speech of George W. Bush saying, "I never said there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq," and then playing a video shot six months earlier of him saying exactly that. That's fact-checking. That's good journalism. That's SOMETHING PEOPLE WANT TO SEE.
Saying that the existing news has no bias is disingenuous. It's hard not to see any Murdoch-owned outlet is a bit right-leaning. The San Francisco Bay Guardian is a bit left-leaning. Should they try for objectivity? Sure. But that just means reporting facts and exposing lies regardless of who says them.
The thing is, although The Daily Show never claims to be anything but biased and fake, they will skewer anyone left, right, or center, who engages in hypocrisy. If the Republicans happen to be more hypocritical, then they should get more airtime. That's not unbalanced, it's presenting an accurate view.
I think that a big problem is that the mainstream news wants to be objective, balanced and unbiased, but they don't actually know what the words mean.
If there are more murders in Washington than in Oregon, is it unbalanced to report on more Washington murders? Or does it mean that, because there are more of them, a Washington murder is less newsworthy? If we report more Washington murders, does that reflect an anti-Washington bias? If we report equally on both, will that lead to the perception that there are an equal number of murders in both states, and is this false perception an example of balance or bias?
Making the decision on what to and what not to report automatically shapes perception to some extent. Even the words we choose. And regardless of what our intentions are, when we decide what constitutes "news," someone will accuse us, perhaps rightly, of bias. At some point, we need to be able to know that we are doing our best and just deal with the flak.
Right now, in the UK, the media is obsessed with the story of a little 4-year-old girl who went missing in Portugal. I really feel for the parents, and I think this story is a tragedy. But at the same time, I get frustrated with the media for the complete obsession for a couple of reasons:
1. The little girl is white and blonde and cute. How many other children are missing right now? How many go missing every day? Why are their stories less important? Is it because of their race or color? How must it feel to be one of the parents of these other children?
2. This story is getting at least 1/5 of all of the news coverage overall, even when there are no new developments.
When people complain about the level of coverage, the media, as one, has said that the level of coverage is what the people demand. I completely disagree. I believe that the media is trying to generate hype for the "story of the minute." When something big happens, like September 11, or the July 7 bombing of the tube trains, everyone is glued to the news sites, wanting to know what is going on. The news media is greedy for this attention, and when it does not exist because no catastrophes have presented themselves, they will try to create one.
Covering this kind of hype story, or even a real catastrophe, is easy. Find witness. Point camera. Shoot video. Print press release. Everyone involved gets to run to the scene and feel important and excited. I'm there. I'm on the spot. I can make the viewers at home feel like they are on the spot, too.
Researching the video archives is hard. It's boring. It's like researching an essay for school. We all hated that.
Why go through all of that effort, when you can just print the press releases issued by politicians? Reprint the dirt that one has dug up on another, without researching it? Researching it to see if it is true is "bias." Printing it and saying "This is what Nancy Pelosi said," is "reporting." You're reporting that she said something. If someone else contradicts it, then you can report what they said, too, but you can't fact check that one either.
Since when?
The Daily Show is popular because they do that research. They believe that comparing what a politician says today to what he said six months ago is part and parcel of the job of journalists, and that the journalists themselves are not doing it. So they do it for them. They laugh at the politicians, and simultaneously hold both them and the journalists accountable.
What the mainstream media can learn from The Daily Show is that there is an audience for news that isn't the hyped-up overcovered story of the day. If we want to know whether or not OJ is found guilty or Paris Hilton is going to jail, we'll look at whichever newspaper or television show we land on first, because they're all regurgitating the same information. But if we learn that one network or one newspaper or one magazine or one comedy show is consistently researching the facts behind the stories they're handed by politicians, consistently holding our leaders accountable, and not remaining silent when they backtrack like President Bush or try to redefine one of their votes as un-votes like Hillary Clinton, then we will actively seek out that network or newspaper or magazine or comedy show.
You cannot try to manufacture interest to get people to impulsively click on your site twelve times a day to see if there are any new developments in the latest manufactured case AND try to develop a loyal audience that takes the time out to watch your show every day because of the depth of your reporting. And I don't think the media really wants to do both. They're only interested in that up-to-the-minute happenings buzz.
People don't click on your site eight times a day to find out whether President Bush lied in his State of the Union address. And they're not going to want to sit down to an hour-long program devoted to what they've heard on the radio/read online every fifteen seconds from every available outlet since this morning. One's grocery shopping, the other's an impulse buy.
I cannot imagine why that isn't blindingly obvious.
posted by Simone @ 3:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home