Former Dateliner turned Media Lab geek explains why news sucks
To get airtime, not only did serious news have to audition against the travails of Diana or a new book by Dr. Phil, but it also had to satisfy bizarre conditions. In 2003, one of our producers obtained from a trial lawyer in Connecticut video footage of guards subduing a mentally ill prisoner. Guards themselves took the footage as part of a safety program to ensure that deadly force was avoided and abuses were documented for official review. We saw guards haul the prisoner down a greenish corridor, then heard hysterical screaming as the guard shooting the video dispassionately announced, "The prisoner is resisting." For 90 seconds several guards pressed the inmate into a bunk. All that could be seen of him was his feet. By the end of the video the inmate was motionless. Asphyxiation would be the official cause of death.Link (via Oblomovka)This kind of gruesome video was rare. We also had footage of raw and moving interviews with this and another victim's relatives. The story had the added relevance that one of the state prison officials had been hired as a consultant to the prison authority in Iraq as the Abu Ghraib debacle was unfolding. There didn't seem to be much doubt about either the newsworthiness or the topicality of the story. Yet at the conclusion of the screening, the senior producer shook his head as though the story had missed the mark widely. "These inmates aren't necessarily sympathetic to our audience," he said. The fact that they had been diagnosed with schizophrenia was unimportant. Worse, he said that as he watched the video of the dying inmate, it didn't seem as if anything was wrong.
"Except that the inmate died," I offered.
the latest
latest episodes
That's why I get all my news from online, usually from foreign sites with stories about the US. I find many more options for what I want to know about, and usually multiple articles centered around the same issue.
The only time I watch news on the Boob-Tube is when I want to hear something local or upbeat (gotta love singing/dancing anchor-people in the AM).
On that note, if you're in the mood for some outrage, why not try http://www.stallman.org/archives/
This story really needs a unicorn chaser.
I'm under no illusions about the moral vacuums in media, but I am still capable of being unpleasantly surprised by how much people, well...suck.
This is why you can all look forward to a change to the first amendment that stipulates that the press is free, but also must be non-profit when I become king.
It isn't people's fault if we find some stupid stories more interesting than important stories. No one likes being bummed out and enraged all the time. Paris Hilton's antics are much more entertaining than global warming. We all click on stupid news items (even if we feel bad for doing so).
It is simply an economic reality, therefore, that media outlets have to pander to our stupid, stupid whims. If they were non-profit, they wouldn't have to. No one goes into journalism dreaming of getting the scoop that Paris Hilton is cozying up to K-Fed (there's my stupid followed-link of the day). They usually want to do the things we really want the press to do. But we don't let them.
Because we're morons.
Glad to see John Hockenberry around again -- I read his bio ("Moving Violations", highly recommended) years ago, and have been a fan ever since.
I gave up on TV news years ago, and am about ready to give up on newspapers. I get most of my "real" news from analytical articles in magazines, print or online -- the Economist, Foreign Affairs, Slate, Salon, and so forth, and from a few interactive community-contribution websites (boingboing included, of course.) All of them are necessarily selective in what they address, and most of them have a bias and agenda, but if you know that, you can read through it, and maybe learn something.
I wonder sometimes if US news and TV media have made too much of a fetish of neutrality. Might we be better served by professional, fact-based journalism that's not shy about its agenda? Think of the Times and the Guardian in Britain. It might be happening, too, if Murdoch's Wall Street Journal goes right and the NYT reacts by going left.
What exactly does this have to do with that Spears girl being preggers?
Th prblm sms cmmn t ll frms f nws, ncldng prnt md, nln md, ssctd Prss fds nd vn blgs.
Nws s "ntrtnmnt" n th sns tht thy r tryng t drw y n nd gt y t wtch th shw r clck th lnk. Trth s scndry t bng ntrtnng ngh t clck nd nmbr f hdlns wll nd p bng xggrtns r ntrstng msntrprttns f th ndrlyng stry. t wrkd, thy gt m t clck n t, bt rdng th stry (r, smtms, dggng dpr t fnd th src mtrl fr th stry) rvls tht th trth nd th hdln smtms hv nthng n cmmn.
Y jst cn't trst th nws. dn't cr wh yr nws src s r hw trstwrthy y thnk thy r, y stll shldn't trst thm. f NPR ds pc n bll gng thrgh cngrss nd y thnk t's rlly mprtnt, b sr y g lk p th bll yrslf nd rd t thrgh bfr gng t ftch yr ptchfrk nd trch. Dn't tk thr wrd fr t, bcs vn rprtr wrkng fr nt-fr-prft rgnztn cn hv prsnl gnd.
"Except that the inmate died," I offered.
Clearly he is just another fascist liberal intent on imposing his nanny state on us freedom fighters.
More seriously, John is wrong to believe that the reason the story was suppressed was because "These inmates aren't necessarily sympathetic to our audience". That was just bullshit made up to rationalize his decision.
There is a very good reason why no media "journalist" today will be caught dead speaking truth to power. Those in the past who tried found their careers were over pretty quickly. People notice things like that. They notice that strapping on the kneepads and sucking up to power works a whole lot better.
Media has never been "free" nor have reporters been anything other than employees who do what they are told. It has always been owned by someone and that someone always has an agenda. Even worse, you the reader have an agenda. You have your own biases that you bring to the table.
After Watergate, conservatives were intent on owning and thereby controlling the message. In that objective they've been highly successful, especially in taking over the much hated CBS and getting Dan Rather fired. CNN was also taken away from Ted Turner by force, he didn't want to sell, it was stolen out from under him.
Another way to control the message is you just buy someone off. Meet The Press used be a show where you actually met a panel of press reporters. It's no longer Mett The Press, it's meet Tim Russert, who lied to the FBI in order to protect Dick Cheney.
BTW, Mara Liasson and Steve Inskeep are neocon tools. The GOP couldn't defund NPR, which is what they wanted for a long time. So they have simply fired the good reporters like Bob Edwards and replaced them with willing sycophants.
Hockenberry used to be an NPR reporter; I was surprised when he turned up on a big commercial network, especially Dateline, which is not exactly the pinnacle of network TV news.
Obviously there's an interest in genuine news like the story Hockenberry had--among people like us here--and what's needed is a venue for it that is financially viable enough to fund the cost of getting those stories, by paying people like Hockenberry, etc. The market is there, and I suspect the main reason the need hasn't been met is that the market is not as great as the one for schlock-news; as long as a measure of viability is the ability to compete directly with "To Catch a Predator"/Paris Hilton/ooh-there's-a-terrorist-under-the-bed simplistic news, we won't see that news venue. Wouldn't it be nice (dreaming here, I realize) if someone were to decide to let their other kind of schlock fund something serious? Murdoch has had money-making HarperCollins funding the money-losing New York Post; wouldn't it be lovely if some other media baron decided to let his or her empire fund a network or paper or web outlet that specialized in in-depth reporting, investigative work, complex stories not easily summarized or pigeon-holed, etc.?
We need such an outlet because most of us just don't have the time to do the research to get to the bottom of the bias in the news we do see, and certainly not to seek out the news that isn't being reported.
Newspapers and TV news exist for one reason only, and that is to sell an audience (us) to the advertisers.
Therefore they will print/screen whatever is going to draw in the largest audience, and spin it so that the majority feels comfortable with the spin.
A right wing paper will also have a left wing commentator to draw in another audience, and to manufacture outrage in the majority of its readers.
But the important thing to remember is that we are the commodity that is being sold.
Media make far more money from advertisers than buyers or subscribers.
I suggest Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" for an analysis. Heavy going in parts, but worth the read.
That was brilliant. Not that I needed another reason not to watch TV, but now I have many more should I feel the impulse.
what's needed is a venue for it that is financially viable enough to fund the cost of getting those stories, by paying people like Hockenberry, etc. The market is there, and I suspect the main reason the need hasn't been met is that the market is not as great as the one for schlock-news
See The Real News
Actually, I disagree with the idea that people are only interested in crap media. I think people like good media, good news, good entertainment. We are fed crap because it is in someone's interest to do so.
Radio used to be a rich, vibrant community full of interesting discussions and great music. Now it is a howling corporate wasteland. Broadcast TV used to be a rich, vibrant community full of hard hitting news with real investigative reporting and genuinely funny sitcoms. Now it is a howling corporate wasteland. Cable never had a chance.
The Internet is now a rich, vibrant community....
Yes, we all know (or should know) that our modern news-media is more concerned with selling advertisements than reporting actual NEWS, the 24-hour news channels have worsened the situation by hyping less-newsworthy events because there is some emotional content (how much times did news channels spend discussing the "Natalee Holloway Disappearance"? and who the hell is Natalee Holloway anyway? People disappear everyday, it's not like a US diplomat went missing, and when was the last time the media focused on a missing poor child?).
Furthermore, how many times has Dateline done their "To Catch a Predator" special? That show is practically a series unto itself they've done so many "special editions" of it, AND by broadcasting it all the time (MS)NBC is actually NOT helping law-enforcement, as the show is likely making predators more wary of on-line hookups; they will be more cautious and careful, but I doubt they will stop looking for kids to exploit. By informing predators of those kinds of law-enforcement techniques MSNBC is ensuring that fewer predators will be caught by those same techniques. But hey-- it sells ads.
Short of a law forcing all news media to be non-profit, I'm not sure what can be done (and you can bet lobbies would pressure congress if they even tried to make the media non-profit).
It's worth remembering that Boing Boing itself is a for-profit media site that makes revenue from advertisements.
Great. Now all we need to do to change it is to come up with some way to do an endrun around the profit motive and human nature.
I first heard about Six Sigma from an episode of NBC's 30 Rock. I thought Tina Fey had made it up. It's less funny now that it's real.
#16 (Abelard): Could that qualify as an example of a nonprofit news source?
@#11 noen
I'm not necessarily a natural optimist, but I'm pretty convinced that the internet will not be one in line of that demise.
TV and radio are pretty finite resources when it comes to broadcasting, the internet isn't...and it's obviously a 2 way medium...
Having said that, I recently briefly succumbed to Facebook, but I found it strangely depressing...I still can't put my finger on it why exactly. Somehow it was like "this is what it looks like when the mainstream truly hits the web". Maybe I'm full of sh*t, but I suspended the account regardless.
The problem with news is that a lot of newscasters are like Hockenberry: pompous asses who talk in a convincing manner but whose opinions are not nearly as important or insightful as they think. In addition, there are way too many people concerned with getting the message out and not enough doing something about it. Talk is relatively cheap, but it pays better and is better regarded than the actual work done by the poor slobs who have to get their hands dirty.
I think it was Plato who thought knowledge would lead to virtue. Maybe perfect knowledge would. Less than perfect sure hasn't so far.
ill lich wrote, "Short of a law forcing all news media to be non-profit, I'm not sure what can be done"
Kindly remember that "non-profit" is zero guarantee of "not biased".
noen wrote, "After Watergate, conservatives were intent on owning and thereby controlling the message. In that objective they've been highly successful, especially in taking over the much hated CBS and getting Dan Rather fired. CNN was also taken away from Ted Turner by force, he didn't want to sell, it was stolen out from under him."
Right, that's why any mention of 9/11 is politicizing it, why Bush "misled" so many in Congress but those misled are not criticized for being so gullible as to believe frat boy Chimpy, etc., etc. Sorry, the supposed successes and take-overs must be in your universe with the evil bearded Spock, not in this one.
The corruption of the media by money is as old as time itself. Since when has the media been lilly white? If your news can make or break a person, and money is involved (I want that Pulitzer!), then news must always be questioned. I tend to listen to NPR, read the Journal and the local Detroit Free Press. The local spin is interesting. And for a real dose of wisdown I read the Irish Times.
Interesting - reminded me of an episode of Law and Order Criminal Intent from a few weeks ago. http://community.tvguide.com/blog/Law-38-Order/800059387
episode called "Untethered". Seems like there was enough interest in a fictionalized version for L&O's producers to run with it, can't imagine that there wouldn't have been an audience for the real life version, complete with ties to Abu Ghraib when that story first broke. And since when is whether an audience is "sympathetic" to the subject of a story the threshhold for whethere something is newsworthy?
This is all pretty disturbing.