December 18, 2003
DUMB MEDIA
Glenn Reynolds wrote the other day that Big Media is “losing its stranglehold over news.” The strange thing is, most Big Media people would probably agree with him, but for different reasons. A prevailing view among the Bigs -- and this dates back to the mid '90s -- is that they were always bound to forfeit some newscatching to these crazy innovative Interwebnet gophers, what with their speedy modems and all. Who can compete with laptop jockeys when you’re tied to print runs and broadcast schedules?
You hear this line a lot if you hang with the suits, as I sometimes do. (Jeff Jarvis has probably heard it more often than any living human). And it is wrong. As Zeyad noted in his coverage of the anti-terrorism demonstrations, Big Media was everywhere, and simply neglected to file:
As you can see in my pictures there were scores of reporters and cameras all over the place. And since the rallies ended in front of the Palestine hotel we thought that it would be impossible for the media to ignore this event. I felt a bit awkward walking along reporters carrying just a little digital camera while they had all the equipment.
The last thing we expected was to be the first to publish anything about the protests. It felt both good and awful at the same time. Good for scooping Reuters, AFP, AP, and other wire services and media stations. And awful for the people that depended on these services for their news. I'm telling you there were reporters from every station in the world at the demos that day and yet only a few mentioned them at all.
The issue isn’t tech; Big Media have Big Websites, and can upload text and pictures faster than any blogger in a Baghdad net cafe. The issue is, as always, news values. As Reynolds concludes, in the case of the anti-terror demonstrations, Big Media was shown up “for having what are, at best, rather skewed priorities in their reportage”.
And here, courtesy of Tom Perry, is evidence. CNN, you are so owned.
UPDATE. More Big Media hijinks: the BBC posts a comment asking for the death of Bush, then denies the posting ever existed, then blames it on workload.
Posted by Tim Blair at December 18, 2003 01:48 AMThe news networks are still in 'broadcast' mode. Provide news that they think matters most to the greatest number of people in the hopes of attracting a large audience.
What people want these days is news that matters to them - narrowcasting, personalization.
Big media do not want to give up the 'gatekeeper of the news' power that they have. Unfortunately for them, it has just been taken away from them.
Power to the people!
Posted by: James Dudek at December 18, 2003 at 02:05 AMTim Perry’s Isntapundit site totally kicks ass. An insta-favorite!
Posted by: ForNow at December 18, 2003 at 02:42 AMBut the insane Wesley Clark interview (discussed in an earlier Perry post) has been moved from the link given. It is now:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660578/
(Clark said: “And I would say to the Europeans, I pledge to you as the American president that we’ll consult with you first. You get the right of first refusal on the security concerns that we have. We’ll bring you in.”
Posted by: ForNow at December 18, 2003 at 02:52 AMComment: discussing an issue with someone who gets their news only through Big News is like trying to describe the color red to a blind man. You simply, not only are not, but, cannot speak the same language.
Posted by: Richard Cook at December 18, 2003 at 02:56 AMThere is also a disconnect in Big Media from the people they claim they serve.
Kal
Thanks, forNow. I've fixed that post.
And thanks for the link, Tim!
Posted by: dipnut at December 18, 2003 at 05:19 AMThere are none so blind as those who will not see. (quote, but don't remember who.)
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at December 18, 2003 at 05:47 AMI have some comments here. James Dudek, I respectfully think you are wrong. Big Media is not merely "sifting" the news to fit the biggest mass audience. They are actively taking sides on issues, with no concern for the audience, and every concern for their agenda. Thus, they do not want relinquish their role as "shaper of the news".
The fact is, until very recently, they did this with relative impunity. Two questions are: When will they "get" that they are no longer getting away with it? and, What will be more important to them, maintaining (or increasing) marketshare by de-agenda-izing and returning back to actual, you know, reporting; or guaranteeing themselves ever shrinking marketshare for the sake of maintaining their agenda?
Really, do you know how bloody easy it is to not watch CNN, ever again?
Nopundit
Posted by: Nopundit at December 18, 2003 at 08:19 AMAdding to the comment of Nopundit:
Unfortunately,it also seems that once a media outlet takes a certain line it is difficult, or impossible, for them to admit they were wrong in the first place. Are we about to see the death of Big Media.
After the Absolutely Biased Corporation covered the pro-Saddam protests yesterday (where about 4 people showed up), I put in a formal complaint about the appearance of bias given their lack of coverage of the anti-terrorism protests a week ago. I'm not holding my breath...
Posted by: Art Vandelay at December 18, 2003 at 09:31 AMYou’re welcome, Tom Perry. (Sorry I got it wrong the first time!)
Posted by: ForNow at December 18, 2003 at 10:53 AMI'm telling you there were reporters from every station in the world at the demos that day and yet only a few mentioned them at all.
I wonder if this includes Israeli stations. For some reason I think not. Israel, like France and Germany was not even allowed to supply technologies that will be used in the reconstruction, not to mentions send filthy Jews to help build the holy muslim country.
I always supported the war but I always assumed the Iraq serving a beacon to the Arab world meant that they would serve as an example in their relationship with the western world. Apperantly not.
I got an e-mail from an Age staffer last year that paints a picture of a highly demoralised reporting staff, who all assume that circulation will continue to shrink, staff levels drop and and eventual demise (or other transform) of the broadsheet - in short they feel like rats on a slowly sinking ship.
Which, contra-intuitively, re-inforces their PC behaviour - "Betta not rock the boat, I might be the next guy retrenched. I'll just shutup, play along & hope for the best"
Posted by: Rober t Blair at December 18, 2003 at 11:37 AMWhich, contra-intuitively, re-inforces their PC behaviour - "Betta not rock the boat, I might be the next guy retrenched. I'll just shutup, play along & hope for the best"
I don’t know anything about working in a news office, but that makes a heck of a lot of sense.
Posted by: ForNow at December 18, 2003 at 12:01 PMMaybe CNN covered the pro-Saddam rally because it turned violent. In that case, the anti-terrorism demonstrators will need to start attacking any CNN journalist they see in order to get coverage.
Posted by: wv at December 18, 2003 at 04:36 PMI got an e-mail from an Age staffer last year that paints a picture of a highly demoralised reporting staff, who all assume that circulation will continue to shrink, staff levels drop and and eventual demise (or other transform) of the broadsheet
Aww crap. What's my budgie going to shit on if that happens ?
Posted by: Osamas Psychotic Proctologist at December 18, 2003 at 08:49 PM"What will be more important to them, maintaining (or increasing) marketshare by de-agenda-izing and returning back to actual, you know, reporting; or guaranteeing themselves ever shrinking marketshare for the sake of maintaining their agenda?"
Well, Nopundit, they will attempt to get their ideological buddies in the government to regulate the competition out of business. That is, after all, what the recent U.N. conference about control of the internet was all about. There's just too much freedom of speech and press going on out there. We can't confuse the masses with too much fact and reality. My God! They might actually demand government accountability!
Posted by: CGeib at December 19, 2003 at 06:28 PM