News Blues
Like most people, I've been critical of the press in this country for quite some time. Most news articles and columns too often read like unaltered press releases from the White House or the State House. A recent study now suggests there is reason for my discontent. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post gives a fairly nice summary of the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Hundreds of cable and radio commentators, and millions of bloggers, can sound off about the news in real time. But the number of old-fashioned fact-gatherers is dwindling, and will almost certainly continue to shrink.
These figures are drawn from a new study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism describing what it calls a "seismic transformation" in the media landscape. The good news is that the average consumer can in effect create his own news, picking and choosing from sources he trusts and enjoys rather than being spoon-fed by a handful of big corporations.
But the decline in the number of reporters, especially at newspapers, means less digging into the affairs of government and business. What is "most threatened," says the report, "is the big-city metro paper that came to dominate in the latter part of the 20th century . . . Even if newspapers are not dying, they and other old media are constricting, and so, it appears, is the amount of resources dedicated to original newsgathering."
...By the project's count, the industry has lost more than 3,500 newsroom professionals since 2000, a drop of 7 percent. The Washington Post said last week it would seek to cut 80 newsroom jobs through voluntary buyouts, the second such offer in just over two years, and attrition.
Early-evening news ratings for local TV were down 13 percent, the project says. And 60 percent of the local TV newscasts studied by the group -- once traffic, weather and sports are excluded -- consisted of crime and accident stories. What's more, the proportion of stories presented by reporters dropped from 62 percent to 43 percent between 1998 and 2002, leaving these programs increasingly driven by anchors. [Emphasis added]
The obvious cause for the drop in actual reporters, those who go out and find the facts to write the stories intended to educate the public, is the increasing emphasis on the bottom line. Most news sources (newspapers, television news, news magazines) are owned by major corporations who feel it is more important to satisfy their shareholders than their readers/watchers/listeners. Forty years ago, this wasn't the case. The NY Times, Washington Post, and LA Times were privately owned by families anxious to keep their dynasties going, but not at the cost of delivering the news. There was a balance then that doesn't seem to exist now.
How much corporate ownership affects editorial policy might be difficult to measure, although certainly one can make assumptions. However, the loss of the actual fact finders might be the more important factor in the failure to deliver the news the public needs and deserves.
Hundreds of cable and radio commentators, and millions of bloggers, can sound off about the news in real time. But the number of old-fashioned fact-gatherers is dwindling, and will almost certainly continue to shrink.
These figures are drawn from a new study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism describing what it calls a "seismic transformation" in the media landscape. The good news is that the average consumer can in effect create his own news, picking and choosing from sources he trusts and enjoys rather than being spoon-fed by a handful of big corporations.
But the decline in the number of reporters, especially at newspapers, means less digging into the affairs of government and business. What is "most threatened," says the report, "is the big-city metro paper that came to dominate in the latter part of the 20th century . . . Even if newspapers are not dying, they and other old media are constricting, and so, it appears, is the amount of resources dedicated to original newsgathering."
...By the project's count, the industry has lost more than 3,500 newsroom professionals since 2000, a drop of 7 percent. The Washington Post said last week it would seek to cut 80 newsroom jobs through voluntary buyouts, the second such offer in just over two years, and attrition.
Early-evening news ratings for local TV were down 13 percent, the project says. And 60 percent of the local TV newscasts studied by the group -- once traffic, weather and sports are excluded -- consisted of crime and accident stories. What's more, the proportion of stories presented by reporters dropped from 62 percent to 43 percent between 1998 and 2002, leaving these programs increasingly driven by anchors. [Emphasis added]
The obvious cause for the drop in actual reporters, those who go out and find the facts to write the stories intended to educate the public, is the increasing emphasis on the bottom line. Most news sources (newspapers, television news, news magazines) are owned by major corporations who feel it is more important to satisfy their shareholders than their readers/watchers/listeners. Forty years ago, this wasn't the case. The NY Times, Washington Post, and LA Times were privately owned by families anxious to keep their dynasties going, but not at the cost of delivering the news. There was a balance then that doesn't seem to exist now.
How much corporate ownership affects editorial policy might be difficult to measure, although certainly one can make assumptions. However, the loss of the actual fact finders might be the more important factor in the failure to deliver the news the public needs and deserves.
posted by Diane at 4:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home