I was listening
to this week’s NPR program On the Media,
during which there was a segment about the competition among news outlets to
break a story first. This story comes in the wake of the gaffes by CNN and Fox when
they reported that the Supreme Court struck down the healthcare reform law. Some
of the most recent reporting mistakes include CNN stating that Hosni Mubarak
was killed, CNN stating that 20 bodies were found in a Texas home, and NPR
stating that Gabrielle Giffords died during the Arizona shooting. Jerry
Schwartz, the news feature editor for the Associated Press, explained that this
competition among news sources has been taking place for a long time. Schwartz
remembers when reporters would disconnect payphones to prevent other reporters from
calling in the news. What I find really interesting is that none of this really
matters. Schwartz even admits that in the grand scheme of things, it never
mattered who broke the news first or last. Being the first to break news was
simply a matter of pride to feed the reporters’ insatiable egos. It was just
one big game for them. However, in today’s digital age, news outlets survive on
how many people view their online content because this affects advertising
dollars. Therefore, it doesn’t pay for news outlets to sit on their hands and
wait to verify information. As long as people go to their web pages, incorrect
news is just as good as accurate news. If they jump the gun and report
something that’s not entirely or not at all true, they simply have to post another
story correcting the facts. This might make sense financially for news
corporations, but it’s negatively affecting the readers. Personally, I think
this deceptively reckless behavior is leading to the public’s distrust of the news.
I know I question the legitimacy of news stories all the time because I hear
contradictory or questionable statements. Brooke Gladstone compares the media
to a flock of birds flying from one electrical wire to the next, willing to be
shocked every now and then for landing on a bad story. Well, if this analogy is
true, then we, as the masses, are the birdseed because our shallow consumption
habits are feeding and perpetuating this behavior.
http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/jul/06/
I agree that the finger has to be pointed in the direction of the consumers. We exert a powerful influence over media outlets because we hold their jobs and profits in our hands. Lochran discussed society’s immediacy issues in class the other day, and I think that conversation has ties to this one. We want what we want, and we want it yesterday. Sacrifices must be made by the media in order to feed this insatiable hunger for immediate information. Some incorrect information is better than no information in a world where people have “right here, right now” attitudes.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYep, Jon Stewart and the Daily Show has been tracking these same gaffes and using them for comedic fodder. Here's the Supreme Court episode: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-june-28-2012-tenacious-d
ReplyDeleteIn a world, indeed a country like America, where we value FIRST more and more throughout our consumer-driven society, how do we compel "Accuracy over Speed"?
We need the consumer to demand accuracy... over speed, yes.
But this is an interaction. And there's more than one party in this interaction. The news organizations, by virtue of what they are supposed to do--report what actually transpires in our world--are responsible for doing just that. If they're tossing out any pretense to accuracy because they have abdicated that responsibility, then we no longer should consider them "news organizations" as we have traditionally applied the term.
And I think people want to know that what they are hearing is accurate. I think they want to know the "truth". They may not like it, and they may prefer an editorialized version; they may want to hear one perspective over another, but I think they (by and large) want to actually know what the facts are, what the "truth" is in some fashion.
I think if that wasn't the case, Brooke Gladstone wouldn't have had much to write about in her first few chapters about "National Security vs The Freedom of the Press", because the Press wouldn't have even been trying to uncover the truth that the gov't didn't want people to hear and know at certain points. Why bother locking horns with the gov't if truth doesn't matter anyway?
So I think there's an implied responsibility, yes, on the consumer, to want that truth, question it, recognize it, educate themselves further about it to try to understand it...
... but I don't think the news corporations should be allowed to just get off the hook for bullshit reporting, to put it in blunt terms. If we're going to ask our teachers to make sure they use credible research, if we ask those who publish such research (journals) to make sure it is credible and supported by validated research methods, then surely -- surely we can ask our news organizations, whose first priority is to report the news, to make sure that what they are reporting on is as accurate as possible.
I was really struggling with this idea the other day, sitting in class. I felt like...we rely so much on the information around us, but how do we truly know it is true?
ReplyDeleteLike Lochran says about, we use "scholarly" journal articles for our research, which we then can turn around and publish, etc., etc., etc. But how do we know if it is complete bullshit? We don't. That's the scary thing. I can make a professional looking website talking about anything...and if I can convince enough people that what I say on that website is the truth, then they will see me as credible. For instance, the man who said the world would end a few months ago...he has predicted that the world would end like five times, right? But, he got so many people convinced that what he was saying is true, that when that day came, all of us held our breath just a little...just in case he was correct.
Back the mainstream media...stories break because we want our news NOW. We actually wanted it twenty minutes ago, but NOW is good enough. We don't care if the facts are correct, NOW, we can find the corrections later, but NOW we want something to think about and process and discuss. Especially NOW that social media plays such a huge part in our society.
For a real life example...a local diner owner (Captain Gus) died over the weekend. I knew he did because I am friends with his grandson. But it was completely sickening to me that people were speculating on facebook about his death. The obituary wasn't even in the paper yet, but people heard a rumor in the wind, and it caught fire and there was so much about him on facebook. No one could confirm whether or not this man was a live or dead, but they were talking about it anyway...and then later, went back and corrected what they had said about it.
I don't know. I think if nothing else, this class has taught me to be skeptical of the media. It does a lot more harm than it does good.
I'm also still wrestling with the whole "opiate of the people" thing. I know you counter argued that, but I am still grappling with both of our arguments. I'd be interested to hear what you think about it further.