Should News Entertain Or Inform — Or Both?
Feb 25th, 2007 | 19 responses
INDIO, California — It is the buzz up here at the Riverside County Fair, where I have been performing three shows a day in my other incarnation since Feb. 16. It’s the subject of conversation among entertainers, some of the people who have booths in the main vendors’ buildling and others.
What’s going to happen to Anna Nicole Smith’s baby? Who was the real father? And why is the news media doing an overkill on this story that doesn’t quite match the obsession with the O.J. Simpson trial, but is similarly raising eyebrows about (a) the news media’s perspective, (b) the American news media’s priorities, (c) the American news media’s ability to make measured news judgments which impact what goes into a shrinking “news hole” in print media or gobbles up finite minutes of airtime? Have we really reached a point where we see hours and hours of live coverage of a courtroom hearing on what’s essentially a celebrity, tabloid-type story?
Read Austin Cline’s MUST READ POST on Jesus’ General. It reads, in part:
Recent events have helped underscore the extent to which our “establishment” journalism industry is failing to provide Americans with the information they need in order to make reasonable, informed decisions about the future of the nation. Even cursory observations have made this clear to critics in the past, but by now it should be blindingly obvious to everyone. Unfortunately, most people don’t seem to care because their desire to be entertained is being carefully catered to.Anna Nicole Smith is dead, and that is unfortunate, but the news media has devoted an undeservedly large amount of attention to her death and the legal wrangling over the fate of her body. Perhaps fittingly, the judge in the case has had aspirations to follow in the steps of Judge Judy as a television celebrity. I suppose it would be naive to hope that a judge might aspire to follow in the footsteps of Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, or Earl Warren, but apparently even the lofty inspiration of Judge Wapner is too much to expect.
He notes some specific examples where stories didn’t get wide coverage due to the other news choices, and also offers a meaty quote underscoring how corporations are now in charge of news choices…and their goal is to garner huge audiences, no matter what. Then he writes:
Sometimes the major news media “gets it” and does well — the reports about the deplorable conditions which some wounded veterans must endure at Walter Reed Hospital is a good example of that, but part of what stands out about this example is just how unusual it really is: reporters took it upon themselves to investigate something unknown to most people, developed some dramatic and compelling stories relating to this and brought it all to the public. The story couldn’t be ignored or swept under the rug and it is leading to at least a few changes. How often does this happen? How much more often should it happen?
This should be a concern, because we’re not seeing a trend in national journalism towards more issue-oriented journalism or a more serious discussion of issues. This site has four people (including yours truly) who’ve worked in the news media. And there are some key things that have happened to the news media in the United States and its societal and political context while all of us have been on the face of this earth:
–The tabloidization of the American news media. The biggest 20th century shift came with the advent of the evening newscast, a bullet in the head to many afternoon newspapers which either shut down or merged with morning papers. But the BIGGEST shift in content came in the 1980s, after the Gart Hart/Donna Rice scandal that transformed Hart from a symbol of the future to a laugh-assured punchline. It was the National Enquirer, under aggressive, new leadership, that got the pix of Rice sitting on Hart’s lap on the boat Monkey Business. It looked like a photo that had been photoshopped — but it wasn’t. This was the Golden Age of the American Supermarket Tabloid. And the news media scrambled to compete with the supermarket tabs on that one and never looked back. Now you didn’t only have to beat the Times and Post, but you had to beat the Enquirer, the Star and the Globe.
–The rise of talk radio. Talk radio as it now exists is the tabloidization of politics and political discussion: high-concept catch phrases that spark immediate images and reponses in (partisan) listeners’ minds, controversy that gets the adrenaline going and a kind of tribal bonding that makes people tune in again and again. The days of staid PBS discussions are replaced by Rush Limbaugh doing two hours ridiculing and warning about Hillary Clinton, or a fill-in progressive talk show host suggesting George Bush’s surge may be to intentionally use American troops as bait to provoke a war with Iran. (At the risk of enraging fans of both, neither of these qualify as thoughtful, serious discussion)
–The 24 Hour News Cycle and Fox News’ impact: Network newscasts are now more quaint than ever. News, politics, partisans denouncing each other, and experts making predictions that often don’t come true are now available any hour of the day. Fox News took the talk radio model and morphed it onto cable news….so now CNN has done the same (note high-concept personalities Glenn Beck and Nancy Grace). The goal is to increase viewership. Academics discussion foreign policy or experts or politicos just outlining problems and detailing options aren’t enough. Audiences want pizzazz.
–The decline of truly high profile journalistic role models. A new generation sees more high profile television/cable talk show personalities than high profile print or broadcast news journalists.
–The dominance of personality over issues in politics and news. If you look at all of the above, the common denominator is the injection of personality into politics and news coverage. In the end, the personalities involved drive the narrative more than the ISSUES. Whether it’s news, talk radio, blog posts or blog comments, it now comes down to taking an issue and turning in into something linked to a person. (Note how in many comments on blogs if someone disagrees with a post they immediately turn it into a personal attack or a personal characterization — one that upon examination often proves to be wrong, oversimplified or simply just lashing out).
–News editors and corporations can’t just ignore the competition and do 100 percent their own thing. If they do, they could lose huge chunks of audience. Editors that don’t follow and cover popular stories could find they have a new job (Food News Editor). Corporate officers that see their outlets don’t compete on the big stories and aren’t getting readership or viewship could face consequences from stockholders. And no one WANTS to be beat on a big story and to have to follow another organization’s coverage.
The problem with all of the above is this: a story such as Anna Nicole Smith, the he said/she said political coverage, the 24 hour news cycle that grabs a story and won’t let go and milks it until the last microdrop is gone, the outraged (what else?) blog firestorms over small things…..all of these suck up the air and smother serious issues. And since this is the new political, media context, this is what young people see and what they will likely clone when they take over the news media (those that follow it, that is).
The worst part: do we see a trend that this will decrease? Or is this the new reality in the 21st century news and info media? And if this is the trend, where will we be 20 years from now (perish the thought)?
UPDATE: Also read Outside The Beltway’s differing perspective on this issue. NOTE: I will be off line all day and through much of the evening and won’t be able to update this with more links.
19 Responses to “Should News Entertain Or Inform — Or Both?”
[...] Original post by Joe Gandelman and software by Elliott [...]
I must be an old fogey – I expect news to inform not entertain. When I got a “Breaking News” email about Anna’s body, I yelled at my computer “This is not Breaking News!”
Hmmm I can offer perspective from another country, having watched both American and Spanish newscasts. Here’s a question for someone older than myself; did the nightly news in the US ever REALLY cover international news? And by international news I don’t mean only natural disasters that kill more than 1 million people (Africa) 100.000 people (Asia), 10.000 people (Latin America) or 1.000 people (Europe) or countries that we’re at war or are vaguely planning to be at war with. I can distinctly recall that the minor sexual scandal of a un-important congressman would warrant way more coverage than a UN meeting that would get headlines all over the rest of the world. Newscasts in Spain specifically have national and international sections and neighboring countries, like France, Portugal, Italy get special coverage. My newscast tells me about the French elections BEFORE their decided.
To be fair the whole newscast will last about 25 minutes and then be followed with a sports (read soccer) section just as long, but at least I feel I’m getting SOME news out of my news.
I always explain to my Spanish friends and co-workers; part of the reason Americans have certain views (like doubting Global Warming as much as they do or having believed the WMD story) is because their media feeds it to them. 100 channels but most of them say the same thing, and most of what they say is meaningless. Lets face it, most people aren’t going to go out of their way to read several media and learn about issues, they, at most, will accept what they see on the news and many don’t even go that far. Spaniards are no different, but they get more substance in their news.
News should not ‘entertain’ at all. People are obsessed with being ‘entertained’.
John Doe should spend a little less time trying to be ‘entertained’ and a little more time trying to be informed.
What we see happening right now, is that the ‘news media’ are becoming (part of the) [mass produced] popular culture. Or something similar. The intellectual aspect of it all is, slowly but surely, taken out of it so that, in the end, it’s all morally empty and intellectually irrelevant.
It’s bad enough that there are magazines that constantly focus on celebrities, but it’s even worse when ‘serious’ news organizations focus on celebrities as well and ignore actually relevant news.
And if they don’t they betray their profession.
It’s unbelievable.
When we look at history, I am afraid that it’s all part of a trend and that matters will become much, much worse.
If Americans aren’t careful, only the elite will get its hands on objective or high quality news / opinion / information.
Relatedly –
Yesterday, I visited the local Barnes & Noble. Looking through the “Current Affairs” section, I observed that at least 90% of the books were rants, from both the Right and the Left; it was Michael Moore vs. Rush Limbaugh.
I assume that B&N stocks what sells. If so, most people buy what reinforces their political prejudices (and is therefore a form of entertainment), and few buy what could make them better informed. This, of course, bears more than a faint resemblance to the blogosphere.
It is indeed very troubling.
I would like to see a complete separation between news and entertainment, and also between fact and opinion. Last week’s gratuitous 24/7 coverage of the Anna Nicole spectacle was nauseating. This is the kind of coverage that used to be reserved for presidential assasinations (JFK), the Watergate Hearings and the first Gulf War. To equate Anna Nicole’s life or death to any of these truly newsworthy events is absurd.
We have become a sensationalized society, fascinated by the most sordid details of celebrities’ lives. That type of information used to be confined to tabloids kept in the aisles of supermarkets. Imo, it should have remained there.
I agree with MvdG. Because what we see on cable news now is subject to a corporate bottom line, rather than journalistic standards, we will see those standards continue to drop, as more time and attention are devoted to the sensational and the scandalous details of the lives of the rich and famous.
When we vote we will know more about a candidate’s private life than his/her past voting record, or beliefs on key issues. One minor error in judgement that may have occurred 20 years ago will be hashed and rehashed, while the rest of their accomplishments are ignored. Its pretty much happening now.
It’s all about profits, not professional integrity and responsibility. If it doesn’t make enough money to contribute its proper share to the level of profits that make Wall Street happy then it’s going to be axed. Since entertainment will presumably keep the eyeballs that boring news about the nation and world so that’s what is pushed. Remember, news is presented by corporations. Corporations took Friedman’s axiom about their only responsibility to heart and our society is paying for it.
In the olden days newspapers and TV news had international bureaus. But these have been ‘aborted’ to make more money. We have sacrificed REAL news to the pro-corporate reality TV bottom line. The only exposure to REAL news is PBS and CNN, and I don’t mean Librul bias, these two networks actually acknowlege news from outside the US.
All agreed: the news media are failing us.
But, it’s we who empower the corporations and their profit based strategies.
I’m going to stick my neck way out to say that this is a clear case where the free market system is not working. Society is being driven from the bottom (an appetitie for sensationalism and consumerism) up. And there is no mechanism to empower the ‘up’, the hunger for real news and information.
C-Span provides some, but not nearly enough, relief.
What’s the answer in a world where every good idea needs the funding to bring it to fruition?
Let me put the tin foil hat on. I’m really not a conspiracy theorerist, but doesn’t this kind of corporate-determined news coverage make deception by our government a lot easier to achieve? If we’re not exposed to any real international news and if the WH Press corps is spoon-fed leaks from the administration, aren’t we restricted in what we are really finding out?
I just read “Redirection” by Sy Hersh, which describes a shadow ME foreign policy devised by Cheney and Bandar, which seeks to minimize Iranian influence with covert ops that include funding and arming extremist Sunni groups very similar to al queda That, imo, is what Americans need to be hearing about.
Instead, we get nonstop coverage of whether or not today’s the day the judge will finally order the DNA sample from the five potential fathers of Anna Nicole’s baby girl.
Maybe, if we’re lucky they’ll risk a ratings share loss by breaking into the custody hearings if we go to war with Iran. Is this corporate-sponsored pablum to pacify dumbed-down American citizens? Ok, temporary fit of paranoia over with, lol!
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just the natural outcome of big corporate media.
The media is owned by corporations that give money and supply arms to our government, so it’s not surprising they would want to avoid being critical of their partners.
They media also has to worry about their advertisers. The best audience to cater to is an afluent audience, the type of audience that is likely pleased with the status quo. The advertisers themselves don’t want to be associated with the real problems in our government.
KR Even thoughthe Wingnuts deny it, the Librul MSM went nuts over the Lewinsky purple dress story. If any future Demonocrat or Republicant has a tabloid type story(sex or addiction) the cable outlets will be all over it like flies to sh**. Even the Faulkner story about a dead body will be ignored. Doing an in depth story on Iranian nuclear capabilities or guinea worms doesn’t make for good press. Blond girls in Aruba or stupid cruise honeymooners is good tabloid stories. With talking points and 30 second news stories, ANS sells.
In twenty years we may find that the only way to get hard news is from blogs or watching actual events on C-span. Its getting to that point already. I still could see the government making sure that big media conglomerates who also happen to be big donors- showing us only what they want us to know. They could black out news stories that tell the “inconvenient truth” by switching to bimbo news round the clock.
Its hard to believe, that all of the main cable channels can show a big profit by focussing so intently on repetitive celebrity gossip.
Should News Entertain Or Inform — Or Both?…
Joe Gandelman has a good piece on the subject over at The Moderate Voice….
[...] My good friend, Joe Gandelman, of The Moderate Voice most certainly think so in his thoughtful piece entitled “Should News Entertain Or Inform — Or Both?“, which SHOULD be read in its entirety along with the many thoughtful comments by his informed readers. [...]
[...] Also, read Joe Gandelman’s excellent post sizing up today’s entertainment-obsessed news media (see also here, [...]
Joe Gandelman Beclowns Himself…
No really–he’s a clown There is considerable irony in the fact that you can take Joe more seriously than a lot of politicians who play the clown unintentionally and without renumeration. Joe’s views on modern journalism for instance. The biggest……