The Quality of News
A few weeks ago, the folks at the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released the second part of their survey, “Two Decades of American News Preferences.” In most cases they found no significant change in the public’s preferences across six news “super categories,” with the exception of “Money News” — Americans are more interested in financial news than in the past.
What interested me, however, were some comments by Curtis Brainard, of the Columbia Journalism Review, regarding the differences between interest and coverage:
…what is truly fascinating is the explanation for this contradiction between interest and coverage: “Even the smallest shifts in ratings can cause news organizations to alter substantially their news focus,” [study author Michael J. Robinson] writes, and often toward “a lower common denominator.” But these alterations, marked by “saturation” coverage, are often temporary and aimed at capturing the niche rather than the national audience. This harkens back to the earlier, chicken-and-egg discussion of where interest lags behind coverage, and where it exceeds coverage. “That the national news audience does not shift its news diet nearly so quickly as news organizations shift their news menu” is one of the most important take-away messages for journalists in Robinson’s study.
Robinson implies that on a national scale changes in coverage tend to mold public interest rather than vice versa. If so, journalists must be especially cognizant of their influence on not only opinions about the news, but also on what is considered newsworthy to begin with. Responsible editors and reporters like to think they do not pander to people’s basest interests, but rather guide and educate them. So perhaps the more pressing question is not, how have preferences changed, but rather to what degree and how quickly does content influence those preferences? Does a diet of more junk food create an appetite for more junk? Does a healthy diet create the reverse? [My emphasis -MP]
And if an outlet such as CNN chooses to even temporarily woo a niche audience for the sake of ratings — by chasing the Anna Nicole Smith story, for example — what is sacrificed with regard to the national audience? Hopefully, reports such as the Robinson’s study will help guide journalists as they try to find answers.
I have always thought this sort of influence was likely, and criticized mainstream media (MSM) coverage when they go radically overboard on a non-story like that runaway bride in April 2005. It’s a bit like tabloid journalism being passed off as real news. Jon Stewart and his writers on The Daily Show have particularly well attuned radar for this.
The question is to what extent the molding of interest is intentional. It’s not impossible to imagine a world in which the trend towards media consolidation, combined with greed and political corruption undermines journalistic integrity. Many would argue were already there with Fox (or “faux”) News. Call it Weapons of Mass Distraction. (See Connie Rice on the Tavis Smiley Show. And a Triangle Show was named after it too.) The ability to distract comes despite the efforts of quality individual journalists. It’s one reason why I’m intrigued by new ideas like the Real News Network, “a non-profit news and documentary network focused on providing independent and uncompromising journalism.”
