I've written here several times about the decline of local media coverage. As the costs of delivering the news have increased (including the building of hugely expensive printing facilities), newspapers in particular, and even TV news (and the basic non-existance of radio news), have cut costs by cutting staff and reporting. It's happened all over the country. It's led to less reporting, and more focus on press releases. And when they do report, there are usually fewer sources called.
Not long ago the KC Star was one of the better local newspapers in the country. But corporate buyouts, cutting of staff, and increased focus on the bottom line, etc have caused it to be a shell of its former self. With a few exceptions, most of the reporting is suspect at best. I've joked for a while, that if I've ever been involved in an event in this city, and seen the news coverage of it, I've pretty much always wondered if the reporter and I were at the same event.
Thus the rise in online "newspapers". In many communities, real, serious journalists are starting "newspapers" online that are focused on investigative reporting, and really relaying local news. By distributing online, they're able to spend only a small amount of their financial resources on distribution, and focus most of their resources on reporting. A novel concept. There is an interesting interview with the founder of one of these newspapers voiceofsandiego.org that can be read here. The founder of the website mentions other startup ventures similar to it that are popping up in places like Minneapolis and St. Louis.
It's a great concept....and one that I would love to see started in Kansas City. Already I get so much of my local news and information from reading bloggers who actually research their information. Sites like the Kansas City Post, Gone Mild, Blog KC, KC Light Rail, and hell, even Tony's Kansas City when he is having a good day have provided me much more information about certain areas of interest in Kansas City than I've ever gotten from any of the local "news" sources.
In the end, we'll all benefit with the competition of news sources...because we'll have differing opinions, be free of just reading city hall press releases, and getting information beyond just the agenda often set forth by the Star. Everyone will be a winner except for the traditional news sources that fail to adapt and change.
I can't wait.
Press Release: "Former ABC Nightline anchor Ted Koppel on Wednesday chastised network executives for attempting to manipulate its newscasts to attract younger viewers in the same way that it does with its other programs. 'In entertainment programming,' he said, 'there is absolutely nothing wrong with networks catering to not just the needs but the desires of their audiences, but when it comes to news coverage, I think we have an additional responsibility and that is to tell people what they need to know and what they ought to know. ... I think news divisions have a responsibility to do more than just amuse the public; we have a responsibility to tell people where their interests lie.'
Possibly the precise tipping point for the decline of the "news" was pinpointed.
In the 1980's, one major television network exec. announced that his news department must now become profitable. It would no longer be acceptable for the news division to lose money.
Slowly, but surely, the network began trying different ways to attract viewers to their news broadcasts. (In case it's not immediately obvious, the premise there is, with more viewers come higher "ratings". With higher ratings, the network can charge more for advertising space. Thus, greater profits.)
As that news department attracted viewers and became more profitable, so the others eventually followed.
Anyone who grew up in the 50's, 60's or 70's can attest that news coverage today is nothing like it used to be. It's more like tabloids than respected, credible journalism.
If you're old enough, you can see how this has now permeated nearly every news agency there is. Spin is (seemingly) the only driving force. I've even seen instances where "reporters" are proud of their ability to take a mundane story and twist it into something salacious and saleable. News departments rarely publish corrections, despite what appears to be a historical high in the number of errors of fact in the news these days.
I've long-since given up on mainstream media as an information source. (I worked in advertising for many years.) I've seen too many times where what is reported is patently false. ...Not just a bit off or "not quite accurate" but an absolute lie. That is repugnant to me, and I lose all respect for those who knowingly do so.
I supppose that anything which helps reduce the costs of bringing news stories to the public could help make a news division more profitable, and thus reduce the need for tabloid tactics.
The question for the public is, if we go back to legitimate journalism, will they actually choose fact and substance over sound bites and entertainment?
Posted by: Marjorie | September 19, 2007 at 07:39 AM