In chapter 13 McQhail talks about the publics’ interest and states that “the rubric of public interest seems to belong to that genre of euphemisms that includes the public welfare, the common good, and the national interest. In part, the problem with the concept is its idealistic and pristine nature as demonstrated in Walter Lippmann’s comment that ‘the public interest may be presumed to be what men would choose if they saw clearly, thought rationally, acted disinterestedly and benevolently,” (pg. 163). It is the job of media professionals to achieve this public interest which can cause conflict if the audience is not satisfied with what is being provided. Because of this conflict many argue that the job of journalists should not be considered a profession. Is this because the journalism standards have changed? There is the fact that there are other sources for audiences to use which will increase competition.
Recently the Associated Press chose not to mention the famous Paris Hilton in any of their stories for over a week and wanted to find out if this would be noticed or if it would make no effect on the interest of the audience. What is your opinion on whether the Associated Press (Or any Media Profession) conducts research in a way that is substantial to distribute a ‘story’? Do you feel Paris Hilton’s non-coverage was ‘newsworthy’ and do you feel it is the job of the Associated Press to conduct a non-coverage research on a woman who is famous for being famous? Is this of interest to us?
As opposed to this example of news provided by the Associated Press, there is an article about Hilary Clinton. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php As you can see this story is presented with direct quotes and proves to show good research techniques. Why isn’t news such as this covered as widely as stories about Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole that are not going to affect our country?>
An economist Keith Brown found that media ownerships were providing “inconvenient facts,” but again we can come back to question, is this allowed as the freedom of the press? Or are these ‘Media Professionals’ meant to provide us with harder information that would be beneficial?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/02/ignoring.parishilton.ap/index.html
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/56008.html
Jen Copela
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
When it comes to your question on whether or not journalist standards have changed, I can honestly say yes they have changed and not for the better in most cases. I believe journalists today are lowering their standards in order to capture a certain audience. This audience tends to be the younger, pop or celebrity culture, or as I like to put it, a culture of drama. When I turn on news stations such as CNN and Fox News, I am surprised to see some of the stories they cover. Many of these stations are turning into tabloid magazines. Most things concerning Paris Hilton and her sex tapes, Britney Spears shaving her head, and Nicole Richie and all her weight issues, should not be covered on such stations.
When it comes to your question on whether or not the job of a journalist should be considered a profession, I would have to disagree. Journalism is truly a profession, but they have to take a look at the paths that they are going down. It is understandable that it’s all about marketing, ratings and capturing a specific audience. My one concern is while they try to capture a new audience, they are losing the one they already had. When it comes to the Associated Press and their chose not to mention Paris Hilton in any of their stories for over a week, I think it was a good idea for research purposes, even though this non coverage, received coverage for so called not mentioning her. But I do not believe the non-coverage was “newsworthy.” I feel it was a big step in seeing whether or not they need to cover such stories to keep up their ratings. Everything I consider drama, is none the less what the public wants to see. Even though I am not interested in celebrity gossip and drama, I am still somehow drawn into it. These stories receive so much coverage online, in magazines, tabloids, radio stations and news stations, that it cannot be avoided, no matter how hard you try.
I think the points you raise are really interesting and have been debated probably since the media started -- just on different scales and about different topics.
The coverage of celebrity news has certainly increased over the years...but the question I always come back to is: is it always the media's fault? or is the public who are driving the media to cover these "stories"? I personally am not one of those people who blame EVERYTHING on the media. I tend to look at it as more of a balancing act, with both parties (media and public) influencing each other.
Perhaps the public is most interested in these celebrities when they FIRST make the news -- but the excessive coverage of the days and days of follow-up stories are probably what put people over the edge.
All in all, though, it's a business, and do you think media outlets just make up things to cover because they THINK those stories will be of interest to their consumers? No. Rather, media outlets perform thousands and thousands of dollars of research every year to find out what exactly their consumers want.
Given the onslaught of celebrity "news," I'd say it's a pretty sure bet that we -- as consumers -- are driving the agendas to include more celebrity news in the media. If it's what the public wants, doesn't it make poor business sense NOT to offer it to them?
It would be like owning an ice cream stand and not serving chocolate ice cream. Sure, it isn't for everybody, but chocolate is popular among many folks, so why should you serve it? You wouldn't be serving your clientele.
I like the fact that banning someone/something from the news becomes news.
There are many of things to consider when critiquing the professionalism of the media today. There are numerous options for receiving the news, to a point that we as US citizens are saturated with options. Each outlet is pushing its own agenda as the best and most important, which compromises the professionalism, or responsibility of the media.
With the rise of new and more digital media outlets it will be interesting to see how the news models will change and compete with each other and with other newer news delivering outlets.
As the McQuail reader points out in chapter 15, we want our doctors to be "...more learned medically than we are, [but] we should be uncomfortable with the notion that our journalists are more learned politically than we are."
We have to understand the media is a business and functions as one but that we should not always invest in just one outlet.
The recent trend of "celebrity news" featured on what used to be hard news outlets (e.g. CNN, and even increasingly in the NY Times) alarms me. It frightens me on two levels. One, I'm alarmed that people are so interested in celeb. gossip and care more about Anna Nicole than what directly impacts our nation's security, economy, etc. Two, I'm even more alarmed that celebrity news and tabloid journalism seem to be setting the "standard" for the entire profession.
I understand the news business is just like any other market driven business and depends on profits, which translates to readership. But it seems to me that the lack of ethics and professionalism in tabloid news is driving traditionally harder news outlets to abandon some of their ethics and professionalism in order to dig up more sensational and appealing stories.
I think the AP experiment wuth Paris Hilton was a great idea. However, I have to wonder, maybe it was just a slow news week for Paris (perhaps she found some underwear). Would it have hurt AP's readership more to cover other, more popular celeb stories right now like Britney or Anna Nicole?
Either way, AP is supposed to be a major news provider. And for the most part, celebrity news just doesn't belong on such an outlet. This is because I think there needs to be a distinction made between traditional news journalism and tabloid journalism. I feel they are two separate professions and media outlets should decide which category they belong to. I think this is the only way to keep traditional news media ethical and professional. Perhaps it will hurt readership, but I think there are more people in the country who actually do have an interest in real news and will continue to follow it than we suspect. In my opinion, I'm being disserviced when I turn on CNN to learn something, and I'm bombarded with Britney stories. If that's what I wanted, I'd pick up a copy of US.
The media was originally organized to disseminate information. It's a vital part of our democracy. Therefore, I think the media is responsible for serving the public interest as Lippman ideally described it.
One last note, I think people generally want to be informed. And although I think agenda setting is a 2 way street between producers and consumers- I have to wonder if people increasingly crave celebrity news because that's what's being presented to them. No one wants to be in the dark. Speaking for myself, someone who's only mildly interested in hollywood news, I feel compelled to keep at least minimally abreast of it because I don't want to seem like I live in a box when conversing with other people. Maybe if we presented the general public with some more real news, they'd start talking about that instead. If not, at least the information is being presented to them.
Post a Comment