Home » How We Think » Media Inner View
September 02, 2010 by David
Labor Day Weekend is the traditional end of summer and the beginning of election season, when political advertisements bombard the public and any chances of a high-level debate of the issues evaporates. As cable news coverage of the recent Gulf oil disaster indicates, this year promises to be increasingly partisan and bitter.
Few journalists in cable media even maintain a pretense of objectivity. The recent Pew Research Center report referenced in my last post describes the deterioration.
Cable news coverage of the disaster, the report said, increasingly sought to place blame for the spill rather than cover the event itself. Just where the blame belonged seemed to depend on the cable network performing the analysis. Liberal leaning MSNBC concentrated on BP’s failings, while the more conservative Fox News concentrated far more on the failings of the Obama administration, Pew reported. CNN was somewhere in the middle.
“More than half of (CNN’s) coverage was devoted to the containment, cleanup and impact storyline, while less time was devoted to the corporate and government angles, “ according to the Pew report.
MSNBC, “devoted 22% of its coverage to the government storyline and spent more time than either of its rivals on the BP/corporate storyline (31%), Pew said.
Fox News “devoted the least time to the breaking news aspect of the story and the corporate angle. Instead it easily spent the most time on the government storyline, and a good deal of that was critical.”
In yet another indication of media partisanship, it was reported in early August that News Corp., parent of Fox News, donated $1 million to the GOP.
Political donations from media corporations are not new, but rarely are they so large.
In the UK, partisan media are commonplace, even among newspapers, which trumpet their conservative or liberal bias and then go on with the job of reporting the news.
But a majority of the U.S. media have always believed themselves to be different, holding themselves to an objectivity and fairness standard worthy of the First Amendment. The growing trend of partisan coverage, most evident on the cable news channels, threatens that standard and puts further into question the ability of major media to cover a significant event, such as the Deepwater Horizon, without the taint of political slant.
In the coming weeks, as the attack ads flow and the quality of public discourse declines, watch the media, especially the cable networks. Perhaps you will note the subtle, and not-so-subtle slant. Perhaps you will wonder, what kind of treatment would I receive, or would my organization receive, during an interview? And perhaps you will ask yourself, is this a good thing?
August 27, 2010 by David
The story was overwhelming. For days on end, from spring and into summer, oil burst from the floor of the Gulf of Mexico and polluted sea and shore. Throughout, the media covered the Deepwater Horizon crisis with conviction and focus.
This week, the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism released a report detailing just how the media portrayed the worst environmental event in the nation’s history. The excellent analysis titled “100 Days of Gushing Oil, Eight Things to Know About How the Media Covered the Gulf Disaster”offers insight on a variety of fronts, but perhaps most curious is the pure amount of coverage produced.
Normally, the media’s attention span for a crisis extends about a week, depending on such circumstances as the number of people involved and other, competing news.
Remember the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007? That terrible story gripped the country….for a week. Then the media moved on.
“The massacre that left 33 people dead on the Virginia Tech campus was the biggest story in any given week that year, filling 51% of the newshole studied from April 15-20. But by the following week, coverage had plunged to 7%, and the week after that, it virtually vanished,” Pew reported.
After the Deepwater Horizon explosion, bloggers and those populating other social media platforms did move on to other topics. But the mainstream media, particularly broadcast media (read CNN’s Anderson Cooper) kept on top of the story.
Why?
Think back to the coverage and what sticks in your mind? Pictures of oil soaked birds. Or of ugly brown oil plumes spread across the water. Perhaps the most gripping video was the oil bursting forth from the ocean floor. Yes, this was a visual story, fueled by the never ending gushing taking place.
“The oil spill was by far the dominant story in the mainstream news media in the 100-day period after the explosion, accounting for 22% of the newshole—almost double the next biggest story. In the 14 full weeks included in this study, the disaster finished among the top three weekly stories 14 times. And it registered as the No. 1 story in nine of those weeks,” Pew reported.
“The spill story generated considerably less attention in social media on blogs, Twitter and You Tube. Among blogs, for example, it made the roster of top stories five times in 14 weeks. But during those weeks one theme resonated—skepticism toward almost all the principals in the story.”
In many crises, the public gets fatigued with the subject even before the media moves on, creating the perception the media “milk” the event. But in this case, the public’s fascination appears to have matched the coverage.
“Often between 50% and 60% of Americans said they were following the story ‘very closely’ during these 100 days. That surpassed the level of public interest during the most critical moments of the health care reform debate,” according to Pew.
Let’s see. Which was more visual? Health care debate? Oil disaster?
Hmmm.
August 02, 2010 by David
During my 20 years in journalism, few things were as valuable as a reliable source. Someone with good news judgment, who understood the media and what they were looking for, and provided valuable information, particularly on deadline when chasing a story, was a source to be cultivated.
During my four years in public relations, I’ve learned that few things are as valuable as the ability to communicate well, to reflect good news judgment, to provide interesting and valuable information to journalists in a timely manner and above all, to be sensitive to their increasing deadline pressures.
The key is to make the initial connection, to develop the necessary relationships. In an article today, Claire Cain Miller of the New York Times calls these “professional relationships that seesaw between love and hate.”
Journalists pride themselves on their ability to “source,” or develop the relationships they need to do their job. A new website launched today is designed to help them.
NewsBasis leverages the Internet’s ability to bring people of common purpose together. In this instance, the common purpose is an exchange of information, from an organization to the media. In addition, NewsBasis allows organizations to insert their own information into a news story, just for the edification of other journalists.
PR professionals can monitor NewsBasis for queries pertinent to their clients, and then respond as well.
Whether NewsBasis, created by Darryl Siry, a former journalist and marketer, can become a new marketplace of ideas and mutual information exchange, will be an ongoing question.
I suspect it will work if it reflects good news judgment, is frequented by those who understand the media and what they are looking for, and provides valuable information, particularly on deadline.
And perhaps mixes in a little love and hate as well.
July 15, 2010 by David
Do you prefer the Upshot (new media) or the double-dip (old media)?
Both have made splashes in the journalism world recently.
Yahoo! News recently launched its news blog, The Upshot featuring a team of reporters, and perhaps more importantly, a new algorithm-based search engine that will help direct the reporting team’s focus. Here is the low-down on The Upshot.
The double-dip involves a controversial paywall the newspaper in Lancaster, Pa., has instituted. In essence, the Intelligencer Journal-Lancaster New Era paper is charging non-subscribers $1.99 a month to access online obituaries, if they wish to read more than seven obituaries a month. Grieving families pay for those obituaries with the expectation they will be available to whomever can access the print or online newspaper. That will no longer be the case. Pay me to publish, Lancaster’s New Era says, and then pay me to gain access to the paid-for content. Thus the double-dip. (Here is an article that explains the entire experiment.)
Lancaster Editor Ernie Schreiber argues with former newspaper editor Steve Buttry that this innovation is no different than the paper charging for a subscription rather than giving away the paper for free. Here is Buttry’s blog post on their debate.
This is not entirely true. The fact is, subscribers pay for the privilege of reading the ENTIRE paper. Asking someone to pay for access to something that has been free, something that others have paid to be published, is simply a bad idea. It’s innovation for the sake of innovation.
Newspapers are experimenting with paywalls with increasing frequency. Of course, marrying good ideas with new content will lead to increased revenues, and perhaps to new paywalls.
But give me a new blog, with a team of reporters and a hyped-up algorithm any day.
July 08, 2010 by David
You could hear it in Mayor Tony Kennon’s voice. The emotion, call it restrained anger, as he discussed the oil spill in the Gulf and one of the many shocking apparent results, the suicide of his friend and community colleague Allen Kruse.
“You have no idea how angry I am,” he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper during a recent interview. “Because of corporate greed, and I never thought I would use that (term), selfishness, the pursuit of the dollar….we have this catastrophe.”
He added a final jab, “It’s what gives corporate greed validity.”
This clearly moved and frustrated mayor, who spoke with anger and eloquence, also raised a piercing question: Have we reached a tipping point, a growing, public discontent with Corporate America?
“Corporate greed,” Kennon said. “I never thought I would use that (term).”
But use that term he did. For corporations seeking clues and insights into public sentiment, study the media. After all, the media have fully covered damaging stories involving Wall Street, financial institutions, the housing industry, the mining industry, automakers and now the oil and gas sector.
After a while, companies within these sectors and in some regards, all of Corporate America, inevitably are painted with same broad brush.
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich alluded to this collateral damage in a recent blog post. “Whether it’s Wall Street or health insurers or oil companies, we are approaching a turning point,” he wrote.
Carl Lavin, a managing editor at Forbes and Forbes.com, recognizes this phenomenon and argues that companies that practice consistent media outreach and transparency still have an opportunity to build credibility with the public.
“I always favor openness and I see plenty of good examples of companies that are active and open when crises strike,” he told the Bulldogreporter.com recently. “In the past, you only have to look back to the famous Tylenol story to see how transparency benefits an organization in troubled times. There are people who take that transparency very seriously—particularly when it comes to crisis planning and prevention.”
(Full disclosure note: In the same interview, Lavin mentions me as someone who stresses openness as a way to establish good relationships with the media.)
Still, Lavin’s message, and the public’s message is clear. The nation as a whole has reached a turning point in its relationship with the corporate world. How companies foster their own relationships with customers, employees and the media will have increasingly significant impacts on their long-term success.
June 21, 2010 by David
The best newspapers surprise as well as inform. The New York Times performed both duties Sunday when a prominent article questioned the role highly acclaimed “Washington pundits” play in forming public opinion.
Adam Nagourney asked whether the nation’s leading columnists, many of whom work for the New York Times, have they been supplanted as influencers by those who tweet, blog and podcast.
Nagourney examined the public’s response to President Obama’s speech on the Gulf oil spill. Even though pundits declared the speech a failure, President Obama’s approval rating barely nudged.
“Tracking influences on public opinion has become greatly complicated now that the once-exclusive club (of pundits) has been joined by the vast multitudes blogging or posting Twitter updates or otherwise opining online,” Nagourney wrote.
He pointed out that those who tweet initiate opinion and analysis during an event such as the president’s speech. Waiting for the entire event to conclude before rendering an opinion ignores the power of the real-time tweet.
“Elite opinion still matters, but the Beltway chattering class no longer has a monopoly on influencing public opinion,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer told Nagourney. “On any given day, a blogger, a local reporter or someone on Faceboook or Twitter can be as influential.”
Of course, plenty of bloggers and tweeters respond to columns the “pundits” produce, as well. Even as their influence is subsumed in the social media world, pundits help drive the nation’s commentary agenda.
So, does this mean the “pundits” who write for the New York Times, Washington Post or The Wall Street Journal have they lost their penache? Or are they simply fanning the flames in a different forum?
June 10, 2010 by David
Today is my son’s last day of first grade. He was so excited at the prospect of entering second grade, he practically jumped out of bed this morning.
He is growing so quickly, it is difficult to keep up.
In the last few weeks, we’ve been watching new media grow up, one mouse click at a time. First, the Huffington Post announced that as it turns 5, it is attracting 13 million unique viewers a month. Some of you weren’t sure those numbers warranted a passing grade, however. Next, the New York Times announced that in its quickly maturing effort to cover all levels of news, it was adding a popular political blogger to its repertoire.
Today, it’s AOL’s turn to announce a milestone.
David Eun, the new head of AOL’s Media and Studios division, recently declared that AOL intends to hire hundreds of journalists around the country to supplement the efforts of the hundreds it already employs.
“AOL’s ‘Make Or Break’ Bid To Become A Content Network,” is the headline on Gavin O’Malley’s post in the newsletter Online Media Daily.
The plan is to “galvanize and build content networks of scale that can win,” Eun told O’Malley. “I don’t think it’s a secret to say that the turnaround of AOL is hinged on content ... It’s going to make or break [the company.]”
Eun also referred to mergers and media partnerships as being “crucial” to AOL’s future success as a new content provider.
Once written off as slow Internet portal with no future, AOL is growing to become another major player among the nation’s media. Remember, AOL already owns Patch.com, a fast growing hyper-local website that depends on thousands of freelancers to file community news posts.
Yes, first grade is over. I wonder what the summer will bring.
June 04, 2010 by David
Many of you treasure your “legitimate” media.
Last week, I asked whether the Huffington Post had joined the growing group of influential media in this country. The reaction in private messages was split, with more traditional-minded consumers of news offering a decided “No!”
Their opinion was based less on HuffPo’s popularity – it attracts 13 million readers a month – and more on the website’s approach to journalism. The website repurposes news that others report, covers current events via the blog posts of volunteers and publishes the posts of journalists on its own staff.
The New York Times magazine recently published a well-done article on Mike Allen of Politico, another popular web-based news source. In the profile, reporter Mark Leibovich is lavish in his praise of Allen’s e-mail “tipsheet” Playbook, which he says “has become the principal early-morning document for an elite set of political and news-media thrivers and strivers.”
Remember, this is a New York Times reporter saying that a newsletter from a website is a “must read” in Washington.
“Allen refers to his readership as ‘the Playbook community,’” Leibovich wrote. “He appeared wounded one morning in March when I suggested to him that his esoteric chronicle may reinforce a conceit that Washington is a closed conclave. No, no, he protested. Playbook is open, intimate. No one even edits it before it goes out, he said, which adds to his ‘human connection’ to ‘the community.’ ”
Today, the New York Times announced that it would begin hosting the popular political blog and news aggregator FiveThirtyEight and make its founder a regular contributor to the paper and its magazine.
The media lines are blurring, blogs and websites are becoming essential sources of news and information. The walls between legitimate and established media are crumbling and coverage is becoming “more intimate.”
So, forget about influential media. As we work to put blurred lines into focus, how have the media changed in the past two years, and is it making coverage “more intimate?”
May 27, 2010 by David
The Huffington Post recently marked its 5-year anniversary. The online news site and information aggregator now attracts more than 13 million unique visitors a month. That is not a typo. 13 million. More than the Washington Post or USA Today.
Do such numbers qualify “HuffPo” as a member of the powerful media club?
In a recent interview, founder Arianna Huffington described how her site slowly adopted the journalistic attributes commonly expected from her mainstream media counterparts.
“When we launched The Huffington Post, we were worlds apart. There was the legacy media that were very, very skeptical about blogging, or the future of online media. And there were the startups like The Huffington Post. Now The New York Times is doing a lot online. They’re doing a lot of great things online. And we are hiring more and more reporters.”
You know who else is hiring journalists in droves? AOL. The former web portal now employs more than 500 journalists. Not to be left behind, Yahoo is rushing to add to its newsgathering ranks as well. Each site gets millions of hits from a public with a seemingly insatiable appetite for information.
When I recently posted HuffPo’s online viewship on Facebook, a former Northeast Ohio journalist criticized the site for its news aggregation, culling the Web for stories to capture, repurpose and post.
“After all the hours and money we put into putting something original on our website, it’s considered a success when someone else takes it for free and puts it on their website,” said this editor, who works for a national media organization.
My former colleague’s frustration is genuine and understandable. Mainstream media pay their staff to produce the majority of quality journalism in this country. But his point doesn’t address the new dynamic that is emerging. Everyone and anyone can aggregate stories off the web, repackage them and sell the result. That is one of the reasons the universe of media is growing, not shrinking.
Add to the aggregation model the growing number of media utilizing submitted articles from citizen journalists and the nearly limitless supply of bloggers (present company included) and our nation’s total of news sources is in the millions. That is an encouraging, and scary, thought for those who value robust, yet fair and accurate debate of the issues.
“Those of us who recognize that the traditional tenets of journalism — fairness, accuracy, fact checking — need to prevail and be supplemented by all the new technical tools and the new citizen engagement are also going to survive and thrive,” Huffington predicted.
So, should the Huffington Post be counted among the most powerful of media?
Perhaps a better question is, who will be next to join the HuffPo in this once exclusive club?
May 06, 2010 by David
The BP oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico was not the only thing leaking this week.
Fed by frenetic coverage, high stakes and apparent rivalries, the law enforcement agencies investigating the attempted terror attack in Times Square apparently leaked to the media in such numbers that it affected the investigation.
NPR’s Dina Temple-Raston, whose coverage has been informative and thorough, reported this morning how it was that the media seemed to know what investigators were doing, even as they were doing it. The resulting flow of information could have dramatically impacted the investigation and eventual arrest of suspect Faisal Shahzad, Temple-Raston said.
An unidentified law enforcement official told Temple-Raston that “ ‘Our operational plans were being driven by the media, instead of the other way around. And that’s not good.’ “
Generally, sources leak for two reasons:
* They want to show that they are in the know;
* They have an agenda, including a point of view, they want in public view.
In this case, Temple-Raston describes a rivalry between the FBI and the New York Police Department as the driving force behind the leaks.
At one point, “a day-and-a-half after the attack, a news organization reported that law enforcement officials were looking for an American citizen of Pakistani descent from Shelton, Conn.” (Temple-Raston said she too had this information but chose not to report it for fear it would affect the investigation.)
In fact, Shahzad told those who arrested him that he saw the report and knew authorities were watching him.
“That’s an important detail, because surveillance is only effective if people don’t know they are being watched,” Temple-Raston said.
Her report is rather chilling when you think about the growing number of media outlets, citizen reporters, eyewitness reporters and more, all comprising the new media.
Yes, sources leak to show they are in the know. But some people report the news for the same reason. So where does that leave us? We have greater amounts of information being filed from a greater variety of sources. Sounds good from a public debate perspective. But as Temple-Raston points out, there are inherent dangers as well.
« Older Posts
