Image of the media

[Belsnickel]

There was a thread by Wesley Lowery on Twitter, that I wanted to share to have a discussion.

common thread in many of these bad faith attacks on press are that they seek to exploit public's misunderstanding/ignorance of how we do what we do. for a long time I've thought media's biggest mistake is assuming our audiences understand journalism conventions/how we do our jobs

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) November 29, 2017

That was the first tweet, I'll copy the text here below for a good chunk of the thread. But overall, this wa sa good conversation that went on even more than I'm posting.

Quote:common thread in many of these bad faith attacks on press are that they seek to exploit public's misunderstanding/ignorance of how we do what we do. for a long time I've thought media's biggest mistake is assuming our audiences understand journalism conventions/how we do our jobs

these O'Keefe videos on WaPo, for example, seem to all be of reporters diligently explaining how what they do is different from our editorial page. To media people, that's a "duh" finding. But to the public....

We (MSM) have spent decades chest beating about how "objective" our reporting and reporters are -- that's a debate for another time -- while simultaneously publishing editorial sections that, by design, are not objective. We get the difference. A mistake to assume everyone does

Especially in an environment in which plenty of outlets blur those lines all of the time. Lots of reporters now write "analysis." Sometimes columnists/talking heads break news. So what is your casual reader - one who, unlike us, has a life outside of following news - to assume?

I get emails about my Washington Post "columns" all of the time. I have never written a "column" for the Washington Post. But I'm not sure it's the readers' fault that these distinctions aren't always clear

Another example: Why would the WaPo publish an AP report without independently verifying?! If you work in/around the media, the answer is obvious. But is it the fault of the average reader if they don't have a complex understanding of the function of wire services?

The reason we often give for not more fully explaining how we do the work we do is that we "respect" our readers. They're smart! They get it! Honestly, I think it's hubris. I think we (folks in media) assume everyone else is as media-obsessed as we are self-indulgent

The fixes, to me seem both obvious & unlikely: 1. massive, resourced, deliberate media literacy campaign 2. abandoning needless convention (editorial boards, perhaps) 3. emphasis on fairness, not nonexistent "objectivity" 4. radical transparency about how we do what we do

So what do you think about this approach to this issue? How media-literate are we here? How many can explain the difference between a hard news piece, an analysis, an opinion piece, and editorial, etc.? We probably consume news more than many people, so we ought to know, but do you think our knowledge on this front could be improved? Do you think the misunderstanding of these nuances contributes to, or even causes, the animosity towards media, today?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

A recent study says reading this thread could cause cancer. Scientists agree.

[GMDino]

I think people that never worked in or studied media don't get a lot of things.

I also think that the internet has made things worse for getting "good" media.  Everyone is rushing to be first...if if they are not right.  And anyone can find a "media" source that agree with their preconceived notions...whether they are right or not.

I heard a really good interview last week with a couple reporters who broke the Weinstein case and another one (can't remember which one) and all the good steps they did make sure they were following a good, honest process to get the story AND to get it right.  

[Yojimbo]

I don’t think understanding the media is the biggest problem with media in this country. The problem started when conglomerate corporations started buying media outlets and turning them into profit generating propaganda machines. Really think MSNBC/CNBC/NBC is going to run any story that would show GE doing anything shady overseas or damaging the environment or lobbying (bribing) congress for tax breaks or free trade deals? This doesn’t just apply to NBC affiliates, it’s pretty much all media companies that have shareholders involved.

I try really hard to only get my news from the AP, Reuters or independent media.

[Belsnickel]

(11-30-2017, 05:47 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: I don’t think understanding the media is the biggest problem with media in this country. The problem started when conglomerate corporations started buying media outlets and turning them into profit generating propaganda machines. Really think MSNBC/CNBC/NBC is going to run any story that would show GE doing anything shady overseas or damaging the environment or lobbying (bribing) congress for tax breaks or free trade deals? This doesn’t just apply to NBC affiliates, it’s pretty much all media companies that have shareholders involved.

I try really hard to only get my news from the AP, Reuters or independent media.

I don't disagree that the corporatization of media and the profitization of the news are big problems. But, would the resulting effects be as bad if consumers of this media were cognizant of what was editorialized content and what was actual news?

[GMDino]

(11-30-2017, 05:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't disagree that the corporatization of media and the profitization of the news are big problems. But, would the resulting effects be as bad if consumers of this media were cognizant of what was editorialized content and what was actual news?

They never understood that.  Paul Harvey got away with that crap for decades.

One of the things I hated about playing his BS on the radio.

Got in a little bit of trouble for introducing his five minute as "Paul Harvey News and Rumor" instead of "Paul Harvey News and Comment".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-30-2017, 04:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There was a thread by Wesley Lowery on Twitter, that I wanted to share to have a discussion.

common thread in many of these bad faith attacks on press are that they seek to exploit public's misunderstanding/ignorance of how we do what we do. for a long time I've thought media's biggest mistake is assuming our audiences understand journalism conventions/how we do our jobs

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) November 29, 2017

That was the first tweet, I'll copy the text here below for a good chunk of the thread. But overall, this wa sa good conversation that went on even more than I'm posting.


So what do you think about this approach to this issue? How media-literate are we here? How many can explain the difference between a hard news piece, an analysis, an opinion piece, and editorial, etc.? We probably consume news more than many people, so we ought to know, but do you think our knowledge on this front could be improved? Do you think the misunderstanding of these nuances contributes to, or even causes, the animosity towards media, today?

There are a few reasons for this in my opinion.  While I don't think partisan news is anything new I think the proliferation of ways to consume it has led media outlets to attempt to carve out a niche for themselves as a way of securing a market for their service.  Fox definitely started this trend in the modern age and their success certainly led to emulation.  Additionally, the same proliferation of media sources has led to a proliferation of people labeling themselves as "journalists".  This has absolutely watered down the profession's image and the same factors I just listed have led many of these new "journalists" to circumvent, or entirely ignore, traditional journalism practices and ethics.

The journalist profession, properly conducted, is an admirable one.  I think a few quick fixes would go a long way towards establishing more public trust in the profession and its product.  I would advise all hard news agencies to do away with their editorial page entirely.  The line has become so blurred in the recent decade that editorialism has bled into hard news stories.  This further blurs the line, especially for the less discerning reader, as to what is an editorial and what is a fact based hard news story.  An alternative would be to come to a profession wide agreement and have a universally agreed upon label, or border, on individual stories in the editorial section.  This would have to be coupled with a firm commitment to dissuade editors from click bait titles or subtle digs/editorializing/leading language in hard news stories or it would all be a wasted effort.

Lastly, a way to discern professional journalists from your more amateurish types, such as bloggers, people with their own website, etc.  There is a huge gap between the journalistic standards or a professionally trained journalist and a dude with internet access.  You see the damage this does during protests, such as at the Trump inauguration.  An amateur journalist was arrested as a participant.  This type being lumped in with a person who grew up idolizing Woodward and Bernstein, and attending school to be a journalist, does a tremendous amount of damage to the profession's image.  A professional standards board that discerned between the two would be very helpful in this regard.  Just having an iPhone and being at an event does not make you a journalist and you shouldn't be allowed to credibly claim you are one because you have a blog.

[Benton]

(11-30-2017, 04:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  

So what do you think about this approach to this issue? 

About his suggestions?:
1. That's gone on for years, at least in certain areas of media (local, NPR, etc). It's not as common in big commercial giants like WaPo or NBC or Fox (saying that while laughing to myself as Fox News largely doesn't worry about blurring those lines). I don't know how effective they are, but — like most things — it starts in schools. More newspapers should take part in programs like NIE (Newspapers in Education) but it's hard to sell schools that have few instructional hours anyway on the need to incorporate newspapers into their curriculum. And then find a business willing to sponsor giving the papers away.
2. That's happening from the bottom up as news becomes more organic and community centered, and less about what editors or publishers want. Honestly, those guys are so covered up they don't have the same time to micromanage news like they did 20 years ago when news rooms were crowded.
3. Fairness is as relative a term as objective. And people who don't like what you say are always going to claim it's unfair.
Really, where's the line in "fair"? Is it fair that Trump had dozens of "Grab them by the ****" stories, but a city councilman in Monkey's Eyebrow only had one? And fair to who, the subject, or the audience?
4. I'm not sure what he means by radical here. I'm also not sure how things could be more transparent, unless he's referring to something unorthodox. If it's just the standard (sifting through public records, requesting interviews, etc) there's not much to be transparent about. Although, I do think the majority of people do not know what are subject to public record requests.

Quote:How media-literate are we here? 

Not very. He hits on an excellent point about the blur between news and opinion, which seems obvious when you have 10 pages labeled some derivative of "news" and two labeled "opinion" but not everybody gets that. People also rarely understand it's the media's job to serve as a gateway of public information.

Quote:How many can explain the difference between a hard news piece, an analysis, an opinion piece, and editorial, etc.? 

If anyone in this thread can find an answer, I'd love to hear it and share with other fellow small publishers. I don't think most people understand the difference between facts and opinions. That sounds a lot more condescending that I mean for it to, but about once a week I'll get a phone call from someone mentioned in a story who disagrees with what I wrote they did or said. Not that they didn't do it, or that I shouldn't have written it, but that they didn't mean what was done or said. 

And even for those that know the difference, many don't care. I've got a city councilman that loves to tell people he votes the opposite of whatever is in the paper. When I come into the meetings, he'll give a wink and say "make sure I get it right this week." It used to burn me up, but hell, the guy is likable and it's become a joke between us. 

Quote:We probably consume news more than many people, so we ought to know, but do you think our knowledge on this front could be improved? Do you think the misunderstanding of these nuances contributes to, or even causes, the animosity towards media, today?

I think people are pretty unhappy in general. As the messengers, a lot of times there's animosity not so much for what we say, but just for the fact we're saying it. Take the Moore issue. Part of the criticism from the alt-right is that this shouldn't be a story. Not that adults dating teens is right or wrong, just that Moore is a swell guy and the media is bad for not making him out to be a swell guy. 


Personally, I think alternative reality purveyors like Brietbart and HuffPo, along with agenda driven agencies like Fox and MSNBC, are symptomatic of the direction our society has gone. It's Us v. Them. I think they've damaged news reporting, but ultimately I don't think they care. They're not really intent on being bastions of quality journalism anyway, they're about making money. That doesn't make them evil, they're just companies with tax breaks to make. 

I can't get mad at Brietbart and HuffPo for the shit they stir any more than I could get mad at Hostess because my Twinkie isn't a homemade yellow cake with hand whipped icing. You get what you pay for and what you put into a product.

Which brings up the other aspect here. A lot of news agencies — especially small ones like mine — are developing more local content through different methods. I think that's going to continue to grow. You may not see it's impact at places like WaPo, but you likely will in your local paper or local TV station. And I think that's the direction it needs to go. If you look back at broadcasting or print media 50+ years ago, local stories were developed by local people. Things were more community based, more issue based. It wasn't till the 70s where you started having a lot more analysis pieces and broad coverage news.

[Belsnickel]

(11-30-2017, 06:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

I agree with you quite a bit, here. Everyone has a platform, these days. This is good in some ways, but it can be harmful in others. We see all the time that over-glorified blogs end up being a major source of news for some people, but what they are taking in is, well, amateurish twaddle.

(11-30-2017, 06:25 PM)Benton Wrote: About his suggestions?:
1. That's gone on for years, at least in certain areas of media (local, NPR, etc). It's not as common in big commercial giants like WaPo or NBC or Fox (saying that while laughing to myself as Fox News largely doesn't worry about blurring those lines). I don't know how effective they are, but — like most things — it starts in schools. More newspapers should take part in programs like NIE (Newspapers in Education) but it's hard to sell schools that have few instructional hours anyway on the need to incorporate newspapers into their curriculum. And then find a business willing to sponsor giving the papers away.
2. That's happening from the bottom up as news becomes more organic and community centered, and less about what editors or publishers want. Honestly, those guys are so covered up they don't have the same time to micromanage news like they did 20 years ago when news rooms were crowded.
3. Fairness is as relative a term as objective. And people who don't like what you say are always going to claim it's unfair.
Really, where's the line in "fair"? Is it fair that Trump had dozens of "Grab them by the ****" stories, but a city councilman in Monkey's Eyebrow only had one? And fair to who, the subject, or the audience?
4. I'm not sure what he means by radical here. I'm also not sure how things could be more transparent, unless he's referring to something unorthodox. If it's just the standard (sifting through public records, requesting interviews, etc) there's not much to be transparent about. Although, I do think the majority of people do not know what are subject to public record requests.

Some good thoughts on his suggestions. I definitely take his points as more of a discussion starter, because they are far from fully realized ideas on how to repair what has been done. It is good to see some responses to this, though.

(11-30-2017, 06:25 PM)Benton Wrote: Not very. He hits on an excellent point about the blur between news and opinion, which seems obvious when you have 10 pages labeled some derivative of "news" and two labeled "opinion" but not everybody gets that. People also rarely understand it's the media's job to serve as a gateway of public information.

I agree with you on this, but I think the problem is the decline in people reading an actual paper. I can pick up a paper copy of WaPo and easily point to the lines between news and opinion. But most consumers are using apps and the web if they are looking at these papers these days. The front page has a hodgepodge of opinion and news, even on local and regional papers quite often. What makes it worse are the cutesy titles for the sections. People click on links and have no idea.

(11-30-2017, 06:25 PM)Benton Wrote: If anyone in this thread can find an answer, I'd love to hear it and share with other fellow small publishers. I don't think most people understand the difference between facts and opinions. That sounds a lot more condescending that I mean for it to, but about once a week I'll get a phone call from someone mentioned in a story who disagrees with what I wrote they did or said. Not that they didn't do it, or that I shouldn't have written it, but that they didn't mean what was done or said. 

And even for those that know the difference, many don't care. I've got a city councilman that loves to tell people he votes the opposite of whatever is in the paper. When I come into the meetings, he'll give a wink and say "make sure I get it right this week." It used to burn me up, but hell, the guy is likable and it's become a joke between us. 

I get what you are saying here, because I have this discussion in here every so often. What is a fact is very finite and something that would really be defined as a fact is much more narrow than most people realize. So to think of that, the line between fact and opinion is one that can be very difficult. Subjectivity and objectivity are things that people don't often grasp and there is a decline in the skill set of reading critically, just from my observation as an employee and student at a university (and having a wife that teaches critical reading and writing).

To get this train back on the rails, I can tell you how I view these differences, but even that is, of course, subjective:

Hard news: Just the facts, direct quotes, etc.
Analysis: Facts with some explanation
Opinion: Expressing an opinion on something without a call to action
Editorializing: Opinion with a call to action

That is how it was taught to me (if I am remembering correctly) quite some time ago.

(11-30-2017, 06:25 PM)Benton Wrote: Which brings up the other aspect here. A lot of news agencies — especially small ones like mine — are developing more local content through different methods. I think that's going to continue to grow. You may not see it's impact at places like WaPo, but you likely will in your local paper or local TV station. And I think that's the direction it needs to go. If you look back at broadcasting or print media 50+ years ago, local stories were developed by local people. Things were more community based, more issue based. It wasn't till the 70s where you started having a lot more analysis pieces and broad coverage news.

But isn't there now a potential for a shift away from this thanks to some recent regulatory decisions?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

It doesn't help the image of the media when a member of a major news organization announces some huge news on a nation-wide broadcast that causes the DOW to drop 350 points in 30 minutes based upon one singular anonymous source, and it is within hours proven certifiably false.

He's also the guy who (falsely) said the Aurora Shooter was a Tea Party member.

https://www.thewrap.com/abc-news-suspends-brian-ross-4-weeks-without-pay-effective-immediately/

Response to all that? You get December off, enjoy Christmas with your family and see you next year when you'll keep having access to deliver "news" to tens upon tens of millions of people.

[GMDino]

(12-04-2017, 12:34 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It doesn't help the image of the media when a member of a major news organization announces some huge news on a nation-wide broadcast that causes the DOW to drop 350 points in 30 minutes based upon one singular anonymous source, and it is within hours proven certifiably false.

He's also the guy who (falsely) said the Aurora Shooter was a Tea Party member.

https://www.thewrap.com/abc-news-suspends-brian-ross-4-weeks-without-pay-effective-immediately/

Response to all that? You get December off, enjoy Christmas with your family and see you next year when you'll keep having access to deliver "news" to tens upon tens of millions of people.

So he get's suspended for that "huge" gaffe...and that's still not enough?

I'd be happier if ALL news organizations held their reporters as accountable.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(12-04-2017, 01:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: So he get's suspended for that "huge" gaffe...and that's still not enough?

I'd be happier if ALL news organizations held their reporters as accountable.

It's not like he's new at his job and didn't know better. He took a singular anonymous source false report and blasted it around the country/world to an enormous audience without a single bit of due diligence to verify it, of which even the least bit of work would have proven it false... and it's not the first time.

As I said earlier, it also caused a 350 point drop in the stock market within half an hour of his "report" this time and you still have to put huge in quotation marks. So no, it's not enough.

I'd be happier if ALL news organizations held their reporters as accountable, too.

[GMDino]

(12-04-2017, 01:50 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It's not like he's new at his job and didn't know better. He took a singular anonymous source false report and blasted it around the country/world to an enormous audience without a single bit of due diligence to verify it, of which even the least bit of work would have proven it false... and it's not the first time.

As I said earlier, it also caused a 350 point drop in the stock market within half an hour of his "report" this time and you still have to put huge in quotation marks. So no, it's not enough.

I'd be happier if ALL news organizations held their reporters as accountable, too.

That kind of thing happens more than we want to admit.  At least it was corrected publicly and quickly.



And the stock market isn't a good judge of anything.  It's a group of people trying to get rich off of other people's money.  

Stocks went down on statements by the POTUS too.

If the market crashes again because of the banks/GOP/Trump...who do I get to sue?

[*michaelsean*]

Watergate. They've been chasing that high for 45 years. Also anyone who enters journalism "to make a difference".
Sites like Yahoo etc linking stories by anyone with internet access.

With newspapers you had clearly defined boundaries between news and opinion. Now you could still argue that the news was biased, but at least your knew what was supposed to be what. Now on the internet you get columns masquerading as articles with a mix of both fact and opinion.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(12-04-2017, 01:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: That kind of thing happens more than we want to admit.  At least it was corrected publicly and quickly.



And the stock market isn't a good judge of anything.  It's a group of people trying to get rich off of other people's money.  

Stocks went down on statements by the POTUS too.

If the market crashes again because of the banks/GOP/Trump...who do I get to sue?

7 hours later.

His job is to report news, not make up news. If you massively screwed up on your job, you would be fired. Let alone multiple times.

It may happen more than we want to admit, but does that mean we should just accept it as is? Or maybe try and hold the job of journalist to a higher standard than it currently has drooped to? This isn't even just him. Really anyone who claims to be a journalist.

When did I ever say he should be sued? That suing talk is just stupid, unless somebody find some proof that he intentionally did it for the purpose of manipulating the stock market (which I don't believe he did). I just said he should be fired. People are getting fired for unproven accusations right now left and right (not saying they're innocent, but all it seems to take these days is a single accusation of something happening 25 years ago) and this guy is demonstrably bad at his job and gets to keep it.

[Benton]

(12-04-2017, 02:09 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 7 hours later.

His job is to report news, not make up news. If you massively screwed up on your job, you would be fired. Let alone multiple times.

It may happen more than we want to admit, but does that mean we should just accept it as is? Or maybe try and hold the job of journalist to a higher standard than it currently has drooped to? This isn't even just him. Really anyone who claims to be a journalist.

When did I ever say he should be sued? That suing talk is just stupid, unless somebody find some proof that he intentionally did it for the purpose of manipulating the stock market (which I don't believe he did). I just said he should be fired. People are getting fired for unproven accusations right now left and right (not saying they're innocent, but all it seems to take these days is a single accusation of something happening 25 years ago) and this guy is demonstrably bad at his job and gets to keep it.

Journalists should be.

As I mentioned in another thread a couple weeks ago, a lot of us liked Veritas when it first came on the scene. Someone holding bad journalism accountable, other than just the institution itself? That's a good thing. Then it became evident it was just more partisan crap trying to hit at non-alt right media.

One of the problems here is everybody makes mistakes. It happens. When traditional media makes it, people (not talking about your instance, but just people in general) point and say 'look, you can't trust the media!' Even if they own it. And many times those same people directly or indirectly encourage using media that has no standards. 

Those trying to be journalists are competing against agenda/revenue driven content with little to no standards. And, thanks to dollars, they're generally losing. Not in reporting, but in terms of revenue, which provides for reporting.

[Au165]

One of my favorite quotes ever is from Tommy Boy and it applies here.

"What the American Public doesn't know, is what makes them the American Public".

[SunsetBengal]

(12-04-2017, 01:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: So he get's suspended for that "huge" gaffe...and that's still not enough?

I'd be happier if ALL news organizations held their reporters as accountable.

For a guy with a new worth of over 40M, getting a month off to spend with family for the holidays is kind of like a reward.

This isn't the first time that he's blatantly took a partisan attempt at skewing a story. Remember the Aurora Co. theater shooting? He deliberately and unfoundedly attempted to paint a perpetrator as Conservative, and sell it to the public like it was actually something.

A man who has 20 years in a business that is supposed to be based on truth and integrity can and should be held accountable to the highest standards. If ABC really wants to make this right, they need to terminate him. Set an example for all news media outlets to follow.

[GMDino]

(12-04-2017, 05:30 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: For a guy with a new worth of over 40M, getting a month off to spend with family for the holidays is kind of like a reward.

Well except for tarnishing his reputation for the rest of his career. Sure.

(12-04-2017, 05:30 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: This isn't the first time that he's blatantly took a partisan attempt at skewing a story.  Remember the Aurora Co. theater shooting?  He deliberately and unfoundedly attempted to paint a perpetrator as Conservative, and sell it to the public like it was actually something.

Again, how many times has this happened...both ways. How long did FOX continue to run stories "just asking" if Hillary killed someone. Hell, Hannity STILL thinks she's behind the guy who might have been the Wikileaks source despite the family telling him to stop.

You're just mad because he said it about a conservative (technically) in Trump.

(12-04-2017, 05:30 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: A man who has 20 years in a business that is supposed to be based on truth and integrity can and should be held accountable to the highest standards.  If ABC really wants to make this right, they need to terminate him.  Set an example for all news media outlets to follow.

For all intents and purposes he may have thought what he said was the truth.

If we're being fair and being held to the "highest standards" are part of a job requirement the POTUS should have resigned for lying immediately after taking the oath of office.

All seriousness aside, just like with the sexual scandals going on right now, it seems politicians are being held to a lower standard and suffering less for doing the same thing others are doing.

[SunsetBengal]

(12-04-2017, 05:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well except for tarnishing his reputation for the rest of his career.  Sure.


Again, how many times has this happened...both ways.  How long did FOX continue to run stories "just asking" if Hillary killed someone.  Hell, Hannity STILL thinks she's behind the guy who might have been the Wikileaks source despite the family telling him to stop.

Well, Hannity isn't even a reporter, for one.  Let alone being the Chief investigative journalist for a Network that supposedly holds itself to the highest standards of truth and integrity.

Hannity is a commentator, a man spewing his opinion about politics and news items.  Sort of like Rachel Maddow, but for the opposite team.