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