11-30-2017, 06:53 PM
(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?
