The State of the Media - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The State of the Media

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Pew just came out with the 2013 edition of their state of the media report.

http://stateofthemedia.org/

Here's the summary

quote:

In 2012, a continued erosion of news reporting resources converged with growing opportunities for those in politics, government agencies, companies and others to take their messages directly to the public.

Signs of the shrinking reporting power are documented throughout this year’s report. Estimates for newspaper newsroom cutbacks in 2012 put the industry down 30% since its peak in 2000 and below 40,000 full-time professional employees for the first time since 1978. In local TV, our special content report reveals, sports, weather and traffic now account on average for 40% of the content produced on the newscasts studied while story lengths shrink. On CNN, the cable channel that has branded itself around deep reporting, produced story packages were cut nearly in half from 2007 to 2012. Across the three cable channels, coverage of live events during the day, which often require a crew and correspondent, fell 30% from 2007 to 2012 while interview segments, which tend to take fewer resources and can be scheduled in advance, were up 31%.Time magazine, the only major print news weekly left standing, cut roughly 5% of its staff in early 2013 as a part of broader company layoffs. And in African-American news media, the Chicago Defender has winnowed its editorial staff to just four while The Afro cut back the number of pages in its papers from 28-32 in 2008 to 16-20 in 2012. A growing list of media outlets, such as Forbes magazine, use technology by a company called Narrative Science to produce content by way of algorithm, no human reporting necessary. And some of the newer nonprofit entrants into the industry, such as the Chicago News Cooperative, have, after launching with much fanfare, shut their doors.

This adds up to a news industry that is more undermanned and unprepared to uncover stories, dig deep into emerging ones or to question information put into its hands. And findings from our new public opinion survey released in this report reveal that the public is taking notice. Nearly one-third of the respondents (31%) have deserted a news outlet because it no longer provides the news and information they had grown accustomed to.

At the same time, newsmakers and others with information they want to put into the public arena have become more adept at using digital technology and social media to do so on their own, without any filter by the traditional media. They are also seeing more success in getting their message into the traditional media narrative.

So far, this trend has emerged most clearly in the political sphere, particularly with the biggest story of 2012—the presidential election. A Pew Research Center analysis revealed that [n]campaign reporters were acting primarily as megaphones, rather than as investigators,[/b] of the assertions put forward by the candidates and other political partisans. That meant more direct relaying of assertions made by the campaigns and less reporting by journalists to interpret and contextualize them. This is summarized in our special video report on our Election Research, only about a quarter of statements in the media about the character and records of the presidential candidates originated with journalists in the 2012 race, while twice that many came from political partisans. That is a reversal from a dozen years earlier when half the statements originated with journalists and a third came from partisans. The campaigns also found more ways than ever to connect directly with citizens.

There are signs of this trend that carry beyond the political realm, as more and more entities seek, by various means, to fill the void left by overstretched editorial resources. Business leaders in Detroit, MI, for example, have created an organization to serve as a kind of tour guide to journalists with the goal of injecting more favorable portrayals of the city into media coverage. The government of Malaysia was recently discovered to have bankrolled propaganda that appeared in several major U.S. outlets under columnists’ bylines. A number of news organizations, including The Associated Press, recently carried a fake press release about Google that came from a PR distribution site that promises clients it will reach “top media outlets.” And recently, journalist David Cay Johnston in writing about a pitch from one corporate marketer that included a “vacation reward” for running his stories, remarked, “Journalists get lots of pitches like this these days, which is partly a reflection of how the number of journalists has shriveled while the number of publicists has grown.” Indeed, an analysis of Census Bureau data by Robert McChesney and John Nichols found the ratio of public relations workers to journalists grew from 1.2 to 1 in 1980 to 3.6 to 1 in 2008—and the gap has likely only widened since.

In circumventing the media altogether, one company, Contently, connects thousands of journalists, many of them ex-print reporters, with commercials brands to help them produce their own content, including brand-oriented magazines. In early March, Fortune took that step, launching a program for advertisers called Fortune TOC—Trusted Original Content—in which Fortune writers, for a fee, create original Fortune-branded editorial content for marketers to distribute exclusively on their own platforms.

Efforts by political and corporate entities to get their messages into news coverage are nothing new. What is different now—adding up the data and industry developments—is that news organizations are less equipped to question what is coming to them or to uncover the stories themselves, and interest groups are better equipped and have more technological tools than ever.

While traditional newsrooms have shrunk, however, there are other new players producing content that could advance citizens’ knowledge about public issues. They are covering subject areas that would have once been covered more regularly and deeply by beat reporters at traditional news outlets—areas such as health, science and education. The Kaiser Family Foundation was an early entrant with Kaiser Health News. Now others, such as Insidescience.org, supported by the American Institute of Physics and others, and the Food and Environment Reporting Network with funding from nonprofit foundations are beginning to emerge. In the last year, more news outlets have begun to carry this content with direct attribution to the source. The Washington Post, for example, regularly carries articles bylined by Kaiser Health News and NBC.com runs Insidescience.org stories with a lead-in identifying the source.

For news organizations, distinguishing between high-quality information of public value and agenda-driven news has become an increasingly complicated task, made no easier in an era of economic churn.

This is the tenth edition of the State of the News Media produced by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. Among the features this year are a special report on changes in television news; a special video report on lessons of the 2012 election; a new public opinion survey on how people get news from friends and family—and what they do next; a special survey on public awareness of the financial struggles facing the industry; a close look at African American news media, and an infographic that visually displays the overview and key trends. The chapters on each sector of the news industry contain two parts, a Summary Essay and a separate section called By the Numbers, where all the statistical information is more easily searchable.

Looking across these chapters, we identify six major trends of the year:

The effects of a decade of newsroom cutbacks are real – and the public is taking notice. Nearly a third of U.S. adults, 31%, have stopped turning to a news outlet because it no longer provided them with the news they were accustomed to getting. Men have left at somewhat higher rates than women, as have the more highly educated and higher-income earners—many of those, in other words, that past Pew Research data have shown to be among the heavier news consumers. With reporting resources cut to the bone and fewer specialized beats, journalists’ level of expertise in any one area and the ability to go deep into a story are compromised. Indeed, when people who had heard something about the financial struggles were asked which effect they noticed more, stories that were less complete or fewer stories over all, 48% named less complete stories while 31% mostly noticed fewer stories. Overall, awareness of the industry’s financial struggles is limited. Only 39% have heard a lot or some. But those with greater awareness are also more likely to be the ones who have abandoned a news outlet.

The news industry continues to lose out on the bulk of new digital advertising. Two new areas of digital advertising that seemed to bring promise even a year ago now appear to be moving outside the reach of news: mobile devices and local digital advertising. Over all, mobile advertising grew 80% in 2012 to $2.6 billion. Of that, however, only one ad segment is available to news: display. While mobile display is growing rapidly, 72% of that market goes to just six companies—including Facebook, which didn’t even create its first mobile ad product until mid-2012. Local digital advertising, a critical ad segment for news as the majority of outlets cater to a local audience, is also growing—22% in 2012. But improved geo-targeting is allowing many national advertisers to turn to Google, Facebook and other large networks to buy ads that once might have gone to local media. In addition, Google and Facebook are also improving their ability to sell ad space to smaller, truly local, advertisers, again taking business that once went to local media. It is hard to see how news organizations will secure anything like their traditional share. Google is now the ad leader in search, display and mobile. Once again, in key revenue areas, it appears the news industry may have been outflanked by technology giants.

The long-dormant sponsorship ad category is seeing sharp growth. This is one area of growing digital ad revenue where news organizations have taken early steps to move in. Promoted tweets on Twitter account for some of the growth, along with the rise of native ads—the digital term for advertorials containing advertiser-produced stories—which often run alongside a site’s own editorial content. Though it remains small in dollars, the category’s growth rate is second only to that of video. Sponsorship ads rose 38.9%, to $1.56 billion; that followed a jump of 56.1% in 2011. Traditional publications such as The Atlantic and Forbes, as well as digital publications BuzzFeed and Gawker, have relied on native ads to quickly build digital ad revenues, and their use is expected to spread. According to tech website PandoDaily, major publishers including Hearst, Time and Condé Nast are investing in formats to run native ads, as are many newspapers. The development, however, runs the risk of confusing readers about the difference between advertising and news content. In January, The Atlantic found itself rapidly taking down from its website a vaguely identified advertorial from the Church of Scientology, explaining afterward: “We now realize that as we explored new forms of digital advertising, we failed to update the policies that must govern the decisions we make along the way. It’s safe to say that we are thinking a lot more about these policies after running this ad than we did beforehand.”

The growth of paid digital content experiments may have a significant impact on both news revenue and content. After years of an almost theological debate about whether digital content should be free, the newspaper industry may have reached a tipping point in 2012. Indeed, 450 of the nation’s 1,380 dailies have started or announced plans for some kind of paid content subscription or pay wall plan, in many cases opting for the metered model that allows a certain number of free visits before requiring users to pay. (The trend has also spread beyond newspapers, as highlighted by popular blogger Andrew Sullivan’s recent decision to attach a fee to his site, The Dish.) With digital ad revenue growing at an anemic 3% a year in the newspaper industry, digital subscriptions are seen as an increasingly vital component of any new business model for journalism—though, in most cases, they fall far short of actually replacing the revenue lost in advertising. Thanks in good part to its two-year-old digital subscription program, The New York Times reports that its circulation revenue now exceeds its advertising revenue, a sea change from the traditional revenue split of as much as 80% advertising dollars to 20% circulation dollars. Going forward, many news executives believe that a new business model will emerge in which the mix between advertising and circulation revenue will be close to equal, most likely with a third leg of new revenues that are not tied directly to the news product. The rise of digital paid content could also have a positive impact on the quality of journalism as news organizations strive to produce unique and high-quality content that the public believes is worth paying for. That goal is in keeping with the philosophy of Clark Gilbert, the chief executive of the Deseret News Publishing Company and digital innovator. A staunch advocate of news organizations focusing editorial muscle in key areas where they can bring real value and distinction, Gilbert told the Pew Research Center that in the digital age, news outlets have to be differentiated. “Invest where you can be the best in the world,” he explained.

While the first and hardest-hit industry, newspapers, remains in the spotlight, local TV finds itself newly vulnerable. Local TV audiences were down across every key time slot and across all networks in 2012. And the off-peak news hours like 4:30 a.m. that stations had been adding for years seem to have hit their audience ceiling. While local TV remains a top news source for Americans, the percentage is dropping—and dropping sharply among younger generations. Regular local TV viewership among adults under 30 fell from 42% in 2006 to just 28% in 2012, according to Pew Research survey data. What’s more, the topics people go there for most—weather and breaking news (and to a lesser extent traffic)—are ripe for replacement by any number of Web- and mobile-based outlets. While many stations ramped up their digital news offerings in the past year, they are late to the digital game. Advertising revenues were up for the year, but that was largely due to a windfall of $2.9 billion in political advertising revenue, something that cannot be replicated in non-election years. Over all, average revenue for news-producing stations declined by more than a third (36%) from 2006 to 2011.

Hearing about things in the news from friends and family, whether via social media or actual word of mouth, leads to deeper news consumption. A majority of Americans seek out a full news story after hearing about an event or issue from friends and family, a new Pew Research survey released here finds. For nearly three-quarters of adults (72%), the most common way to get news from friends and family is by having someone talk to them—either in person or over the phone. And among that group, close to two-thirds (63%) somewhat or very often seek out a news story about that event or issue. Social networking is now a part of this process as well: 15% of U.S. adults get most of their news from friends and family this way, and the vast majority of them (77%) follow links to full news stories. Among 18-to-29 year-olds, the percentage that primarily relies on social media for this kind of news already reaches nearly one-quarter. And the growing practice of dual-screening major news events adds more opportunity to share news electronically. Friends and family are still just one part of most consumers’ news diets –and a smaller part than going directly to news outlet themselves, as an earlier Pew Research study revealed.

I think anyone who has opened a major paper or turned on the TV to FOX or CNN has noticed the terrible state of the media. I tune into CNN international occasionally and other than special events (hurricane sandy or the election), it feels like most of their coverage is replaying the same interviews over and over with 5-10 minutes of headline news in between.

At the same time, I feel like I have access to better and more useful information than ever, mostly because of the internet and freelance journalists (or activists or bloggers or whomever) that are barely paid for their contributions. It's hard to see how long that trend can last, although probably as long as there are more people wanting to go into journalism than there are positions.

So, what does the future of journalism look like?

# ? Mar 19, 2013 18:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 19, 2013 19:12

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Xandu posted:

Pew just came out with the 2013 edition of their state of the media report.

http://stateofthemedia.org/

Here's the summary

I think anyone who has opened a major paper or turned on the TV to FOX or CNN has noticed the terrible state of the media. I tune into CNN international occasionally and other than special events (hurricane sandy or the election), it feels like most of their coverage is replaying the same interviews over and over with 5-10 minutes of headline news in between.

At the same time, I feel like I have access to better and more useful information than ever, mostly because of the internet and freelance journalists (or activists or bloggers or whomever) that are barely paid for their contributions. It's hard to see how long that trend can last, although probably as long as there are more people wanting to go into journalism than there are positions.

So, what does the future of journalism look like?

I think that the state of technology/the internet means that we'll probably continue to have access to more information going forward, but that access to more (and consequently more high quality, even if the ratio of good/bad is really low) information shouldn't be confused with the public becoming more/better informed. Even if there are more information sources than ever, modern media technology has also given mainstream media corporations far more ways to make their content pervasive. To use nonsense numbers to illustrate my point, think of it this way: Let's say that there were 100 sources of good information before and 1000 sources of bad information. Now, there are 1000 sources of good information - awesome! But there are 100,000 sources of bad information, and the good information is comparatively even more marginalized (again, these numbers are nonsense meant to illustrate a point). To use an analogy, Google providing a million search results doesn't make a difference if the vast majority of people only view the first few. Speaking specifically about Google, its search engine is actually extremely effective at reinforcing mainstream views; if people search for a particular topic, they're going to be pointed towards the most popular information about that topic.

This pervasiveness strongly reinforces ideas of what is and isn't reasonable/serious. If people see a particular set of viewpoints constantly on their phones, computers, televisions, etc, viewpoints that fall outside that set will seem stranger and more "extreme/radical," particularly if mainstream media makes some effort to make them seem this way.

In general, I very strongly disagree with the opinion that the "information age" will lead to a more informed, "enlightened" population. I believe that the means it provides to reinforce mainstream views and maintain the status quo far outweigh the benefits it provides.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 18:46

Red_Mage: Jul 23, 2007; I should probably keep to posting about grognards in TGD, because when I discuss actual real-world politics with people who know what they're talking about, it becomes clear that I have trouble seeing things without a ruleset and character sheets.

Ytlaya posted:

To use nonsense numbers to illustrate my point, think of it this way: Let's say that there were 100 sources of good information before and 1000 sources of bad information. Now, there are 1000 sources of good information - awesome! But there are 100,000 sources of bad information, and the good information is comparatively even more marginalized (again, these numbers are nonsense meant to illustrate a point).

Then the question you have to ask is "why is there so much more bad information" not "why isn't the good information what people are getting. Complaining about more information reinforcing mainstream views is practically tautological, because if most information enforces/endorses a particular viewpoint, that viewpoint is mainstream.

That said, someone was commenting about this on the radio the other day, how the State of the Union for 2013 was watched by a record low amount of people, obviously no one likes Obama. But they were only counting broadcast TV networks, and I know darn well that the White House was urging you to stream it on Whitehouse.gov, youtube had a stream of it, NYT did a stream, and of course C-Span was C-Span. I wish there was an accurate count of how many people watched each stream, because it would not surprise me a bit if there was a pretty average number of viewers, just not watching it on broadcast. TV news is by no means dying, but I imagine the resurgence of magazines and newspapers as online outlets isn't helping them one bit, because between twitter, youtube, and rss feeds, scheduling a time to sit and watch the tv to get informed is archaic.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 19:07

totalnewbie: Nov 13, 2005; I was born and raised in China, lived in Japan, and now hold a US passport.

I am wrong in every way, all the damn time.

Ask me about my tattoos.

Ytlaya posted:

Speaking specifically about Google, its search engine is actually extremely effective at reinforcing mainstream views; if people search for a particular topic, they're going to be pointed towards the most popular information about that topic.

Actually, with personalized search results that are very common, it actually serves to reinforce a person's previously-held views. A 9/11 Truther will, upon googling 9/11, find lots of what-would-be-to-us fringe sites and then easily accept them as "mainstream" where in reality, they are clearly not.

About the Media, though:
I think the only way I'd return to watching "The News" is if something like The Newsroom happens (which I know has its flaws, obviously) and I can get some real news instead of just some echo chamber. Otherwise, "alternative" news outlets offer way more in-depth reporting. I mean, hell, if you follow the middle-east thread, you're about a billion times more informed about what's happening there than if you were you to watch the news, all day, every day.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 19:15

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005; TEAM LIBERAL
Defending and rationalizing Democratic policy since 2008
Please note: I represent the farthest left of allowed D&D discussion. Going beyond this point may result in probation

Red_Mage posted:

Then the question you have to ask is "why is there so much more bad information" not "why isn't the good information what people are getting. Complaining about more information reinforcing mainstream views is practically tautological, because if most information enforces/endorses a particular viewpoint, that viewpoint is mainstream.

That said, someone was commenting about this on the radio the other day, how the State of the Union for 2013 was watched by a record low amount of people, obviously no one likes Obama. But they were only counting broadcast TV networks, and I know darn well that the White House was urging you to stream it on Whitehouse.gov, youtube had a stream of it, NYT did a stream, and of course C-Span was C-Span. I wish there was an accurate count of how many people watched each stream, because it would not surprise me a bit if there was a pretty average number of viewers, just not watching it on broadcast. TV news is by no means dying, but I imagine the resurgence of magazines and newspapers as online outlets isn't helping them one bit, because between twitter, youtube, and rss feeds, scheduling a time to sit and watch the tv to get informed is archaic.

As we have seen with Fox News, there's a lot of money to be made with telling people what they want to hear rather than telling them the truth. Bad information predominates because bad information is what sells.

The epistemic closure we see in the conservative world is going to become common in many groups, as the internet allows people to block out anything that challenges their established biases. I'm sure society will adapt eventually, but the next couple decades are probably going to be rather frustrating for open-minded people.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 19:18

Red_Mage: Jul 23, 2007; I should probably keep to posting about grognards in TGD, because when I discuss actual real-world politics with people who know what they're talking about, it becomes clear that I have trouble seeing things without a ruleset and character sheets.

Deteriorata posted:

The epistemic closure we see in the conservative world is going to become common in many groups, as the internet allows people to block out anything that challenges their established biases. I'm sure society will adapt eventually, but the next couple decades are probably going to be rather frustrating for open-minded people.

This is true, but I doubt it will be all that much more frustrating than in the past. Remember it was not so long ago that newspapers just made stories up outright to serve the political interests of their owners. The thing is, while there are a great many people more lying through their teeth to reinforce worldviews and make a buck, its easier than ever to refute outright lies.

This already produces confusion and uncertainty, and obviously doesn't going to convince anyone who has already made up their mind, it does make it easier for someone going in with a open mind/willing to hear both sides of something to confirm veracity. As weird as this sounds, while you can block out sources that challenge your views, as long as those sources aren't being blocked by literally everyone, they will eventually filter in through friends and family.

Edit: unless you are like that lady on freep who has disowned her entire family and most to all of her contacts because Romney didn't win. But she's kind of an outlier.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 19:30

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Red_Mage posted:

This is true, but I doubt it will be all that much more frustrating than in the past. Remember it was not so long ago that newspapers just made stories up outright to serve the political interests of their owners. The thing is, while there are a great many people more lying through their teeth to reinforce worldviews and make a buck, its easier than ever to refute outright lies.

Ytlaya posted:

I think that the state of technology/the internet means that we'll probably continue to have access to more information going forward, but that access to more (and consequently more high quality, even if the ratio of good/bad is really low) information shouldn't be confused with the public becoming more/better informed. Even if there are more information sources than ever, modern media technology has also given mainstream media corporations far more ways to make their content pervasive. To use nonsense numbers to illustrate my point, think of it this way: Let's say that there were 100 sources of good information before and 1000 sources of bad information. Now, there are 1000 sources of good information - awesome! But there are 100,000 sources of bad information, and the good information is comparatively even more marginalized (again, these numbers are nonsense meant to illustrate a point). To use an analogy, Google providing a million search results doesn't make a difference if the vast majority of people only view the first few. Speaking specifically about Google, its search engine is actually extremely effective at reinforcing mainstream views; if people search for a particular topic, they're going to be pointed towards the most popular information about that topic.

I feel like the lesson here is that the onus is now on people to search for good information.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 19:31

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Red_Mage posted:

That said, someone was commenting about this on the radio the other day, how the State of the Union for 2013 was watched by a record low amount of people, obviously no one likes Obama. But they were only counting broadcast TV networks, and I know darn well that the White House was urging you to stream it on Whitehouse.gov, youtube had a stream of it, NYT did a stream, and of course C-Span was C-Span. I wish there was an accurate count of how many people watched each stream, because it would not surprise me a bit if there was a pretty average number of viewers, just not watching it on broadcast. TV news is by no means dying, but I imagine the resurgence of magazines and newspapers as online outlets isn't helping them one bit, because between twitter, youtube, and rss feeds, scheduling a time to sit and watch the tv to get informed is archaic.

Yeah TV news is weird to me. Unless it's a breaking news story or something where they have reporters on the ground (al-Jazeera during the Egyptian revolution), it is a completely useless way for me to get information.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 19:33

Trast: Oct 20, 2010; Three games, thousands of playthroughs. 90% of the players don't know I exist. Still a redhead saving the galaxy with a [Right Hook].

There used to be a time where journalists like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow stood for professionalism and truth in news. Now you could probably count on one hand the broadcast journalists you can trust not to have some sort of corporate agenda.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 19:35

totalnewbie: Nov 13, 2005; I was born and raised in China, lived in Japan, and now hold a US passport.

I am wrong in every way, all the damn time.

Ask me about my tattoos.

Xandu posted:

I feel like the lesson here is that the onus is now on people to search for good information.

But two problems here: obviously, you can't expect people to rely only on primary sources, because there is literally way too much information out there for a single person to do.

So then, people are forced to rely on someone else to interpret that information and you tend towards an echo chamber as the less popular views are slowly forced out.
In addition, how are people to judge the quality of the information they find and know that it's reliable? Even with citations, it's not difficult to take things out of context, etc.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 19:38

Red_Mage: Jul 23, 2007; I should probably keep to posting about grognards in TGD, because when I discuss actual real-world politics with people who know what they're talking about, it becomes clear that I have trouble seeing things without a ruleset and character sheets.

Xandu posted:

Yeah TV news is weird to me. Unless it's a breaking news story or something where they have reporters on the ground (al-Jazeera during the Egyptian revolution), it is a completely useless way for me to get information.

Pretty much. For a while, the 24 hour news networks mitigated this somewhat, by making it accessible anytime you had a TV, but since the advent of smart phones its now way more inconvenient to find a TV, turn it on, and watch until I know what I want than it is to just have my phone let me know stuff that is happening.

Live coverage will always have its place for sure, and TBQH the interviews and panels that many of the networks host can be useful or at least a fun time, but the idea that you need to be tuned and actively watching a station to, say, find out what the stock price is on something has gone from cutting edge to hilariously dated in the span of 5 or so years.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 19:41

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

totalnewbie posted:

But two problems here: obviously, you can't expect people to rely only on primary sources, because there is literally way too much information out there for a single person to do.

So then, people are forced to rely on someone else to interpret that information and you tend towards an echo chamber as the less popular views are slowly forced out.
In addition, how are people to judge the quality of the information they find and know that it's reliable? Even with citations, it's not difficult to take things out of context, etc.

Well I wasn't trying to say it's a good thing, but there is infact a whole subset of online journalism (even political/global affairs journalism) devoted to link aggregation.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 19:42

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Red_Mage posted:

Pretty much. For a while, the 24 hour news networks mitigated this somewhat, by making it accessible anytime you had a TV, but since the advent of smart phones its now way more inconvenient to find a TV, turn it on, and watch until I know what I want than it is to just have my phone let me know stuff that is happening.

Live coverage will always have its place for sure, and TBQH the interviews and panels that many of the networks host can be useful or at least a fun time, but the idea that you need to be tuned and actively watching a station to, say, find out what the stock price is on something has gone from cutting edge to hilariously dated in the span of 5 or so years.

Yeah. My parents are the only ones I know who still watch TV news. But for them, it's a passive thing. They keep it on, sometimes on mute, while they're hanging out around the house and that's one of the ways they keep up to date on what's happening. And that sort of passive way of getting the news can be really useful. I find that twitter is sort of serving as that for me right now, but it depends on how you use it.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 19:44

totalnewbie: Nov 13, 2005; I was born and raised in China, lived in Japan, and now hold a US passport.

I am wrong in every way, all the damn time.

Ask me about my tattoos.

Xandu posted:

Well I wasn't trying to say it's a good thing, but there is infact a whole subset of online journalism (even political/global affairs journalism) devoted to link aggregation.

But who picks the links, where do they lead, etc.?

Besides, people are people and greatly prone to influence from real life. So if you grew up in a ____ home in a ____ town then you will probably be ____ and naturally drawn to places that present things in a way friendly to ____ views and dismiss ones that are contrary.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that for, I think, a majority of people, the expansion of open communication tends to result in more polarization and a more closed mind rather than the opposite.

Edit: To circle this back to the media: even if we do have some "Newsroom"-esque TV station, they still have to pick the stories they report on. And in terms of staying objective and just "to the facts" without trying to interpreting them, well, good luck, both in terms of actually sticking to that goal and also in attracting views (though that's just my cynicism speaking).

totalnewbie fucked around with this message at Mar 19, 2013 around 19:53

# ? Mar 19, 2013 19:51

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005; TEAM LIBERAL
Defending and rationalizing Democratic policy since 2008
Please note: I represent the farthest left of allowed D&D discussion. Going beyond this point may result in probation

Xandu posted:

Well I wasn't trying to say it's a good thing, but there is infact a whole subset of online journalism (even political/global affairs journalism) devoted to link aggregation.

That seems like more of the future to me. Raw news is a commodity available to anyone now, so the way to add value is to be good at sifting through it and finding stuff worth paying attention to for specific audiences. This is also why news TV has devolved to news-based entertainment, as news itself is of low value with no shelf life, so bloviating heads consume most of the air time.

Stuff like what Brown Moses has been doing will be more the future of journalism - sifting through YouTube clips to find evidence of Croatian arms sales to the FSA. That and good analysis - being able to sift through the tidal wave of information available to make insightful and connections the way many bloggers are doing.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 19:51

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Red_Mage posted:

Then the question you have to ask is "why is there so much more bad information" not "why isn't the good information what people are getting. Complaining about more information reinforcing mainstream views is practically tautological, because if most information enforces/endorses a particular viewpoint, that viewpoint is mainstream.

Well, the most common information regarding any topic that is connected to politics/economics is going to be information that is spread by organizations with a very large amount of wealth/influence. Another big misconception many people have is the idea that the internet and related technology somehow reduces the influence money has on public opinion and the information people access. The news that the largest media organizations choose to provide is naturally going to be the most common, simply by virtue of these organizations having the greatest ability to spread the information.

As for why much information is "bad"; wealthy organizations that are owned by wealthy people and have wealthy organizations/individuals as clients (clients in this case being largest providers of ad revenue) are naturally not going to focus on things that might hurt the interests of people who share those characteristics. This isn't to say all large media organizations meet in a dark room and discuss how to control public opinion, but it simply stands to reason that they're going to try and avoid news/ideas that could potentially harm their interests. All wealthy people don't have the same interests, but when pretty much all major parties that have input into the media most people are exposed to share that characteristic, you're going to see some overlying themes with respect to the ideas that are covered more positively/negatives, how often certain subjects are covered, etc.

I don't feel that I explained this as well as I could have, so I'll try and elaborate better later this evening.

edit: One thing I should mention is that I'm specifically talking about the information/news itself, rather than the format it's presented in. I'm also talking primarily about "serious" news regarding things like economics/politics/foreign policy, etc. The format news is presented in and the high ratio of entertainment-related news to "serious" news is of course driven more by the consumer than the owners of media corporations.

totalnewbie was also correct about Google reinforcing your own views in many cases. But if you type in something like "war in Afghanistan news" or "economic news", you're going to be pointed to the most prominent mainstream sources. Of course, for most people mainstream views are their own views; otherwise they wouldn't be mainstream!

Red_Mage posted:

This is true, but I doubt it will be all that much more frustrating than in the past. Remember it was not so long ago that newspapers just made stories up outright to serve the political interests of their owners. The thing is, while there are a great many people more lying through their teeth to reinforce worldviews and make a buck, its easier than ever to refute outright lies.

It's easier to refute outright lies for an informed individual, but:

1. Most people won't seek out the information necessary to correct misinformation, and

2. The media has only become more sophisticated with respect to the ways views can be promoted/discounted. While outright lies can be disproved, opinions are usually affected in more subtle ways. The most obvious example is the fact that something as basic as the frequency with which certain topics are reported can have a great effect on public opinion. Limiting coverage of something is a simple way to limit its presence in public discourse without ever doing anything explicitly dishonest*. Having discussion/debate-based media where only mainstream views are represented is another easy way to discount the credibility of other views without ever directly attacking them.

*I'm of the opinion that the only reason OWS received a decent amount of coverage is the fact that it involved very visible camping in the middle of NYC (along with other cities, but primarily NYC). Because it was so visible by its very nature, there was no way to avoid reporting on it. If you were paying attention, however, you would have noticed that coverage fell drastically once the biggest camps were torn down.

Ytlaya fucked around with this message at Mar 19, 2013 around 23:04

# ? Mar 19, 2013 20:06

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Xandu posted:

Well I wasn't trying to say it's a good thing, but there is infact a whole subset of online journalism (even political/global affairs journalism) devoted to link aggregation.

Saying it's not a good thing is an understatement. It would limit 'good' news to those capable of finding it, with or without the aid of link aggregators, and that's very much a small group. Even if we were to start teaching how to find decent news sources in schools, it wouldn't make much difference. People don't want to hunt for good news sources after they get home from work. They want to read the paper during their commute or during their break, they want to watch the news on TV when they get home or maybe check the NYT online.

Deteriorata posted:

Stuff like what Brown Moses has been doing will be more the future of journalism - sifting through YouTube clips to find evidence of Croatian arms sales to the FSA. That and good analysis - being able to sift through the tidal wave of information available to make insightful and connections the way many bloggers are doing.

I think you've touched upon something here, but not exactly like you've intended. What Brown Moses is currently doing is what journalists do, have always done and will always do. It's basic journalism. However, due to many actual journalists no longer having the time (first mention of Flat Earth News in the thread) and the huge quantities of sources available, it's likely that the media will start relying on/exploiting the free labour of people like Brown Moses. All sectors of course look for as cheap as possible labour, but journalism is particularly bad in this regard. You've already got unpaid internships and the like as a necessity to land a job, crowdsourcing, relying on bloggers and citizen-journalists, etc. It'll just end up making journalism an even less accessible field if you want to make a living doing it.

Ytlaya posted:

I don't feel that I explained this as well as I could have, so I'll try and elaborate better later this evening.

Repeat these words: Read Flat Earth News by Nick Davies. (second mention too)

I personally think the future of the print media will be a move away from print and a drive to digitalise. You'll still have papers that are released once a day (which is what most people want), but they'll now be digital and you'll download them on your tablet or smartphone. By sticking to the contained day-by-day release as opposed to a continuous feed (although that will also be available), you'll make online content more attractive to advertisers - which was a huge problem up until now. I've already seen papers offer deals on tablets with their subscriptions and you'll start seeing more and more of that. It's a win-win situation for them, as printing a paper is very expensive, but just uploading something to the internet will save them a lot of money. Whereas other innovations like TV, 24/7 news channels and the internet were seen as competition to print media, tablets and smartphones will be an innovation that will end up helping them immensely.

Then again, I don't think this will happen overnight. I can't put a timeframe on it, but I'm guessing print will stick around for a few decades at least. Also, journalism will still be poo poo, regardless.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 20:41

Knockknees: Dec 21, 2004; sprung out fully formed

If the only ones doing real journalists are merely freelance "citizen journalists" it becomes easier for governments and police to block their access because they aren't accredited "press". They can be more easily blocked, abused, or imprisoned for trying to get information or images.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 21:23

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; Pam you better not be making pornos!

Knockknees posted:

If the only ones doing real journalists are merely freelance "citizen journalists" it becomes easier for governments and police to block their access because they aren't accredited "press". They can be more easily blocked, abused, or imprisoned for trying to get information or images.

Most of these civilian journalists aren't actually on the ground doing things, they are getting information from other sources and then constructing a narrative. That's the real bad part, as a lot of them are dependent on traditional news sources for information.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 21:35

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005; TEAM LIBERAL
Defending and rationalizing Democratic policy since 2008
Please note: I represent the farthest left of allowed D&D discussion. Going beyond this point may result in probation

computer parts posted:

Most of these civilian journalists aren't actually on the ground doing things, they are getting information from other sources and then constructing a narrative. That's the real bad part, as a lot of them are dependent on traditional news sources for information.

Well, we've already seen that the need for access has cowed most "news-gatherers" (I hate to call them journalists) into mere stenographers, writing down what they're told without questioning. News itself is of no real value any more because it's now freely available to everyone instantly.

Being first or exclusive with a story used to mean people had to buy your paper to read it. Journalism is now moving to a different tier, where the output of the stenographers is analyzed for consistency and the real stories will develop from the discrepancies.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 21:40

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Deteriorata posted:

Well, we've already seen that the need for access has cowed most "news-gatherers" (I hate to call them journalists) into mere stenographers, writing down what they're told without questioning. News itself is of no real value any more because it's now freely available to everyone instantly.

Being first or exclusive with a story used to mean people had to buy your paper to read it. Journalism is now moving to a different tier, where the output of the stenographers is analyzed for consistency and the real stories will develop from the discrepancies.

Yeah... no to all of this.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Mar 19, 2013 21:48

OneEightHundred: Feb 28, 2008; Soon, we will be unstoppable!

Probably the biggest threat is that the formula of shifting towards commentary and entertainment over investigation and facts has been extremely successful. News organizations have always been facing the problem of making sure that they're not the one covering the big story of the day, so not only are more news outlets not translating well into more news, it's translating into news organizations looking ever more to non-news content to differentiate themselves.

I don't think that "citizen journalism" is really going to help that when nearly all of it just citizen commentary.

OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at Mar 19, 2013 around 21:56

# ? Mar 19, 2013 21:49

Real hurthling!: Sep 11, 2001

R. Mute posted:

Yeah... no to all of this.

The best part is where he ends up with a description of the average Daily Show episode as his definition of journalism.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 21:51

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005; TEAM LIBERAL
Defending and rationalizing Democratic policy since 2008
Please note: I represent the farthest left of allowed D&D discussion. Going beyond this point may result in probation

Real hurthling! posted:

The best part is where he ends up with a description of the average Daily Show episode as his definition of journalism.

Huh? You've rather thoroughly missed the point if you think that's what I was describing.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 21:54

Real hurthling!: Sep 11, 2001

Deteriorata posted:

Huh? You've rather thoroughly missed the point if you think that's what I was describing.

You stated that journalism will become a consistency check on the words of official mouth pieces.

I rather thoroughly laughed because that is not journalism but a John Stewart vehicle.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 21:59

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

I think he's implying that some sort of meta-news will unfurl, where fact-checking and asking why something was written in a paper becomes journalism.... completely ignoring the fact that that is already what journalists do and that that obviously doesn't work for all types of stories.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 22:05

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005; TEAM LIBERAL
Defending and rationalizing Democratic policy since 2008
Please note: I represent the farthest left of allowed D&D discussion. Going beyond this point may result in probation

Real hurthling! posted:

You stated that journalism will become a consistency check on the words of official mouth pieces.

I rather thoroughly laughed because that is not journalism but a John Stewart vehicle.

I guess in one sense it is. John Stewart does it for the ridicule and comedy value. I was thinking more in terms of Watergate, where the journalism comes from not taking things at face value and digging in behind it. That is what journalism is supposed to be, and an aspect of it that has substantially declined in recent years.

My meaning was more that the business of journalism is going to have to start including more of that, as IMO people will be willing to pay for investigative reporting, as opposed to mere commodity "the President's Press Secretary said..." that everyone gets for free.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 22:12

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Deteriorata posted:

I guess in one sense it is. John Stewart does it for the ridicule and comedy value. I was thinking more in terms of Watergate, where the journalism comes from not taking things at face value and digging in behind it. That is what journalism is supposed to be, and an aspect of it that has substantially declined in recent years.

My meaning was more that the business of journalism is going to have to start including more of that, as IMO people will be willing to pay for investigative reporting, as opposed to mere commodity "the President's Press Secretary said..." that everyone gets for free.

Well, you'd be wrong. It's called investigative journalism and it's certainly not gone. I'm not qualified to talk about the dystopian capitalist wasteland that is America, but elsewhere there's plenty of investigative journalism going on. There are plenty of groups and papers out there that even focus on it. Problem is: nobody is willing to pay for it. That's why you no longer have every paper having a few dedicated investigative reporters - it's crazy expensive. It takes up a lot of manhours that could otherwise be spent on things that people want and which attract as much readers (if not more) than a good investigative piece. If you've got 1000 smaller pieces versus one really good piece... well, good luck convincing your editor to give you the time off. But it still happens if it's important enough. Newspapers love prestige.

But many of the large investigative pieces that are written have to rely on special funds. I did an internship at a Flemish fund for investigative journalism [url=http://www.fondspascaldecroos.org/en](Click)[/quote] but their budget wasn't all that huge. They mainly got that budget from government sponsorship. In America, I believe there are large private funds that do the same, but that's all very telling: in a free market, capitalist system, investigative journalism (and any journalism really) is hindered and will never be profitable. People just don't care. There'll always be a niche for small websites to do some investigative journalism, but you can no longer expect it on any larger scale if you have to rely on the market. Another example is The Guardian. They're held up as an example of decent journalism and they do publish many investigative pieces, but they're partially protected from the pressure of the market by the fact that they are (or were?) funded by a large trust.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 22:44

ufarn: May 30, 2009

I usually get my major news from Twitter and - with breaking news - Something Awful.

I remember learning about the Utøya shooting something like half an hour to a full hour before mainstream media started reporting it, which was when it really hit me, how far behind MSM can be.

I live in a smaller country, and all news networks, online and TV, are often 15 minutes late to the breaking news, and they usually suck at reporting on it anyway.

I am following three or five people on Twitter away from getting commentary from people with domain knowledge on current news. Just look at how @SCOTUSblog was pretty much the only people who knew how to report on the individual mandate ruling. I knew what the verdict was seconds or minutes away from the ruling, and I didn't ever believe that the individual mandate had been struck down like so many other people did - even someone like Ryan Lizza.

Breaking news today is so decentralized that I don't know how you would even build a news business on reporting it.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 23:07

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Deteriorata posted:

Well, we've already seen that the need for access has cowed most "news-gatherers" (I hate to call them journalists) into mere stenographers, writing down what they're told without questioning.

I'm always confused when people talk about NPR having high quality reporting, because they pretty much do just this; read White House or Pentagon press releases regarding just about anything related to the government/foreign affairs. If there's an interview, it involves the interviewer just letting an official talk and maybe asking one or two questions that are almost substantial but never following them up regardless of what the interviewee says. They virtually never speak negatively about anything/anyone and pretty much exemplify the "both sides are reasonable and mean well and we should just listen to what they have to say" issue that pervades a lot of mainstream news media.

Other mainstream news is also at least as bad about this, but I mention NPR because so many people seem to view it as being high quality. I think that people confuse "being produced in a way that isn't obnoxious like most other news media" with "being high quality reporting." If you actually listen to something like Morning Edition or All Things Considered while thinking about this, you'll realize that it's just really, really poor quality/lazy (at best; at worst, they're doing things like shilling for natural gas).

(I've posted about this before in other threads, but I like to bring NPR up because I think that it represents a lot of the problems with our media while maintaining a reputation that it doesn't really deserve. Also, keep in mind that a lot of the stuff that you hear on your local public radio station isn't produced by NPR, so disliking NPR isn't the same thing as disliking public radio. I'm also talking solely about "serious" reporting; I still enjoy listening to shows like ATC sometimes because I enjoy some of the human interest/culture segments.)

# ? Mar 19, 2013 23:19

Buckwheat Sings: Feb 9, 2005

Ytlaya posted:

but I mention NPR because so many people seem to view it as being high quality. I think that people confuse "being produced in a way that isn't obnoxious like most other news media" with "being high quality reporting." If you actually listen to something like Morning Edition or All Things Considered while thinking about this, you'll realize that it's just really, really poor quality/lazy (at best; at worst, they're doing things like shilling for natural gas).

I stopped donating to NPR because of their programming now. Maybe it has something to do with them losing all their funding so now they're basically being bought out by corporate donors. Anytime they have an interview they're very by the numbers during the interview. Banging through questions, not really following up on anything, and just letting folks talk even if it's crazy speech. NPR only cares about being polite and that's about it.

Their Planet Money or whatever is kind of weird too.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013...-to-poor-people

quote:

The Earned Income Tax Credit is not perfect. It doesn't help people who can't get work. Some people game the system. Others are eligible but never collect. But while most programs to help the poor are constantly under the magnifying glass, this one has expanded every decade since the 1970s. Encouraging poor people to work and giving them a boost for keeping at it remains relatively uncontroversial. For now.

Like why even add that last bit in? It's like they want people to freak out about it.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 23:42

sofokles: Feb 7, 2004; Fuck this

Proper journalism is, and will increasingly be, drowning in an information overload. Everybody is going tldr and click-whoring news media will not find it worth-wile to send out reporters to report on issues nobody finds the energy to read or hear about in any depth when it's so easy to google-translate copy and paste. It's a question of trust too, it's become so easy to find errors in the reports that the trust in reporters is wearing thin, and the constant barrage of bias accusations adds to that.

# ? Mar 20, 2013 00:33

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Buckwheat Sings posted:

Their Planet Money or whatever is kind of weird too.

Planet Money is exceptionally poo poo. Adam Davidson is a shill for the banking industry and absolutely awful. The "SHAME Project" website can be pretty hyperbolic and a bit dishonest at times, but its page on Davidson is pretty good. This article Davidson wrote is really all you need to know what terrible poo poo he is (and Planet Money by proxy): http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/m...r-you.html?_r=0

# ? Mar 20, 2013 16:38

Lyesh: Apr 9, 2003

Buckwheat Sings posted:

Their Planet Money or whatever is kind of weird too.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013...-to-poor-people

I was listening to a lot of NPR when Planet Money was launched. The biggest thing that I noticed was that Adam Davidson went from knowing basically nothing about finance and being at least plausibly skeptical of it to buying into all kinds of idiot poo poo because it makes sense from the perspective of finance people. If you want to look at it charitably anyway.

The whole thing really seems like an object lesson about how journalists need to maintain distance from their subjects.

# ? Mar 20, 2013 17:28

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; MY FAVORITE GAME OF ALL TIME IS SUPERMAN 64

Unsurprisingly, when the funding for your show comes exclusively from Allied bank you end up carrying water for the financial industry.

# ? Mar 20, 2013 17:46

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006

On the other hand, ATC had a great piece two nights ago about how the US Budget isn't like a household budget at all, and how most households are carrying a poo poo ton of debt.

# ? Mar 20, 2013 17:48

Troy Queef: Jan 12, 2013; This post was a bitch, and I spanked it.

I'm kind of surprised that nobody's mentioned the one outlet that has taken all what is bad in modern "journalism" (link-whoring, exploiting SEO/Google, heavy reliance on unpaid labor with almost impossible to gain carrots of future access/pay/etc.) and distilled it into one highly profitable, and yet highly popular, outlet: the sports-journalism site Bleacher Report, the bete noire of most educated sports fans.

Pray that this sort of thing doesn't cross over more to straight news (and I've seen Buzzfeed try and move more to breaking stories), or else you'll be seeing a lot more "TOP TEN MOST BOOBTASTIC FEMALE POLITICIANS" lists and blatantly contrarian, terribly-written articles on Google searches for certain topics.

# ? Mar 20, 2013 18:35

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Solkanar512 posted:

On the other hand, ATC had a great piece two nights ago about how the US Budget isn't like a household budget at all, and how most households are carrying a poo poo ton of debt.

I heard this piece, and it wasn't really great. It wasn't bad, but they took a more "balanced/moderate" approach where they very briefly mentioned some of the most important points (households not being able to print money, the US being able to borrow at low rates), but chose to focus on the fact that US households have a lot of credit card debt, which isn't exactly the most relevant way to address the issue. There was also this dumb quote that somehow attributed credit card debt with morality; I forget the way it was put, but it's dumb to act like taking credit card debt is some sort of choice on the part of people, rather than a way of life that has been more or less mandated from the top down.

# ? Mar 20, 2013 19:14

Nolanar: May 24, 2012

Ytlaya posted:

I heard this piece, and it wasn't really great. It wasn't bad, but they took a more "balanced/moderate" approach where they very briefly mentioned some of the most important points (households not being able to print money, the US being able to borrow at low rates), but chose to focus on the fact that US households have a lot of credit card debt, which isn't exactly the most relevant way to address the issue. There was also this dumb quote that somehow attributed credit card debt with morality; I forget the way it was put, but it's dumb to act like taking credit card debt is some sort of choice on the part of people, rather than a way of life that has been more or less mandated from the top down.

Here's the piece itself: link

"It's not clear that American families are as virtuous as some people would like to believe" is the quote you were looking for (used in reference to people having credit card debt). They spend longer talking about some woman in Montana's budget binder than the actual "families can't print money or borrow at negative real rates" part.

# ? Mar 20, 2013 19:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 19, 2013 19:12

Paul MaudDib: May 2, 2006

Ytlaya posted:

I'm always confused when people talk about NPR having high quality reporting, because they pretty much do just this; read White House or Pentagon press releases regarding just about anything related to the government/foreign affairs. If there's an interview, it involves the interviewer just letting an official talk and maybe asking one or two questions that are almost substantial but never following them up regardless of what the interviewee says.

As an example, today or yesterday I listened to a US official (State Department?) respond to a question on Iraq and the value of dissenting voices when the war drums are beating (currently regarding Iran). The official got to assert that "every intelligence agency" said the evidence of Iraq having WMDs was 100% solid.

quote:

Curveball's German intelligence handlers saw him as "crazy ... out of control", his friends called him a "congenital liar", and a US physician working for the Defense Department who travelled to Germany to take blood samples seeking to discover if Anthrax spores were present was stunned to find the defector had shown up for medical tests with a "blistering hangover",[20] and he "might be an alcoholic".[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29

And that's just one example, the US's own intelligence people thought the evidence was lovely as well.

It was a major world event in the modern era that was thoroughly documented, it sparked worldwide protests, and yet NPR couldn't even be assed with a followup question.

# ? Mar 20, 2013 20:31

«‹›2 »

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The State of the Media