Andrew...I was there with you all the way until the last sentence. In talking about the media you said "... they have no one to blame but themselves for their declining reputations and increasing irrelevance."
Here's my problem: we (and I'm putting myself in this category) are all assuming that reputations and relevance are what motivates media types. Or we want to think that's what's motivating them. Or should be motivating them.
That might have been the case at one time and for some it may still be. But I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that monetary compensation is the primary, and perhaps overwhelming motivator. Higher readership, page views, subscriptions, and ratings arew what get you bonuses and raises. That makes it important to attract the largest audience possible and keep them reading/ listening/watching for as long as possible.
That's how you get a Rush Limbaugh, the Daily Show, and TMZ. They have become two of the biggest sources of news and information for their target audiences even though neither one is a "news" program.
Go Hollywood and you get paid more. That makes it not at all surprising that reporters, publications, and outlets are getting more entertainment-like these days. That's what the typical, big number viewers/listeners want.
This isn't all that different from what's happened in major league sports. As I posted back in December, why do players and teams cheat or take performance enhacing drugs? Because they're rewarded for success and this helps them succeed.
Press Reputation
Stan, while I agree with the monetary explanation, I'm not sure I fully agree that reputation is unimportant. The issue is that they only care about their reputation with the news-makers, not the news consumers. News-makers have figured out how to work around press challenges (attack personality and motivation, pay press and blog lapdogs to attack credibility) so there's no longer a niche for the Winchells of the world. Access to power is a big driver for these people...it makes them feel connected and wise...and they need a reputation of "taking care of the news-makers" to get it.
Great posts, Stan and
Great posts, Stan and Andrew.
Yes, the profit motive (along with the fame motive for individuals) is a major driver of the poor state and trend of political/policy news coverage. To some extent, concern over journalistic reputation/standards is a counter-force. Similarly, profit-motivated decisions/behavior is constrained by some concern over journalistic reputation/standards. To put them in terms of optimization (e.g., linear programming) both are part of the objective function and minimal acceptable magnitudes of each are also constraints. That is, a news media business or program as well as an individual journalist requires at least a certain minimal profit and at least a certain minimal journalistic reputation, and within those constraints, seeks to maximize utility as a function of a combination of profit level and reputation level.
But the profit motive factor begs the question: Why is all this silliness more profitable than more serious coverage? Why is it more profitable to Jerry Springer-ize political discussion (e.g., the ABC News moderated debate, the political yell shows…er, I mean talk shows like Hannity & Colmes) than to cover politics and policy in a more substantive, profound manner (e.g., PBS NewsHour)?
Part of the answer may be on the cost side of the profit equation, since it’s generally cheaper to provide a food fight than to devote a greater amount of resources to substantively reporting on and discussing policy matters.
But I suspect the larger factor is on the revenue side, meaning (primarily) ad revenues, which of course are largely a function of ratings, which brings us back to why less profound, more sensational “coverage” (using that term loosely) gets more ears and eyeballs. I'm not offering an answer here, but the fact that this is a key question means that consumers share much of the blame along with the news media.
As for media alternatives, particular blogs and talk radio, as I wrote one year ago in Real Debate: An Endangered Species, while I think that, on balance, the fragmentation and proliferation of media is a big net positive, there is a significant downside. People are increasingly limiting themselves to media sources that only reinforce their current opinions, and, beyond that, that demonize (or idiotize) those who disagree. For many people, such media provide a ready means of avoiding or dealing with the cognitive dissonance that comes with considering information and opinions that conflict with their preferred beliefs. Such media also provide a feeling of solidarity and superiority over those whose intellect and/or values are clearly deficient – you know, those who have a different view. And such media arm them with talking points to hurl at those stupid/evil people in any confrontation, as opposed to, say, actually listening and considering the other person’s arguments and questions and responding directly and substantively (otherwise known as a discussion – how quaint). In sum, people use such media the way a drunk uses a lamppost: more for support than for illumination.
And of course, there is a vicious circle dynamic, as this appetite is both served and stimulated by partisan media sources. I call this dynamic the “partisan-industrial complex”. And, to state the obvious, the suppliers have little genuine interest in journalistic standards or in truly substantive, profound consideration of policy matters. Many also practice censorship to keep at bay legitimate challenges to their “side’s” talking points or their underlying premises. Talk radio programs screen callers. And partisan blogs quite commonly delete comments and ban commenters who bring legitimate challenges (usually banning under some bogus pretext, such as applying some blatant double standard regarding the nature of comments, rather than admitting that the real objection was simply the challenge posed). So with this proliferation of partisan media, we have what I call “A Million Little Pravdas”.
Post new comment