Thanks
. . . to anonymous commenters #2 and 3 on my last post for their reflections on my question. Yes, the traditional journalistic instinct is to let "[truth] and falsehood grapple," but I am not sure if that precept should still govern. As anonymous commenter #1 demonstrated, the online model favors flippant remarks with little or no regard for truth. I fear that we are being overwhelmed by that model, in which the clever bullshitter wins out over the dull truth-teller in the attention-deficit world of the Web. Witness, for example, the decline in Quincy's blogs and discussion boards, and the rise of the tweet as the dominant mode of online communication. There is no place on Twitter for nuance or detailed examination.
Thus I look at the print media through different eyes today. It seems to me that if the print media have a future, it has to be in complete, utter devotion to accuracy at every turn. Think about the difference between a letter to the editor and an anonymous comment, for example. A letter to the editor is a document of some length, often composed in several sittings, to which the author must attach a name. It is a part of the public record. An anonymous comment is often a single sentence or less, tossed off in a moment, and with no personal accountability. The letter I referred to in my previous post was written by someone with a serious idea, a suggestion to be taken up by the public, and an invitation to reply. I wonder if the newspaper didn't owe it to her (and to us) to make sure her claims were correct and to give her the chance to revise her letter before it got printed.
The Internet's standards of accuracy are low indeed. I fear that the marketplace of ideas may turn out like most of the other marketplaces in our current economy: the fast, cheap and shoddy thrive, while the careful and well-crafted suffer. If the print media don't have a demonstrably better product to offer than their online competitors, the quality of our public discourse is in serious trouble. So I am starting to doubt a lot of the received wisdom that has governed print journalism for so many years.
Thus I look at the print media through different eyes today. It seems to me that if the print media have a future, it has to be in complete, utter devotion to accuracy at every turn. Think about the difference between a letter to the editor and an anonymous comment, for example. A letter to the editor is a document of some length, often composed in several sittings, to which the author must attach a name. It is a part of the public record. An anonymous comment is often a single sentence or less, tossed off in a moment, and with no personal accountability. The letter I referred to in my previous post was written by someone with a serious idea, a suggestion to be taken up by the public, and an invitation to reply. I wonder if the newspaper didn't owe it to her (and to us) to make sure her claims were correct and to give her the chance to revise her letter before it got printed.
The Internet's standards of accuracy are low indeed. I fear that the marketplace of ideas may turn out like most of the other marketplaces in our current economy: the fast, cheap and shoddy thrive, while the careful and well-crafted suffer. If the print media don't have a demonstrably better product to offer than their online competitors, the quality of our public discourse is in serious trouble. So I am starting to doubt a lot of the received wisdom that has governed print journalism for so many years.
posted by Allthenewsthatfits at 6:45 AM
7 Comments:
As a lover of new media , I think your wrong . Many times an anonymous comment has lead to a breaking story . Also one must take into the account the Hilfrink factor of not printing letters .
Also you are seeing the free market at work . People have lost faith in the Main Stream media . The political pundits have spun to those in power so often that they lost credibility .
Look locally , the powers that be have a lap dog media and not a watch dog media . Look what happened once a pit bull was set loose .
The 4th estate is an honored field , yet it too has times of evolution and change . We just happen to be living in that time period . While we lament the "good ole days" of print we must also look at the free market .
A side note on all of this is , what local media listens to the local bloggers ? The local blog scene isn't a bunch of crazy dudes in undies eating Cheetos , they are a very informed group . That informed group has helped one media outlet break more stories than anyone .
I for one can live with out an editorial written by lobbyist telling us how great "insert gredf-media-democrat taking point here " .
The fact that Quincy was live on Fox news without a flood and not covered by the local press is enough to show disdain for the system . No matter your feelings about Fox , our City and citizens was shown in a great light . Andrew Breitbart told the world how great the people of this town are .
We should have put that in the Lincoln time capsule
~rant finished
This "Tookie" chap misses the point about the broader decline in media accuracy and accountability. What has occured ever since Crossfire was a hit on CNN way back when was the gradual politicization and factionalization of the 4th estate. We now have two cable "news" stations which make no bones about picking a team and pursuing the propaganda of either the extreme liberal or conservative factions in this country, regardless of the accuracy or relevance of what they report. They are able to get away with this because folks would rather hear what agrees with their viewpoint, and because our post-modern society has decreed that any viewpoint is valid and there are two equal sides to every issue. In terms of free market, the free market is not God, and is therefore not always working for the best interests of society. Hard news isn't popular because it's not entertaining. Shouting matches and tabloid reporting about sinister "scandals" like ACORN or The Family are where the dollars are because folks would rather eat twinkies than veggies, even though those twinkies will kill them in time. The media was supposed to have the integrity to be honest enough to the goals of their profession to remain independent of any agenda aside from solid, uninvolved, and impersonal reporting of issues that are of serious import to the welfare of the citizens. When that fell apart due to the need to cash in- well there's your ballgame as far as a healthy democratic society goes. The whole local level thing he references is a soap-opera sideshow in my estimation. This town is so small it's essentially one good ole' boy network having a fight with another good ole' boy network. The website should be called The Real Husbands of Quincy.com or something.
Alright, that last line was a little too far. Sorry. I don't want to turn this into a big argument about the local media because I don't know the particulars, so I'll put my tail between my legs on that one and retract the cheap shot.
Was that a cheap shot ? I missed it . Also we have market forces at work with Fox vs MSNBC . If you want the pundits to cover an issue you have a choice . It appears Fox's ratings have soared and others have tanked, very indicative of the shift in perspective since Nov 08 .
I tend to bash the local press , even though they have some great talent . Many times the reporters are just lazy and uninformed . Also there is an unwritten rule over what can be printed , but I wouldn't know anything about editors there .
As a free market guy , I believe in competition . I believe one should be ruthless in that pursuit . I am a true believer in either they pay you to go away or you destroy the competition .
I also think people should embrace technology , I read most of my news off my iPhone . I also like comments such as this one which spurs debate . Debate is good for people and great for the 4th estate .
p.s. : I like cheap shots also :)
I guess my beef isn't so much that folks have the choice to spend their dollars, so to speak, watching Fox vs. MSNBC and let the best blowhard win- it's that we seem to more and more only have blowhards and pundits. So, since we live in a free market society and thats how we roll (and thats a good thing), what are the incentives now? To be correct? To be first? To be thorough? I would argue none of the above. The incentive now is to attract and cultivate a target political demographic and the heck with everything else. That is fine if you think the purpose of the news business is to make money, but I would argue the primary goal of the press should be to explain whats going on in the world and keep powerful folks, be they mayors or CEOs accountable when they do bad things. From what I see the new media, or cable news, and I'm NOT talking about local stuff here, seems to just disseminate disinformation to serve their partisan agendas- and call it news.
I'm not down on cheap shots for one reason. My neighbor in another town in another state was the daughter of a high ranking state-wide politician and we were talking once about growing up with a high-profile dad like that. She said she would hear other kids at school, or her teachers, or folks on the street saying pretty raunchy things about her old man, not based on particular issues, just the standard, "He's a crook" "That guy is a Nazi" type of stuff and it said it really hurt to hear. He was a real person, maybe not to them, but to her. Ever since then I've tried to remember that when I hear someone saying ugly stuff, be it about Obama or Palin or anybody. I think that's even more important to remember when it comes to local stuff. I don't know the editors of any of the news media outlets in Quincy. I may wish they did their jobs differently, but there is no reason to be a jerk about it.
Good dispatch and this enter helped me alot in my college assignement. Gratefulness you for your information.
Gratefulness for your gratefulness, pal.
And speak for yourself, Tookie...the only way they'll get my Cheetos is when they pry them out of my cold, dead hands. Crazy dude and proud of it.
Post a Comment
<< Home