The Problem of Meta-News
Newspapers are dying apparently. There is various analysis and commentary floating around on the webs to suggest so: Wall Street Journal about to go bankrupt, Chicago Tribune times, etc. The fear from this, to summarise from what I've read elsewhere, is that it will mean the death of quality in depth journalism. The traditional business model provided the resources, through classifieds, advertising, entertainment info, etc to fund the expensive but socially necessary investigative journalism. Of course, the content that supplied the income had little relationship to the important political, social and cultural content of papers, which was in a sense free. We've only tweaked to this since new technology has broken apart that model, striping out the revenue sources and providing them cheaper and better through other means (ie eBay, Craigslist, online personals, entertainment directories, etc). So who pays for the good journalism now? Only governments and corporations have the money to subsidise such an endeavour, but given that they are often the target of such journalism, it's hardly a sensible solution.
I want to jump to a separate concern relating to modern 'news', something of a non-sequitur. That's the beauty of blogging, you can just explore ideas and see if they connect, you don't have to make an argument. I've found myself disliking the tone of mainstream news, in print and on TV for sometime now, though I didn't realise it so distinctly until I asked myself, 'Why do I prefer blogs, and comedy news, like Jon Stewart or even Good News Week (in the good old days) to regular news?' All reporting is inherently biased, influenced by the personal experiences and cultural contexts of those who produce it. To be considered a 'public good' though, news needs to impartial, balanced and fair. Journalists strive to be unbiased, but they can never really be. The pundits, comedians and blogs however make no such claim to the 'public good', and wear their bias on their sleeve. Yet in doing so they have inadvertently become the more valuable source of information. My distaste for mainstream news is that it has devolved into, for want of a better term, 'Meta-news'. That is news that just describes the surface of things and doesn't describe anything deeper for fear that it requires making a value judgment and hence not being seen as impartial. Consider political commentary, particularly around elections. Rather then report on the merits and implications of the speeches, ideas and proposals of the politicians, what we get instead, in order to preserve 'impartiality' is reports of how popular this or that speech is, how this or that idea is playing out in the media or who is getting the most air time. Pundits spend more time discussing the perceptions of politicians (what does the latest poll say, what does that mean) rather then the actual ideas the politicians stand for. So frequently journalists hosting panels and debates never actually engage the arguments made, follow them through, rather they simply act as moderators, ensuring the 'right' topics are covered and proportioning 'equal' air-time to opposing voices. This format allows equal coverage of nonsensical, irrational, factually-incorrect hyperbole as it does well-grounded, considered opinions. After all, a reporter wouldn't want to seem 'biased'.
Anderson Cooper seems like a pretty intelligent guy, likable and charming, but watching some of his Youtube discussions on same-sex marriage for example, you have to sit through people making sensible arguments and then people spouting utter non-sense. (That's not to say there aren't some potentially valid arguments against same-sex marriage, just that all that is heard is the fear-mongering lies) They can disagree with each other, but as host all Cooper does is allocate time, and doesn't demand that his guests, you know, actually make sense. (Cooper is not the only one to do this, in fact he is better then most) In contrast, when Jon Stewart has guests on his show, it's known he has an opinion, and this gives him license to actually challenge what his guests say, force them to follow through on their logic. It doesn't always make good sound-bites but its always entertaining. In a sense, Stewart is popular for the same reason O'Reilly on Fox is, they both are willing to challenge their guests from a set point of values. Stewart uses patience, logic and wit to highlight the flaws of what they are saying, whereas O'Reilly postures 'openness' then just yells people down until he takes their silence for agreement. The same qualities are true of the blogosphere. Blogs, by their nature personal accounts, take the news of the day and slant it to the personal tastes and values of the individuals blogging. It's what makes them more enjoyable and relevant then traditional news sources.
Newspapers and other media outlets need to learn that today's audiences don't need to spoon-feed a notion on impartiality. That's not say that reporting shouldn't still strive to be unbiased, just that it needs to accept the bias too. Newspapers need to leverage the personal 'brands' of their reporters, presenting the news from their well understood value standpoint. I suspect it would vastly improve the popularity of their content, which can be translated into advertising revenue to fund the type of quality journalism that contemporary culture will continue to need.
I want to jump to a separate concern relating to modern 'news', something of a non-sequitur. That's the beauty of blogging, you can just explore ideas and see if they connect, you don't have to make an argument. I've found myself disliking the tone of mainstream news, in print and on TV for sometime now, though I didn't realise it so distinctly until I asked myself, 'Why do I prefer blogs, and comedy news, like Jon Stewart or even Good News Week (in the good old days) to regular news?' All reporting is inherently biased, influenced by the personal experiences and cultural contexts of those who produce it. To be considered a 'public good' though, news needs to impartial, balanced and fair. Journalists strive to be unbiased, but they can never really be. The pundits, comedians and blogs however make no such claim to the 'public good', and wear their bias on their sleeve. Yet in doing so they have inadvertently become the more valuable source of information. My distaste for mainstream news is that it has devolved into, for want of a better term, 'Meta-news'. That is news that just describes the surface of things and doesn't describe anything deeper for fear that it requires making a value judgment and hence not being seen as impartial. Consider political commentary, particularly around elections. Rather then report on the merits and implications of the speeches, ideas and proposals of the politicians, what we get instead, in order to preserve 'impartiality' is reports of how popular this or that speech is, how this or that idea is playing out in the media or who is getting the most air time. Pundits spend more time discussing the perceptions of politicians (what does the latest poll say, what does that mean) rather then the actual ideas the politicians stand for. So frequently journalists hosting panels and debates never actually engage the arguments made, follow them through, rather they simply act as moderators, ensuring the 'right' topics are covered and proportioning 'equal' air-time to opposing voices. This format allows equal coverage of nonsensical, irrational, factually-incorrect hyperbole as it does well-grounded, considered opinions. After all, a reporter wouldn't want to seem 'biased'.
Anderson Cooper seems like a pretty intelligent guy, likable and charming, but watching some of his Youtube discussions on same-sex marriage for example, you have to sit through people making sensible arguments and then people spouting utter non-sense. (That's not to say there aren't some potentially valid arguments against same-sex marriage, just that all that is heard is the fear-mongering lies) They can disagree with each other, but as host all Cooper does is allocate time, and doesn't demand that his guests, you know, actually make sense. (Cooper is not the only one to do this, in fact he is better then most) In contrast, when Jon Stewart has guests on his show, it's known he has an opinion, and this gives him license to actually challenge what his guests say, force them to follow through on their logic. It doesn't always make good sound-bites but its always entertaining. In a sense, Stewart is popular for the same reason O'Reilly on Fox is, they both are willing to challenge their guests from a set point of values. Stewart uses patience, logic and wit to highlight the flaws of what they are saying, whereas O'Reilly postures 'openness' then just yells people down until he takes their silence for agreement. The same qualities are true of the blogosphere. Blogs, by their nature personal accounts, take the news of the day and slant it to the personal tastes and values of the individuals blogging. It's what makes them more enjoyable and relevant then traditional news sources.
Newspapers and other media outlets need to learn that today's audiences don't need to spoon-feed a notion on impartiality. That's not say that reporting shouldn't still strive to be unbiased, just that it needs to accept the bias too. Newspapers need to leverage the personal 'brands' of their reporters, presenting the news from their well understood value standpoint. I suspect it would vastly improve the popularity of their content, which can be translated into advertising revenue to fund the type of quality journalism that contemporary culture will continue to need.
Comments