Okay, I admit it; I'm geeky.
Over the course of the last several years, I have actually read much of the Project for Excellence in Journalism's "State of the News Media" reports. Okay, not all of the reports, but the ones about cable, network and local television news, radio and newspapers. And there is one unmistakable trend in all of them.
Fewer and fewer people are relying on the major media for news.
I knew this without reading the reports, of course. It's not hard to figure out that fewer people are relying on journalists for their news. I look at the relative ignorance around me, even from people who claim to be "news junkies," and I realize there's a serious problem. Even though the population has grown tremendously over the last 20 years, the number of people who watch the news daily has shrunk significantly. And yes, I know; I've heard; many people get their news from the Internet. But so many people share some of the most ignorant crap ever, it makes you wonder how many are reading it and understanding what they're reading.
It's also pretty easy to see why so many people don't bother with the news media anymore, although the idiots who run newsrooms will never admit it; the idiots who teach journalism classes will never admit it; and the idiots in suits who have no clue how to make money from the media will never admit it.
The problem, in a nutshell, is this; no one has any clue what journalism is anymore.
Journalism was once considered the fourth branch of government because, in a system of checks and balances, journalists are (or at least should be) the only check on the other three branches. Journalism is supposed to be about pure truth -- as pure as truth can be, anyway -- and the conveyance of facts, so that the consumer can process them into something meaningful to their lives.
There always has been shady journalism. In the early days of the republic, Thomas Jefferson actually used a reporter to trot our nasty stories about Alexander Hamilton in order to try to gain an edge while running for president. Though the stories turned out to be true, Jefferson had no idea when he had the reporter run them, which violates the basic tenet of journalism; only report what you can prove.
Isn't a profession supposed to grow? When I was a kid, you had supermarket tabloids, and you had "real news." The people covering celebrity gossip had a corner of a newspaper, not the front page. There was a time, not so long ago, when the concept of any journalist standing outside of a jail, waiting breathlessly for a celebutante to emerge free from three hours of confinement would have been absurd. Now, reporters clog streets and cause traffic jams, and formerly "legitimate" news organizations are paying millions for grainy pictures of celebrities doing bad things. Celebrities they first prop up and then take down continually, almost by force of will.
Somehow, with the dawn of the 24-hour news cycle and the Internet, true journalism seems to have died. Okay, it hasn't died. There are still some practitioners of good and great journalism, and some sparks of brilliance, but for the most part, the most shining examples tend to get buried in all of the other crap that passes for "news" these days. In order to get to the story about the Koch Brothers and their wholesale bribery of Republican politicians, you have to swim through the drek about Lindsay, Britney and Charlie, much like that kid in "Slumdog Millionaire."
Journalism's demise was actually brought home to me about five years ago, when newly-hired CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric announced her plan to go on tour before her first night, and ask people what they wanted in their news. Think about that a moment. As much as I like Katie Couric, that signaled a complete and utter misunderstanding of how the news works in the first place, and it demonstrated the disconnect between self-described journalists and their profession. The job of a journalist is NOT to tell us what we want to hear, or to report on stories we already know about. The journalist is supposed to tell us that which we don't already know.
I'm really not picking on Katie Couric. She's not alone in that mis-assessment. The entire broadcast news business is all about giving people what they claim they want. The idiots in charge of the news media are addicted to polling and surveys, and want to create news content designed to attract more people. Therefore, if you find out what people claim they want, and you give it to them, you'll have a lot of viewers/listeners/readers, right?
If you are among the network suits who think that, then my question is, are you stupid? People also say they love their spouses, but most will turn their head when someone attractive walks by. But almost all will go home with their spouse and be happy. What news people are creating is an informational experience that turns heads, but doesn't offer anything lasting.
Such an attitude makes sense for sitcoms and so-called "reality" shows, but it certainly doesn’t make sense for news. See, here's the problem, producers/editors/publishers; unless you have a psychic department that is the best in the world, it's not possible to know what the news will be tomorrow, or even an hour from now. Think a little; if they already know what you're going to put on the news program, then -- and please pay attention here, because this is important -- what's the purpose of the news program in the first place? Isn't the purpose of watching the news or reading a newspaper to get information that you didn't know?
In other words, news editors and publishers and producers, get a clue; if you're giving people what they claim they want, then you're not doing your job. Your actual job is to give them the information they don't know, or possibly realize they need.
Here's the funny part, folks. When a really important news story "breaks," people flock to the news channels, and buy a lot more newspapers. When the terrorist attacks happened on 9/11/2001, most of us sat glued to the news channels all day, and most of us bought newspapers the next morning. Whenever there is an important news story, people in record numbers flock to the news. Yet, every day, there are a bunch of news stories that are extremely important, that could establish a news organization's credibility, and create new viewers/readers, but they are virtually ignored. The reason people don't seem to be aware of what's happening in Congress most days is because no one's reporting on it.
Instead, the people who run the news organizations instead opt to ignore such stories, in favor of stories about which celebrity has been arrested today, which cute blonde is missing today, which beautiful co-ed had sex with which Congressman, and what Charlie Sheen is up to today. Every day, Congress considers or passes a bill that has an affect on the lives of every American in some way. Yet, more people know every detail about Charlie Sheen than know that Antonin Scalia has for years engaged in behavior that would have been considered impeachable in the past.
A journalist's job is the education of the public. It is most certainly not just to present a list of stories that just happen to come with "interesting" video. The problem with most news organizations these days, is a complete lack of usefulness. There is very little information on most news media that would qualify as useful in any way to the average person. I mean, seriously; a half hour of live video of a really cool high speed chase may get a bunch of people to stop for a second at Sears and take a good look at the new HDTVs, but it doesn't make anyone's life better. If the chase is in California, and I'm in California, it might be nice to know which freeway the chase is on, so that I can avoid it, but that takes a 1 minute report. If I live in Washington, DC, a high speed chase in California, well, it lacks relevance to my life, except as a curiosity.
On the other hand, what the government does every day is hardly examined at all. Now, by examined, I don’t mean the repetition of a carefully crafted sound bite designed to give the illusion that Republicans are doing something relevant. I'm talking about acts of actual relevance. Congress considers dozens of important bills every week; we hear about the few that editors and producers decide push the hottest buttons.
But that's not how the news works these days. Little of the 24-hour news cycle actually concerns news. Most of the "news" channels' 24-hour cycle is dominated by analysis and opinions, much, if not most, of which are just plain wrong. The thing I find strange is that these analysts and pundits are wrong a large amount of the time, and they all work in a place full of journalists, yet most of the bullshit is allowed to stand, never corrected with actual facts. Wrong opinions have no place on a news network in the first place; at the very least, journalistic standards should require that a falsehood be corrected.
And yes, folks on the far left and far right, and especially Fox News; it IS possible for an opinion to be wrong, if it flies in the face of actual facts. Not all opinions are equal.
Where did the idea that "being fair" meant that all viewpoints must be represented, no matter how stupid and pointless? Since when does an opinion that global warming "isn't happening" receive equal billing with one that says it is, despite the fact that nearly all evidence says the planet is warming. Opinions can vary as to the cause, of course, and healthy debate is good. But there is only one set of facts, and allowing errant opinions based on facts not in existence to pass as valid analysis is the antithesis of journalism. Not calling "bullshit" on obvious bullshit isn't a public service, it's a public travesty.
It's also the key to unlocking the secret as to why fewer people consume traditional news outlets, and why journalism needs to be revived. Let's be frank; I can get all sorts of errant opinions all over the place. There are any number of message boards, there's Facebook, there's Twitter; hell, I could go visit an ignorant relative or two. I don't turn on the news to watch some blowhard pontificating with profound ignorance. I can't be alone. When people are looking for news, and instead find a steady stream of bullshit coming from what purports to be a "news" program or channel, they lose confidence in it, and don’t watch it anymore.
I personally think the people who run the news media are collectively some of the stupidest people on the planet, the exception, ironically, is Roger Ailes. Ailes certainly constitutes a blight on the media, but he's a genius. He has cultivated an audience of people gullible enough to believe anything coming from Fox Noise, and willing to be the above-mentioned blowhard, and repeat everything they hear, without bothering to check its veracity. ("Veracity" means truth, Fox viewers. He will always have the same size audience he has now, and he will always have the same demographic; the intellectually lazy sycophant who just wants someone "important" to repeat the same crap he thinks he already knows. I just wish he'd stop calling it Fox News, because there is little actual "news" there.
The really dumb ones are the people who run all of the other news outlets that have tried to emulate the Ailes approach and wonder why they fail miserably. For years, they tried to straddle the line between being a "legitimate" news organization, and being just like Fox. Why? Because Fox's audience was growing by leaps and bounds, and they wanted their audience to grow by leaps and bounds, too.
So, what's stupid about that? I just told you.
In order to get Fox's audience, you have to lie a lot. For some reason, the other news networks seem to be under the impression that it's simply the "conservative" spin that makes Fox popular, but that's not it. Fox Noise isn't "conservative;" it's right wing. There is a difference. In order to be right wing, you have to ignore facts, and say whatever you think you're supposed to believe, no matter how implausible.
What makes Fox Noise popular among its faithful flock is their ability to tell lies and make things up to sell their point. When CNN or MSNBC repeats a line of bullshit from Fox Noise, it doesn’t enhance CNN (which is referred to as the "Communist News Network by the Fox Faithful) in the eyes of a typical Fox Noise faithful; in a strange twist of logic to the normal person, but the absolutely normal logic of the Fox viewer, the fact that CNN repeats the same things as Fox give Fox more legitimacy.
But they're not just stupid because a regular guy like me figured this out some time ago, and they haven't. They're also stupid because the solution to their audience growth woes is right in front of their face, and it's easy. Let me put it simply, so that the suits understand it.
The most popular show on Fox is The O'Reilly Factor, which averages about 2 million total viewers each night. None of their other programs have more than 1.5 million viewers, and a significant portion of their audience watches all day. Best case scenario is that Fox Noise has maybe 4-5 million faithful viewers.
Now, here's a quiz for you at the other networks and news outlets; does it make more sense to attempt to emulate Fox, in a vain attempt to drag away some of their 1-3 million viewers? Or does it make more sense to attempt to lure your own audience from the portion of the other 290 million people in this country who don't watch Fox? I'll bet even a Fox viewer can probably figure out that it's easier to attract a few million people from a pool of 300 million than from the loyal Fox following of 1-3 million.
People need journalism. The number one reason this country is failing -- and it is failing, despite the lack of news reportage of that fact -- is because people really don’t know what's going on.
When news junkies have to turn to blogs to find out what's really going on, our press is in deep trouble. A lot of people look to blogs as some sort of lifeline, and many blogs are very good. (Like this one). But the fact of the matter is, many bloggers, including yours truly, are simply spouting opinions in their spare time, and that is not what the country needs. Sure, my opinions are fact-based, and I cite most of my facts, but they're still my opinions, and opinions will never constitute a valuable substitute for a factual telling of an actual event. Can I do journalism? I would be a hell of a journalist if I had the time, but I don't have the time. What you see here is not journalism, and I will never pretend that it is.
If the bosses at traditional news organizations want to increase their audience and make more money, the solution is actually quite simple; do your job. Present the news. Tell us the stories that move the country forward as a nation. That doesn't mean you can't do stories about Charlie and Lindsey and Britney (oh my!); it just means you place them in the back of the line, where they belong. When you get some really cool video of a fiery crash, save it for later, and while people are waiting to see it, tell them the truth about what's really going on in Congress. And most important of all, lose the "sound bite" mentality, and start playing/or writing the entire quote, in context. And trend toward longer stories, containing all relevant facts about a particular situation. Don't tell the viewers you don't have time; if you have time to have brain-dead pundits lie, pontificate and slander people for hours each day, you can afford to spend 3-4 minutes on important stories.
This is easy to do, because it's been done before, but it's not an instantaneous process. It took years to kill journalism; it will take years to revive it. But it has to be revived. If it doesn't happen, the republic is in deep trouble. We already have millions of intelligent people repeating bullshit verbatim as if it was fact.
There was a reason the Founders put such a protection in the Bill of Rights; it's too important to take for granted. We're beginning to see what happens in a democracy without a vibrant press; we now have a government that is as corrupt as any in history, but they have the press corps cowed, for some reason, under threat of a loss of "access" to the seats of power. What I'm wondering is, why isn't that a news story in itself? If the government is threatening to cut the press out of the White House, isn't that a great news story that should be reported?
It's time for the press to get off its collective fat ass, and go for the glory. If you want to make money with journalism, try doing some actual journalism.
