Newspapers are Dying Off

[Fassa Albrecht]

No, it's propaganda first, news second. Every story is both selected and spun to fit the editorial agenda. From what I gather, European papers are even worse in some countries.

Certainly in the UK stories are designed to fit political agendas, especially papers like the Daily Mail who are persistently biased to the point where their stories divide into 4 categories:

- anti-government whinging
- health scares
- celebrity news about X celebrity sneezing or being caught going to the toilet.
- 'human interest' drivel. You know, kittens with loveheart markings or a kid who can tie their shoelaces.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

A newpaper has to eventually choose whom they wish to serve: Their community or a political party. You make your choice and rise or fall with it.

What seems to piss off people most is not newspapers adhering to a political party line, but instead not adhering to the [would-be] readers' political party line.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

I'll be more specific by citing a random example which is more or less typical of newspapers:

A few years ago there was a woman in America who became famous for her protests of the U.S. war in Iraq. A great many stories were printed about her and I read many articles describing her background. Often, these articles contained a significant error in reprinting her erroneous claim that she belonged to a particular non-partisan organization (American Gold Star Mothers Inc) that is well respected and goes back to before World War II. She did not belong to that group but founded a politically based group of her own that had a nearly identical name.

Whenever any story appears online (whether it originated in a newspaper, in broadcast or elsewhere) it is nearly instantaneously linked to by thousands of discussion forums and millions of sites. Eager participants can't wait to fact check every tidbit and want to be the first one to catch the original source making a mistake. I remember quite a few newspaper journalists printed the protest woman's false affiliation with the Gold Star organization and they were inundated with complaints to run corrections. The fact is, the journalists who ran the flawed stories were not adequately fact checking and they could have easily discovered their error had they simply taken a few minutes to go to the Gold Star web site and read a statement they had put up regarding that very issue.

This type of error is a common occurrence, and traditional journalists often take shortcuts and assume that re-quotes are accurate and that statements made to them by persons they are interviewing are factually correct. Reporters used to do a much better job at this but for whatever reason, this has become less of a priority. I could provide countless examples of this, limited only by my willingness to sit at my computer and type.

Of course, this happens online as well, but I'm not comparing the average quality of journalism online versus traditional journalism (online would easily lose in that category). I'm comparing the highs and the lows. The quality of traditional journalism, including newspapers, tends to stick pretty close to the average, and it never gets much worse or much better than barely mediocre. Online journalism is all over the place; from the most tin foil hat wearing, rambling garbage to the highest quality, most objective, extensively researched and cross-referenced information.

I've found that if you want the highest quality, you need to seek it out online but be prepared to do a lot of weeding.

I think that the common single occurrence you provided is proof that journalists, editors, and readers have to insist on high standards and fact checking, despite the pressures of deadlines, cost cutting, dilettante owners, etc. This is not impossible. In fact, high professional standards are probably very good for morale in a newsroom.

The problems that plague journalism are the same that often plague all human enterprises, be they manufacturing, design, service industries, the military, et al, if the leaders of each organization do not lead well.

 

[hbarcat]

At the Times such an error would have resulted in a page 2 correction, but more importantly, the reporter and/or editor would be reprimanded and if it happened often enough (recent memory is a good measure) then they would be fired. I knew reporters who cleaned out their desks and were escorted out of the building for following petulant causes instead of the story.

That's how it usually happens. In the case I was referring to, the vast majority of newspapers were factually correct the 1st time, and of those newspapers that made the error, I remember at least some of them ran corrections and there were consequences. There were also a handful of newspapers that never ran a correction or even returned polite emails to the editor or reporter pointing out the mistake and there were no consequences.

I would point out that I think newspapers tend to do a fantastic job at covering city news and local politics. For this, they cannot be beat by anything online and I hope that newspapers continue to excel in this area. If they do, they will never completely go away. I think that their national coverage is where their standards sharply fall and the reputation that they are earning for it is killing them.

Yeah, but how do you know what is garbage and what is smokable (weeding)? Building 7 of the 911 event is an excellent example of this, or the alleged missile fired from Arlington that slammed into the Pentagon and not an airliner going 600 miles per hour 3 feet off the ground. How do you know?

-richard

I can tell because I put what I've learned about journalism in school and in practice writing for newspapers to use. It's called fact checking. Every quote in a story can be checked. Every assertion can be traced to some source and that source evaluated for reliability.

If I see a story about building 7 and they quote some guy who says that he's an engineer and he designs buildings and that a building has to fall a certain way, then I can check that. If the guy turns out to be a well respected expert on engineering who has numerous accident investigations to his credit and he belongs to some well respected organization, then that means his credibility goes up. If the only reference I can find to the guy is his name appears on a bunch of tin foil hat websites then his credibility goes down.

If the same story quotes some NTSB official as stating "a,b,c,d,e,f,g" and I look up the quote and he said something very different and he is being misquoted then that tells me something about the credibility of the story.

In my experience, misquotes are a dead giveaway to bogus stories. People who write with an agenda and who are willing to compromise journalistic standards cannot help themselves but to misquote others. And they are SO easy to check. It's perfectly permissible for a reporter to edit a quote for space or for clarity but the rules governing this are strict and very specific. Kook websites (and also a few petulant newspaper reporters) expose their bias when they go outside of this boundary and take sentences out of context, drop key words that change the meaning of the quote or otherwise creatively alter quotes to serve the agenda of the story.

 

[burk48237]

HBARCAT Forty years ago, the top priority for news was the combination of accuracy and objectivity. Straight news stories were almost a sacred thing with great care taken to make sure that opinions and other biases were kept out. The entire profession of journalism was transformed in just a few years during the 70's and early 80's and advocacy was no longer forbidden but was actively encouraged. New writing styles and templates became the norm and every news story had to have an "angle" with a theme or narrative running through it

This one is a two parter. I think the first sentence is a myth viewed thru the flawed lens of history. For instance, not many realize that the series Walter Duranty (NY Times) received a Pulitzer for in the 30's on the great progress of the Soviet Union under Stalin was a KGB paid for propaganda piece. I think the reason the press appears so without bias in pre 70's history is that it had a singular political voice. There was very little true competition (in fairness their were very few dissenting views in the political establishment at the time either) and the presses "bias" in it's political view point was so common it was considered moderation. But the American news media of the early to mid twentieth century definitely had the same biases as the political class of the era had. And stories that questioned that bias got buried.

I do agree with your conclusions. It appears that after Watergate, every reporter wanted to be Woodward and Bernstein. Even if it was just coverage of the local highway deal. In a way it created an interesting paradox. For the most part the presses bias was the same as the political class, but it's desire to "make a difference" many times put it in conflict with it's own goals.

HBARCAT With regard to newspapers covering serious topics like economic issues, they are appallingly incompetent, except for when they publish pieces by freelance writers who specialize in a particular area. They are so concerned with writing stories that are "accessible" that they grossly oversimplify and they become so watered down that they are useless at providing any real insight. Same thing goes for scientific issues. If I hear about some newsworthy scientific story, I know that I'm wasting my time reading about it in the paper. Specialized internet sites that cater to scientific topics are far more reliable and much more thorough.

I couldn't agree more on this one.

HBARCAT I would point out that I think newspapers tend to do a fantastic job at covering city news and local politics. For this, they cannot be beat by anything online and I hope that newspapers continue to excel in this area. If they do, they will never completely go away. I think that their national coverage is where their standards sharply fall and the reputation that they are earning for it is killing them.

This is where I think they'll be missed the most, although looking at the way people in this area vote I doubt they ever read any of that great coverage anyway. We just had a mayoral election in Detroit with a 9% voter turn out. It's so bad here, that I think all the people that care have already left the city. Interestingly, the best local rag for coverage is a paper I couldn't agree with less on it's political bias. But their desire to "make a difference" works on the local scale where much of the political machine has become disgustingly corrupt.

As far as it working on line. I'm not sure I see the business model. On line advertising revenue is getting tougher to come by (there are also some real questions about it's effectiveness), and their are so many good free sources for national news, I'm not sure where I see the revenue stream to support a news gathering team of local reporters, much less on the national and global level. I think the local papers would be far better off to concentrate on local news, go weekly to support add inserts on the weekend and avoid the fluff (human interest stuff). Just give me a good weekly update on real local news, business, entertainment, and sports.

 

[failuresXbass]

Ah - a subject so near and dear to me.

I too work in at a LA area newspaper - the Press-Telegram in Long Beach. It's end is certainly written on the wall - as is the case with almost all MediaNews papers. While it is easy to dismiss the demise of newspapers as desirable really ignores how they are integral to the communities they serve.

It does seem the model is dead - and I don't think anyone that has been on the inside needs to hear that to know it. It does not make it any less sad. There are instances of corruption, of political leaning - but as Bob said, that is the human experience.

But what you miss is the other side of that experience - people that work at papers, who believe it what they do and strive to do it the best they can. From Top to Bottom - thought gone now, I have worked with some of the finest people I have ever known, doing tasks that are invisible to the outside: page makeup, composing, production, camera & plate, imaging. Blue Collar guys, that really stepped up their game because they believed in the job. They are all long gone now - but surely we can all relate to that experience, and mourn the loss of the institution.

The world will not be a better place without newspaper. So much journalism, still originates in print. Google your favorite current topic. How many of the links are directly to newspaper sites, or quote newspapers organizations?

 

[fo shizzle]

I think it's because most of the 'news' papers are more propaganda than news.

That is a truly asanine statement. Wait until the local newspapers are gone....... that's when the propaganda starts. Newspapers are the last bastion of investigative reporting.

When you get you information from bloggers and forum sites you get exactly what you deserve. Sadly, your vote counts the same as mine.........

 

[Araillac]

I don't vote. That way if good stuff happens, it doesn't matter, everyone is enjoying good stuff. If bad stuff happens, I can blame people who voted.

 

[Bongolation]

That is a truly asanine statement.

A what?

 

[Pilgrim]

What seems to piss off people most is not newspapers adhering to a political party line, but instead not adhering to the [would-be] readers' political party line.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you agree with everything you read in a newspaper, you should wonder about it...and about YOU. I get very tired of people who see rampant liberalism in media - and most of the time, it appears to me that the complaint is simply because the person doesn't agree with what they read. My comment is that if all media seem too liberal - or too conservative - maybe it's not the medium, maybe it's you! Perhaps you're more conservative than society or the world is, and you haven't realized it.

Newspapers have always had positions, and they range from far right to far left. But mainstream city papers usually don't stray far from center...although they certainly have blue or red inclinations.

I've been a radio reporter, and I'm highly aware that a reporter must observe events and speeches, make sense out of what they observed, and write a story that is an attempt to help the reader understand what happened. that story is the reporter's interpretation of reality. People tend to interpret reality based on their own background and experiences, so no two people would write exactly the same report. We just need to live with it, and interpret what we read. But if it all sounds like propaganda - left or right - then we ought to start questioning our own viewpoint.

Here's a case in point:

I think it's because most of the 'news' papers are more propaganda than news.

That's simply ridiculous. It says more about the writer's grasp of reality than it does about newspapers.

 

[jkritchey]

Not all failing papers are due to readers not caring, but rather because the owners of the paper were over leveraged. I think that;s important to remember.

That said, the manner in which newspapers were collecting revenue is in rapid transition, with the old way dieing out faster than the new ways are identified. I hope they sort it out, and i feel lucky to be in a place with a great daily paper. Remember most bloggers comment on the reporting work of real reporters. They don't have the means to do it themselves.

 

[Pilgrim]

I find it sadly amusing that some people say they don't need newspapers, they'll just get their news online.

They don't stop to think that most news is originally written by newspaper and wire service reporters. No newspapers = much less news online.

And if you think newspaper reporters are biased, just wait until most of the news online is written by people who belong to special interest groups and who are writing because they have their own axe to grind. They will make NO effort to be even-handed!

 

[StyleOverShow]

It does seem the model is dead - and I don't think anyone that has been on the inside needs to hear that to know it.

I know a few people who worked for the LBPT. When I left the Times, the publisher liked to play guitar and built a studio in the basement where the presses had been years before. It was available to all employees and I passed hours down there with one of my staff who played drums.

Newspapers never understood the new "internet" media and other than the on-line versions, I can't think of a single innovative use of their vast content to come from them.

Print advertising expenditures are down everywhere and it is even hitting broadcast (TV and radio).

But what you miss is the other side of that experience - people that work at papers, who believe it what they do and strive to do it the best they can. From Top to Bottom - thought gone now, I have worked with some of the finest people I have ever known

I met some of the most interesting people I've known, including my best friend, an IT guy I met doing a project at the LA Times. There were three distinct groups at the Times: Editorial, the clowned princes of the cafeteria and elevators including Pat Morrison, the lady with the hat; Circulation/Ops who were lambasted for telemarketing even death row prisoners, and the three plants that printed the paper where HR banned the scantily clad women calendars, so they put up the Macy underwear ads; and Marketing/Advertising, that's where I hung for 10 years in Marketing Research support ad sales.

Not all failing papers are due to readers not caring, but rather because the owners of the paper were over leveraged. I think that;s important to remember.

They were cash cows at one point, now the dollars are going to the internet where you have sound, movement and the ability to comment on the news/reviews. The family owned papers are suffering too and they didn't get into the same Wall St. game as the big boys.

 

[Bongolation]

Invalid Link Removed from Clay Shirky on the inevitable death of newspapers, great explanation.

"When someone demands to know how we are going to replace newspapers,
they are really demanding to be told that we are not living through a
revolution. They are demanding to be told that old systems won't break
before new systems are in place. They are demanding to be told that
ancient social bargains aren't in peril, that core institutions will be
spared, that new methods of spreading information will improve previous
practice rather than upending it. They are demanding to be lied to.

"There are fewer and fewer people who can convincingly tell such a lie."