American journalism owes a peculiar debt to Benjamin Harris, editor of North America's first multi-page newspaper, Publick Occurrences Both Forreign and Domestick (1690).
In his first (and, as it turned out, last) issue of Publick Occurrences, Harris reported on an array of scandalous topics, including the licentious behavior of the King of France. Though colonial authorities, upset by these disclosures, quickly shut down the newspaper, they could not have recognized the importance of the moment. In turning Louis XIV's bedroom tastes into "news," Harris had whetted readers' appetite for gossip.
It's an appetite that has produced a plethora of gossip columnists in American journalism--Walter Winchell, Hedda Hopper, and Dorothy Kilgallan in the early to mid twentieth century, Michael Musto, Perez Hilton, and Matt Drudge more recently. Generations of journalists have made their living reporting on the sketchy behavior of film stars, television personalities, professional athletes, rock 'n roll gods and godesses, and even presidents and senators.
In the digital age, the gossip industry has become pervasive. Want to know about Justin Bieber's most recent bout with the paparazzi? The escapades of the Kardashians, Nicki Minaj, Lindsay Lohan, or Snookie? This star or that star's divorce, pregnancy, eating disorder, DWI, or rehab stint? Log on at any hour and there will always be somebody to give you the dirt.
To be sure, not all celebrity news is vacuous. When celebs adopt orphans from impoverished countries, raise money for storm victims, or encourage young people to be part of the political process, they make thoughtful and powerful humanitarian statements. When they overcome personal obstacles and crises, they teach fans (and critics) valuable lessons about the ability to turn lives around.
But such moments are often overshadowed by nonstop reports (articles, posts, tweets, etc.) of scandalous, witless, obnoxious, embarrassing, and even criminal actions. Does all of this nonsense distract us from more important matters? Does it trivialize people--both "stars" and their followers? Does it give us the illusion of sophistication and knowledge? Worst of all, does it tempt us to live vicariously through people who, in some cases anyway, aren't worth our time?
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Monday, January 21, 2013
When Journalists Make News
Intentionally or otherwise, journalists sometimes make news themselves. In a December 2012 "Meet the Press" interview with NRA (National Rifle Association) president Wayne LaPierre, NBC correspondent David Gregory surprised audiences when he held up an ammunition clip during a conversation about possible changes in gun laws.
Some who witnessed the interview argued that Gregory's decision to display ammunition violated District of Columbia law, which prohibits the possession, sale or display of ammunition clips containing more than ten bullets. Subsequent reports noted that NBC had contacted both legal experts and District of Columbia police prior to the interview to inform them of Gregory's plan.
A few weeks after the incident, Irvin Nathan, D.C. attorney general, stated that there would be no charges filed against Gregory or NBC. Nathan added that Gregory's actions were intended to "promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States."
Legal issues aside, the incident raises questions about the behavior of journalists. Supporters of Gregory would insist that journalists sometimes have to take stands on issues that matter, even if in doing so they introduce an element of drama and "show" into the debate. Others argue that when journalists take such stances and--even for a brief time--become the story, they divert attention from the issue and from the public conversation that should be taking place.
Did Gregory act wisely is displaying an ammunition clip in his interview with LaPierre? Do such actions underscore the importance of issues--in this case, the debate over gun legislation? Or do they become more of a distraction--and in the process, raise doubts about the credibility of those responsible for bringing us the news?
Some who witnessed the interview argued that Gregory's decision to display ammunition violated District of Columbia law, which prohibits the possession, sale or display of ammunition clips containing more than ten bullets. Subsequent reports noted that NBC had contacted both legal experts and District of Columbia police prior to the interview to inform them of Gregory's plan.
A few weeks after the incident, Irvin Nathan, D.C. attorney general, stated that there would be no charges filed against Gregory or NBC. Nathan added that Gregory's actions were intended to "promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States."
Legal issues aside, the incident raises questions about the behavior of journalists. Supporters of Gregory would insist that journalists sometimes have to take stands on issues that matter, even if in doing so they introduce an element of drama and "show" into the debate. Others argue that when journalists take such stances and--even for a brief time--become the story, they divert attention from the issue and from the public conversation that should be taking place.
Did Gregory act wisely is displaying an ammunition clip in his interview with LaPierre? Do such actions underscore the importance of issues--in this case, the debate over gun legislation? Or do they become more of a distraction--and in the process, raise doubts about the credibility of those responsible for bringing us the news?
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
An Information Jungle?
First the good news about journalism in the millennium: Thanks largely to the Internet (and some dedicated journalists), we have more access to news than ever before.
Now the bad news: Thanks largely to the Internet (and some not-so-dedicated journalists), we have to work very hard--harder than ever before--to be informed, knowledgeable citizens.
This is the dilemma of being a news consumer in our time. Before the explosion of online news reporting, readers had fewer sources of news. While that was not always ideal--many media critics argue (correctly so) that the mainstream media omits "inconvenient" stories--there was also less opportunity for ostensible news sources to shoot from the hip and not be called on it. A newspaper that got a reputation for exaggerating the facts was USUALLY (I emphasize that word) dismissed by mainstream readers. Now, online news sources that slant their coverage blend into the crowd. And by repeating half truths and even lies, many gain a readership, a foothold, and an air of legitimacy.
That's unfortunate. It's also a problem for readers trying to make sense of an increasingly complex world. When news sources purporting to be reputable manipulate information--often with some degree of sophistication--readers can't help but feel confused.
What to do?
First, read as many different news sources as possible. Most journalists do in fact try to get at the truth of the events they cover. If you read as much as possible about issues that interest you, chances are you'll figure out who's presenting the facts and who's skewing them.
Next, look for evidence of bias in coverage. Uncovering bias isn't always an easy task. But if you read a publication often enough, you'll probably be able to determine its politics--and the extent to which a news provider's political views might shade its coverage.
Finally, be you own fact checker. Tracking down the accuracy of the material you're reading can be a great deal of work, especially when you are trying to get to the bottom of complicated stories. But facts don't lie (not usually anyway!). If you're serious about understanding issues, check out Politifact.com--a site committed to determining the truth of what we read and hear. A Youtube clip, "Politifact's Guide to Fact Checking," provides some useful tips about how to get started.
Now the bad news: Thanks largely to the Internet (and some not-so-dedicated journalists), we have to work very hard--harder than ever before--to be informed, knowledgeable citizens.
This is the dilemma of being a news consumer in our time. Before the explosion of online news reporting, readers had fewer sources of news. While that was not always ideal--many media critics argue (correctly so) that the mainstream media omits "inconvenient" stories--there was also less opportunity for ostensible news sources to shoot from the hip and not be called on it. A newspaper that got a reputation for exaggerating the facts was USUALLY (I emphasize that word) dismissed by mainstream readers. Now, online news sources that slant their coverage blend into the crowd. And by repeating half truths and even lies, many gain a readership, a foothold, and an air of legitimacy.
That's unfortunate. It's also a problem for readers trying to make sense of an increasingly complex world. When news sources purporting to be reputable manipulate information--often with some degree of sophistication--readers can't help but feel confused.
What to do?
First, read as many different news sources as possible. Most journalists do in fact try to get at the truth of the events they cover. If you read as much as possible about issues that interest you, chances are you'll figure out who's presenting the facts and who's skewing them.
Next, look for evidence of bias in coverage. Uncovering bias isn't always an easy task. But if you read a publication often enough, you'll probably be able to determine its politics--and the extent to which a news provider's political views might shade its coverage.
Finally, be you own fact checker. Tracking down the accuracy of the material you're reading can be a great deal of work, especially when you are trying to get to the bottom of complicated stories. But facts don't lie (not usually anyway!). If you're serious about understanding issues, check out Politifact.com--a site committed to determining the truth of what we read and hear. A Youtube clip, "Politifact's Guide to Fact Checking," provides some useful tips about how to get started.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)