(By the way, I also posted over here.)In yesterday’s Philadelphia Inquirer, Michael Smerconish told the tale of Martin Eisenstadt, "a senior fellow at the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy" who, as it turned out, was a fictitious creation from two filmmakers (Eisenstadt was “a self-described neoconservative who found his opinions in demand during the presidential campaign” – tee hee).
Smerconish then uses this episode to decry the “24-hour news cycle (in which) bloggers and even mainstream media work so quickly that they don't really have the chance to check,” according to one of the two perpetrators of the Eisenstadt fiction, with the net effect being that news organizations are suffering (the New York Times, for example, cut 100 newsroom jobs earlier this year, despite revenues of $209 million last year, as Smerky tells us).
(By the way, I haven’t “called Smerky’s number” for a little while now because he seems to be in the process of redefining himself ideologically a bit, at least for the moment. I will acknowledge that he’s a bit more astute of a media creature than, say, Bill Orally, Sean Inanity or Flush Limbore, mainly because he has to be in order to cater to his local radio audience. However, that doesn’t mean that he won’t “turn to the dark side” every now and then either.)
Yes, I can appreciate that it’s very difficult for news organizations to operate during a time when it’s tough to generate revenue in order to stay afloat (with that in mind, I thought this idea by Dan Abrams, former MSNBC host, was interesting). And as I’ve said in the past, I am one blogger who respects news professionals (the reputable ones, anyway) because I can appreciate the work that went into obtaining a degree in the field and building a career; I will never speak dismissively of the craft of journalism.
However, as I was wondering what to say about the points Smerky brings up, I happened to come across the following Daily Kos post which, I think, does a good job of illustrating exactly where our corporate media has gone wrong.
It begins with the matter of the proposed auto industry bailout and presents the conservative argument against it (which, really, are merely talking points waiting to be exploded). With what I think is great care, the blogger (DHinMI) critiques the talking points and explains how absurd they are (in particular, the claim that automakers earn $73 per hour in salary, when, in reality, the number is a lot closer to $28 per hour).
The post is very well sourced, it provides plenty of background, and it leads the reader to a plainly obvious conclusion; namely, that there is a critical need to assist the carmakers because of the huge consequences if this doesn’t occur (and yes, that means helping malefactors like Rick Waggoner of GM and Bob Nardelli of Chrysler, who appears to be adding to his rep as a mediocre CEO with as forgettable a performance here as the one he brought us when he ran Home Depot, generating big compensation even though the stock did not do well).
Also, this post contains news that would be of direct interest to what I would guess would be the majority of the people reading it. It tells people how the news of compensating the automakers directly affects their lives.
It’s not full of speculation, spin or other types of editorializing. It’s not something that reads as if it were a press release. Its tone is constructive and it’s written in a manner that lends itself to explanation and analysis.
Basically, this is what news is supposed to be.
Now it’s not my purpose here to discuss what I believe are unrealistic expectations from individuals or entities regarding return on investment in a news organization of one type or another. I am merely trying to point out that news is a product to a certain degree, and if that product isn’t going to fulfill the need of the consumer (i.e., to be informed and/or entertained if possible), that consumer will look elsewhere for something else that will.
And while that inevitably means more blog traffic for others (maybe even more radio traffic for Smerky and his brethren), it is also inevitable that this will affect the content of the product.
So, with that in mind, maybe instead of proclaiming that “I don’t do reporting” (I try to in my admittedly imperfect way), Smerky should “hand over the reins” of his column to someone else who does. And while that would hardly rectify the problem he notes here, it would definitely be a step in the right direction.
And the fact that the lies that sometimes result from "non-reporting" are propagated so easily doesn't help either (h/t Atrios).
No comments:
Post a Comment