I want to commend an Atlantic piece by Amanda Ripley to your attention. The piece, entitled “Can the News Be Fixed?” that largely addresses the question of how can journalists rebuild local TV news, and perhaps even restore trust in the media? Here’s a telling snippet:
In the second year, he began to see a path forward. The problem “wasn’t the way the news was presented,†McLaughlin told me. “It was what the news is. The traditional format was still pretty desirable: the idea of a man and a woman at a desk and a weather segment halfway through. The work that needed to be done was in story selection and production.â€
The focus groups seemed to appreciate reporters who had deep knowledge of the community and the subject matter. And, to McLaughlin’s surprise, the groups didn’t just say they wanted more in-depth stories. They actually behaved that way. When Scripps tested Hello SWFL stories that were seven or eight minutes long—an eternity in the business—audiences watched them to the end, as long as they were well told.
Fear, meanwhile, wasn’t working as well. Since the 1980s, TV news stations have inundated people with shocking coverage of crime and other spectacles. “The rule used to be: If you can scare the hell out of people, you can probably get them to watch five more minutes,†McLaughlin said. But across a dozen focus groups, the Hello SWFL test station discovered that younger people were put off by hysterical coverage of petty crimes—or of crimes happening far away.
I think the piece expresses a number of misconception, e.g.:
If American audiences are losing their taste for reductive “he said, she said†coverage, and for litanies of problems and risks without solutions, that would be a good development.
Did American audiences ever have taste for that? Or was it what reporters and editors thought was appealing and presented the way they should it should be presented? “Point-of-view” reporting, the present highly agonistic style, is what’s taught in the J-schools these days. Maybe it has nothing to do with what consumers want and a lot to do with what reporters and editors want.
I also was forced to consider several different, contrasting definitions of the word “fix”. There are fix as in repair, fix as in make steady, fix meaning rig, falsify, and fix as in neutering an animal. I think the news is already fixed. Just not in the way Ms. Ripley probably means.
I think the problem is more with the audience now. May not have started that way but people want their beliefs confirmed. Suppose you could find the perfect new people who were completely unbiased? Those on the right would say they are lefties and those on the left that they were righties.
Steve
According to the article focus groups revealed that the stations weren’t giving people what they wanted and that they actually gained viewership when they changed their coverage. Doesn’t that refute your claims?
Television and print news coverage has never had the objective of “giving the lady what she wants”. It has always been “all the news that’s fit to print” with the outlet picking what’s fit.
Who signs up for focus groups? I can buy the idea that maybe people will stay with a station that has longer stories but not so much changing the other stuff.
Steve
I’m always put off by horrific crime or accident coverage that is in no way local but only included because they have film and they think I might want to be thrilled by someone else’s suffering.
Keep that local.
Another put off is the people magazine or lifestyles of the rich and famous angle, I don’t tune in to business news to hear about Bill Gates’ historic love life. I don’t care.
Otherwise, “well told” should be emphasized. Storytelling is an art, can’t be done in a clip. Time in the business is too valuable for a seven minute story.