Media Criticism

James O’Shea was fired this weekend by the Tribune Company over a budget dispute at the Los Angeles Times. This bit of information should not be news to anyone who has read Yahoo headlines, the Associated Press accounts or any other online newspaper in the last 24 hours. The reason why O’Shea’s dismissal from the head position at the Times is more telling than the headlines would indicate.

It is true that O’Shea could have saved his job if he had adhered quietly to the budget requirements set out by the Tribune Company’s budget mongers. It is also true that O’Shea is the third editor in three years to have left the newspaper in some capacity due to the budget. The problem with O’Shea and other editors leaving the major newspaper in one of the biggest media markets in North America is that it portends the demise of the daily newspaper.

This isn’t a eulogy for dailies by any means. There will always be a place for the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and other dailies in the hands of a select minority. The problem for earnest journalists like O’Shea is that the Internet’s ability to create eyewitness accounts of situations without the filter of the discerning journalist means that budget problems will only get worse. If a company like the Tribune Company with all of its resources cannot turn the Times around, imagine what community publishers won’t be able to do as the Internet cuts out larger chunks of their audiences.

I think that James O’Shea will land on his feet someplace with a stable, if smaller, budget while the Tribune Company will find a veteran editor looking for a pay raise for the top spot. While both sides will end up fine in the near future, media consumers will need to choose between low-budget Internet sites and high-budget (read: expensive) newspapers that may be outdated by the time they sit down for a quick read. We are in the middle of a difficult situation in the media but it looks like O’Shea’s firing won’t be an anomaly as publishers look for editors willing to sacrifice journalistic integrity for a tight budget.

As a blogger, I am realistic about the number of people who read Media Critiques. I know that my readership is relatively low though I have a number of loyal readers. I have received emails from only a handful of the individuals (or representatives of those individuals) whom I have spoke of since I started writing this summer. My writing on Media Critiques is a labor of love and a soapbox to help me get out my opinions in a crowded blogosphere.

Peter Struck from the Lapham’s Quarterly editorial board recently left a message on Media Critiques. This message along with an email with the same material criticized my initial critique of Lewis Lapham’s new publication for being misinformed. I have to stay that I am impressed that Mr. Struck has the time to scour the blogosphere for criticisms of the new publication. Thanks for reading Media Critiques, Mr. Struck!

There are a few reasons why I feel that Mr. Struck’s criticisms are not entirely correct:
1. Media Critiques is not dogmatic in its approach to criticizing the media. If Mr. Struck had read past blog entries on Carson Daly, the U.S. Postal Service and John Edwards, he would know that this blog is general in its scope. I do not stick to critiquing media outlets and publications in my daily entries.

2. While I may not have read the print edition of Lapham’s Quarterly that I briefly mentioned, I certainly read the website material. There are elements of the websites that are exclusive to the Internet but between Mr. Lapham’s preamble and the select documents available on the website, I gave a first blush about the publication. I take umbrage to the accusation that I was unprepared for this article. The scope of my entry is not what you thought it was, Mr. Struck.

3. The loyal readers of Media Critiques have an appetite for new reading material. Lapham’s Quarterly will be read by some of the blog’s viewers out of curiosity and some will enjoy the material. I was using my experience with Harper’s and my reading of the web material to formulate a preliminary opinion.

I hope that these points answer Mr. Struck’s criticisms of my blog entry. If they do not, I have to say that I am not in the business of pleasing everyone all of the time.

Anyone who has read past entries on Media Critiques is aware that I dislike the current state of polling and the use of polling by the media. Polling experts claim that the numbers they produce on topics ranging from the latest fashions to the popularity of the president can be extrapolated to the entire population. This type of certainty demonstrates a failure by seemingly intelligent pollsters to recognize that polling is a corollary of marketing and not of academia.

The impetus for my latest rage about polling comes from an article in the Columbia Journalism Review discussing a Zogby poll that claims 52% of Americans would support an attack on Iran. Writer Michael Meyer points out a number of faults with the poll including the use of only two choices to respond to a hypothetical (yes, HYPOTHETICAL) completion of nuclear weapons by Iranians in the near future. Meyer fails to point out that Zogby may be the worst of the worst when it comes to polling due to the poor wording of poll questions. I shouldn’t push Zogby polls forward as the king of bad information as every polling company shares a similar stake in my contempt.

I am not only concerned with the appearance of political support for an Iranian war inherent within the Zogby poll. My concern spreads into the 2008 presidential election where it appears that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination without a problem. The ignorance of Washington elites of what real life Americans outside of polling groups feel about the political scene gives polling its power. Polls are a gauge of the perspectives of a few people that allow politicians and executives to proceed with their own initiatives with the thin veil of public support. Polls, like the Bible, can be interpreted in a number of ways. It is time to stop giving public opinion polls such a large role in our lives and show our support for an issue by picking up a phone, putting pen to paper and screaming out loud to people in the Washington echo chamber.

The mainstream media spent its Sunday morning discussing the issue of NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams appearing on Saturday Night Live. Williams is a regular guest on NBC’s Late Night with Conan O’Brien and offers a hilarious presence on every show outside of NBC Nightly News where he is appropriately serious. I was watching Reliable Sources on CNN on Sunday morning and I was surprised that Williams’ hosting gig was even an issue. I don’t take news readers, the more appropriate name for anchors, seriously and I think that they are at least one part actor or actress.

My argument can be best made with the case of Katie Couric joining CBS in 2006. Couric replaced venerable newsman Dan Rather and brought a media circus to a position and network viewed largely by an older audience. If Couric were a serious journalist that spoke about the issues, no one would have worried about her shift from NBC to CBS. The problem is that Couric was a news reader and fluff reporter on The Today Show which requires playing to the camera instead of maintaining journalistic integrity. Brian Williams is more serious than Katie Couric but he is certainly a talking head with perfectly coifed hair and a professionalism that Edward Murrow would have appreciated.

The reason why no news anchors have hosted shows like SNL or Mad TV in the past is that there have been few characters as engaging as Brian Williams out of his environment. If Wolf Blitzer, Keith Olbermann or Bill O’Reilly hosted one of these shows, there is no chance I could watch. We need to redefine journalism to appreciate the comedic value of what Brian Williams did on Saturday night. I consider journalism the investigation of events for public dissemination. Once I see Brian Williams and others out in the field, I will begin to question their journalistic integrity.

The underlying theme of any presidential primary debate depends on who is hosting the candidates. Forums held by the AFL-CIO will probably not deal with the environment while the Logo Network debate probably won’t get too far into the Iraq War. I understand that the good graces of the host make a focused debate a necessity in order to get the best questions from the panel. The Democratic debate held on September 9th on Spanish-language channel Univision may be drawing too fine a line in pleasing constituents with debates that few people watch.

I think that Hispanic voters who are interested in the debates have probably watched the endless hours of debates already conducted across the country. The political correctness that is rife within the Democratic Party was obvious when Senator Dodd and Governor Richardson (who is HISPANIC!) tried to speak Spanish to the chagrin of hosts. Every candidate was required to speak English which was then translated into Spanish for the viewing audience. The difficulty of listening to candidates of any party lay out their talking points for an hour and a half is made more significant when it is filtered several times over.

All of these points lead to one conclusion: the primary season is not too long, just the list of debates. While I have an interest in what candidates have to say on gay marriage or the environment, I don’t want to hear 90 minutes on the topic. I have not decided who I will vote for in my primary and I definitely have not thought about the general election yet. Like most voters, I will make a decision as I approach the ballot box. These debates are focused too much on a particular issue based on questions from single-minded forum moderators and offer nothing that a look at each candidate’s website won’t yield. If the Democrats and Republicans insist on holding similar debates in future election seasons, here are a few suggestions:

1) Let local news stations host the debates, not issue-oriented groups.
2) Space these debates out so that you have no more than one every month.
3) Stay away from the YouTube debate…please!

I always find it troubling when the media participates in raising false hope when an abduction or natural disaster occurs. This has happened with mine troubles out in Colorado and West Virginia over the past few years with talking heads spending hours bandying about conjecture under the guise of keeping hope alive. The disappearance of adventurer Steve Fossett on Monday has led to a week’s worth of stories stating that wreckage was found that was likely linked to Fossett.

The most difficult part of this type of disappearance is that there is no rhyme or reason to it. Steve Fossett has gone around the world in a balloon and a number of other daring feats that make a three hour flight seem routine. The press pushes local police departments and search teams for details in order to glean something newsworthy from their hopeful words. If Steve Fossett is found dead, the media as an institution will be happy because they can eulogize this great man without discussing the series of stories that built up the nation for a fall.

I don’t think this type of information is worth more than a few minutes each day on the news to update the public on the situation. Police crews, state search and rescue crews and family members will conduct their search without the help of the public. In fact, they should be given a wide berth to make their search without interference by the media or prying eyes. Cable networks and news papers are just showing their voyeuristic nature when they cover Steve Fossett’s disappearance endlessly.

In the last few years, the accessibility of blogging has grown. Along with it, so has the community of people who can now publish whatever they want whenever they want. Some are immensely popular and may even prove to be excellent resources. Others are just personal places to vent and rant. Either way, there’s little question that blogs have changed the way we receive information.

Blogs have changed the way we view the media in a few ways. One, journalism is more transparent. With all of the commentary floating around about certain events, it’s easier to spot bias and spin in the media. Two, I think people are inspired to think and write.

Before the blogging era, only a select group of people could publish information for all the world to read. Now, anybody with an e-mail address and the writing ability of a squirrel can start his/her own website. This has advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, it’s possible to access a wealth of information and analysis never before available. However, the disadvantages to a completely unfiltered blogosphere are twofold. One, the sheer number of blogs makes finding the right one difficult; you can find yourself wading through thousands of posts that say little more than “I HATE BUSH LOLZ” or “STUPID HIPPY LIBERALS OMFG”. This is the downside to letting literally anybody publish anything: the quality of content certainly decreases. Two, with no content filter or editing, there’s no guarantee that anything you find on a blog (including this one) is true.

However, I think the most important aspect of the interaction of blogs and the media stems from this disadvantage. It’s common knowledge that ABC News, CNN, and Fox News are better resources than, say, this blog. People, therefore, have to be more discerning about their sources of information, especially when they read news online. This improves our interaction with the media in two ways. One, the days of “it’s written down; therefore, it’s true” are over. It’s easy to question mainstream journalism now that there are so many alternative sources. Two, because news organizations are businesses, they necessarily respond to the needs of the consumer. As the consumer becomes more aware of the media and their faults, he/she will demand higher quality journalism. The news sources that deliver will stay alive; those that provide low-quality journalism will eventually go out of business.

Of course, the negative side to this argument is that the people don’t always demand the highest quality journalism. Celebrity gossip is always popular, and the blogging world only fuels that fire. Look how many blogs we have at 451 Press dedicated to celebrities and pop culture.

We’ll continue to write, and we hope that people will continue to read.

Blogs, Blogging, Journalism, Media

President Bush today spoke about the continuation of the Iraq war in no uncertain terms: he plans to stay the course until September, when General Petraeus reports on the situation. This is also when the funding bill for the war is up for renewal, and the only thing more important to President Bush than political progress in Iraq is political progress here at home. He has been facing opposition from Democrats for awhile now, but high-profile Republicans are beginning to break rank. The war position is no longer tenable, and Americans want us out.

What’s interesting to note from today’s Reuters article regarding the war is the amount of unopposed anti-war speech that is quoted. Remember, many of those who are publicly coming out against the war voted for it in the first place. Additionally, until now, these leaders have been quietly voting to continue funding the Iraq war as it is being conducted. Why? The political fallout for supporting the war was less than the fallout for voting against funding the troops. Now, however, the tide has turned.

One year ago, it would have been detrimental for a candidate to be strongly anti-war. Now, congressional and presidential candidates alike are trying to get their anti-war statements into the paper. There’s nothing the journalism business likes more than seeing a president backed into a corner, and with all-time low approval ratings and all-time high anti-war sentiment, it’s not likely we’ll see the Iraq story anywhere but the front page.

In this case, the interests of the media and the interests of the American public are working together. People are hungry to read about the next move in Iraq which, in turn, keeps the issue prominent in the world of journalism. Sensationalism is serving us well today.

As the new author of Media Criticism, I thought it would be appropriate to give a quick background on my theory of the media and why critical analysis of the media is necessary. There are three facts about the media which define the way I will analyze it:

1. The media in our country is free. This means that media is not controlled by the government, and that the government does not have the absolute power to suppress stories. This does not mean, however, that the government does not influence the media.

2. The media is biased. Regardless of where one falls on the political spectrum, it is impossible for one to ignore bias in the media. Remember that journalists are human beings, and therefore, the news reported comes through a human filter. There are conservative news sources and liberal news sources; I hope to bash both frequently.

3. The media is business. When discussing the media, many often throw around the phrase “journalistic integrity” which is defined by the so-called “duty of journalists.” This is misleading; in a perfect society, the journalist’s job would be to inform objectively. However, we must remember that a journalist’s first job (in a capitalist country with the a free press) is to sell newspapers.

With that in mind, let’s begin. Thanks for stopping by Media Criticism.