Why So Much Modern Reporting Bothers Us
June 8, 2010
Author 
In Scott Rosenberg recently wrote a piece titled: no more bouncers at the journalism club door. It’s a good read and Scott makes quite a logical case that anyone can now do journalism. I agree, it’s no longer a special skill set unique to a select few. When every company is a media company and anyone can do journalism, the strategies of pure media companies and pure content creators needs to change.
The whole article linked above is worth reading, but one bit from it stood out as worth reiterating, which highlights why much modern reporting tends to bother us:
The phenomenon is this: There’s an inverse relationship between the amount of knowledge you have on a given topic and your level of satisfaction with the media coverage of that topic.
More simply: the better you know a subject the more you think its coverage stinks.
And that’s one of the (many) reasons traditional media outlets have been disrupted. In essence, those of us with the most passion about a subject can cover it in a way that is more meaningful to industry insiders than any outsider can.
If you’re versed in a subject, immersed in niche digital channels where deep discussions happen surrounding the subject and see mainstream media covering it at the shallow level, it tends to bother you.
Has this happened to you? Have you read an article on a subject you have knowledge in and thought the reporting was lacking? If so, why haven’t you decided to do something about this and engage in journalism yourself?
This applies to companies as much as individuals, and this frustration marks an opportunity for the intrepid few willing to go deeper into subjects than most who merely flirt with the surface.
That’s the strategy: go deeper, cover in more depth and provide sharper analysis than anyone else can. Sustain this over long periods of time and become the go-to source within the industry. Both pure media companies and companies with something to sell (whether services or products) can do this. In time, they’ll even attract other media, looking for glimpses into the inner workings of the industry (they’ll quote you, interview you or link to you – transferring authority to you).
If your media is the variety that scratches an itch no one else can find, you’ll influence a niche more than the shallow reporting that now just tends to bother us.
Sam Sweeney replied | Jun 8, 2010 (1 comment)
This reminds me of an interesting article I recently read about news/journalism. It had some good stuff to say. http://iloapp.quelsolaar.com/blog/news?Home&post=73
I often get some giggles with the MSN / Windows Live popup box which displays a slider to control which type of content you want; News or Goss.
So it starts at goss with the headline “It’s official: Destiny’s Child will never reunite” which is not so strange, but when you slide it to ‘News’ you get stories like “Cheap stunt: Katy Perry gets catty over Lady Gaga”.
Ed Walker replied | Jun 10, 2010 (8 comments)
I agree with your post to an extent. I am a journalist and I am not an expert on planning laws etc, but I attend a lot of planning meetings and report on stories. I ask questions (a lot of the time, they are probably dumb sounding ones) about these planning applications. I report what happens at these meetings to a wider audience, in plain, easy to understand language. If I was a planning expert, I think I’d struggle to make it easily understood by the local population – who the majority, like me, aren’t planning experts.
So yes, perhaps in the case of ‘specialist journalism’ the reporting isn’t good enough for the niche – but on a mass level it’s still important to have journalist’s who can scratch the surface of complex issues. The web is good because it allows people to explore those complex issues quicker and easier than before.
SoCalGal replied | Jun 22, 2010 (1 comment)
Journalism is in serious decline today. Why? Because the profession of journalism lets every Tom, Dick ‘n Harry call him/herself a journalist. Wait a minute, journalism isn’t a profession; it’s a J-O-B.
Here’s the bottom of the barrel, yet she’s a “journalist” just as you are, Mr. Rosenberg. (After reading her piece, you’ll no doubt want to take a shower.)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/the_freak_of_the_week_l0a8Hm4OcLKKWaeakydEnN
Professor John C. Merrill of the University of Missouri writes:
[quote] Journalism around the world is in a chaotic, fragmented, unethical and largely anti-social state. [...] Journalism is losing its appeal to serious, moral persons and is becoming simply another business enterprise. The “bottom line” has become the objective in the media world—not public enlightenment and social progress.
It has become evident that the gulf between freedom and responsibility is as wide as ever. There need not be an incompatibility between the two; a free media system can also be responsible and qualitative. Under the present systems in the world, however, this is virtually impossible.
What is needed is a fusion—a dialectic that brings freedom and responsibility together. This can only be done by professionalizing journalism. In other words, making journalism a true profession—self-controlling and providing high standards—for the members of the profession.
Licensing, yes. Entrance exams, yes. Quality control, yes. A method of expelling unprofessional members, yes. Continuing education, yes. Mastery of a body of knowledge, yes. But all of these things would be done by the profession itself. No outside interference. No external control. The profession would be the authority. The profession would be free of outside interference. The profession would regulate itself, choose its members, and limit their activities. In short the profession would be free and at the same time would set standards and control itself.
The crux of the media ethics problem, contrary to much academic opinion, is simple. We have generally believed that ethical action can come only from autonomous or freely determined persons. We have come to assume that there must be no coercion of the mass communicator for ethics to kick in. Therefore if the communicator is under some kind of external control, ethics becomes a kind of non-concept, not applicable. And so arises the media ethics problem. It seems that freedom speaks louder than ethics. If I (or my mass medium) is to be ethical, it must be autonomous in its decision-making. [quote]
So, no, not just anyone can do journalism, in my opinion. When there’s no bouncer at the door, what you get is Andrea Peyser. Ugh.
Dylan replied | Oct 25, 2010 (3 comments)
This seems to be relevant for people on the news and information track. I believe that if you have an issue with how things are being done, no matter in what area, you should take an active role in resolving the issue by educating yourself more and then sharing with others.