This week, the MatadorNetwork, an online travel magazine and forum, said no to a feature video about Japan. It was, one could argue, a stupid move; that video, which the Matador editors had first dibs on, was later featured on Gawker, among other sites, and cost Matador significant amounts of traffic as a result. After all, in a 24-hour news cycle, news organizations have to constantly compete to cover an issue first and from the most angles. It seems to hurt the disaster victims as well: isn’t more coverage of a crisis inherently better than less coverage?
Not according to Leigh Shulman, an editor at Matador, who wrote this extraordinarily conscientious piece about why the editorial team decided not to run the video. In it, she distinguishes between journalism in the public interest versus just for the public appetite (“feeding the beast,” as it’s often called), and she makes the case that truly valuable news outlets show their value in what they do not publish as well as what they do. She poses the following questions both to Gawker and also to all of us who instantly shift our consumption loyalties to the journalist with something “new” to tell us:
What does Gawker hope to gain by posting this video? Is it helpful? Does it bring attention to a story that people need to hear? Is there any reason the people of the United States or the rest of the world need to watch a video [like this]?….Of course, as a media outlet, we at Matador cannot simply ignore major world news events, but what is the best way to cover them?
via Creative Commons license search, "Geek&Poke Blog."
It is a question that is increasingly relevant as news outlets juggle their bottom lines against their time lines. When push comes to shove, what sets one cable station apart from another? The answer is too often the “spin” that it applies to a situation (hi, MSNBC and Fox!) rather than the ethics behind its efforts to publicize certain events in the first place. Is it appropriate for a site to pick up a story just because “everyone else is talking about it,” even if that site didn’t want to say anything about it the first time around? Fallout from a Politico expose on issues like how much Sarah Palin’s election wardrobe cost ended up leading to front page NYTimes articles, but should the NYTimes instead have put its foot down and refused to cover “unproductive” topics in the civic sphere? Should we have different expectations for what, say, Gawker will print compared to the Wall Street Journal?
Some may argue that this a futile, passe discussion regardless, because the Internet and social media have taken away the traditional media’s role as the bestowers of “newsworthiness.” I disagree. According to a pilot portion of a 2010 Pew study of urban news ecosystems, eight out of ten “news” stories simply repackaged previously published information and the reporting that did exist was driven heavily by the traditional media. In that regard, at least, the TPM still holds a lot of power. The question instead is what will it decide to do – and NOT do – with that power in the wake of disaster.
Great Post! Although I agree that there should be some sort of material filter on news outlets to ensure that they publish what is relevant for citizens, who is to decide what news is “worth” publication? Indeed, there are plenty of stories that should clearly be published to inform citizens (ex. Presidential press conferences, town hall meetings, debates, etc.), but what about cooking recipes or gardening tips? Certainly, cooking recipes do not make for better informed voters, but they do make for a cosmopolitan society (Cass Sunstein discusses this “street corner” effect in his book, Republic 2.0). In that respect, cooking recipes and gardening tips may not be beneficial to political discourse, but they are a valuable component of traditional news.
Also, I think your post touches on a very important issue of our time: whether news organizations cheapen their own material by over reporting on an issue. With so much news flying at consumers 24 hours a day, many consumers can and do simply tune out. When tuned-out consumers relegate news about important matters (such as politics and the economy) to the same level as news stories about Brittany Spears’ relationship, the effect severely endangers the well being of democracy.
I certainly agree that all too often new media focuses on angles that are salacious in order to draw eyes and site traffic rather than angles that will enrich deliberation. I think there was a lot of this going on in the healthcare debate. The media didn’t help us understand a complicated issue. Rather they focused on the petty drama, like Ms. Palin’s “death panel” speech. And, I also agree that journalism should be a civic craft and as writers I know we both think quite a bit about how what we are writing can affect the public sphere and democracy.
Buuuuuut, I do think reporting on disasters intensely the days after they happen is crucial in establishing for the world the severity of the situation. I think we focus on disasters right as they happen, because we are all trying to figure out how bad things really are. This helps build awareness, but also, helps raise funds often. Of course, it’s problematic that we seldom hear about disasters like the AIDs epidemic or food crisis that aren’t marked by some huge catastrophic event. And it’s also terrible that we rarely hear about these catastrophes 6 months after they happen. I haven’t heard about Pakistani flood for example, since it happened. But, I don’t think over-reporting an international disaster is a huge moral problem. I much prefer it to over-reporting on Lindsay Lohan.
And, while I haven’t seen it, I also think showing ignorance on tape isn’t always a bad thing. These videos are often valuable past their mere shock value: we send them to each other to show ignorance that exists still in the world. I think reminding the public that bigotry and hatred in overt and subtler forms persists can be important. Shock value often gets in the way of news, but in certain cases it offers an entry point to important discussions. While, like I said, I haven’t seen the video, it is possible that this is one of those cases.
I’d argue that there’s a huge difference between thinking that the video is a fake (something mentioned in the article) and thinking that it’s unimportant. A probable fake should never be run, whereas unimportant is a judgment call.
The question then becomes why this video is unimportant. The article says that it’s a video of people thanking god for answering their prayers for something that would teach atheists a lesson. If it’s not a hoax, I think that’s a very important video. Atheists are the most hated and distrusted minority community in the world (http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/) and that’s not something that many people are aware of.
It’s important to track hate, and exposing hate speech related to the tsunami (because that’s what it sounds like this is) can have value if it inspires revulsion toward those who spread that hatred and compel us to question critically how they formed their views.
If you are a website that focuses on soccer, why suddenly start putting up stuff about basketball? Your point makes sense: a travel magazine should not publish something that belongs in a news network. However, that doesn’t mean that it should entirely ignore it. One of the great things about the internet is that it can make different organizations more interconnected through (pardon the redundancy) linking. This will make citizens all around the world more conscious of what is happening while exposing them to interests that they might have otherwise not known about.
I think Alf’s point is quite relevant.
Whether or not a travel site should post a video with vitriolic political content is debatable, but whether or not the video should or not be “aired,” so to speak, is an entirely different question.
As Rachel indicated, if it brings to light an issue many may be unaware of, it’s perfectly deserving of a prominent place on the internet.
We had a situation here where – the govt channel abc tv completely missed the major events happening in Japan. They have a specific world news channel their main channel is mainly for political local and world updates. However at the time of the quake completely missed the focus and had old reruns of shows on for at least 24 hours. Anyway my point is the issue is global and we could learn from these mistakes. John
I think the point you make about media outlets being more cognizant of what they should and should not publish or air is an extremely noteworthy one. But, I think it’s also important to recognize that the business model of these media outlets, and economics of journalism these days in general, require that journalists be less strict with the material they decide to publish. Regardless of substance, getting clicks and advertising revenue is crucial to many of these sites. If the best way to do that is to publish something that people will want to see/read/hear, then I don’t know if you can blame these sites for trying to stay ahead of a competitor.
This is great post and I agree of your post.The media didn’t help us understand a complicated issue. Rather they focused on the petty drama, like Ms. Palin’s “death panel” speech. And, I also agree that journalism should be a civic craft and as writers I know we both think quite a bit about how what we are writing can affect the public sphere and democracy.It’s important to track hate, and exposing hate speech related to the tsunami.
Of course, I thought I’d let you know that’s a great blog with tons of useful information. Thanks a ton!
Good information
An impressive creation of blog. I’ve found many excellent points that are very useful for the people. A job well-done for the administrator behind this blog.
The media seems to move in a herd mentality, changing direction quickly to whatever is “new” at the moment. Very few of the media care to follow-up stories that keep getting pushed off the front pages by the next “new” item. I would, to an extent, disagree that “that truly valuable news outlets show their value in what they do not publish as well as what they do”. Rather, I would say that that truly valuable news outlets show their value in what they keep their eyes on once the herd has moved on.
When I finished reading this blog, it is so fantastic and adorable… It showcased the intellectual side of the person who made this blog. I and absolutely other people who can read this blog will surely salute to the blogger.!
Wow! thanks for sharing this kind of post it is so wonderful and realistic.This is so informative and very helpful in me. Hope too see some more of your posts God Bless and Good Luck.
Great blog post, continue the good work!