In Chapter 6 of Digital Disconnect by Robert W.
McChensey, he brings a lot of issues up about the journalism of today that I
think need to be addressed. In general, that fact that the New York Times is called the “the worst newspaper in the world-except
for all others” speaks to the decline in newspapers since the beginning of the
digital age. The chapter talks about the heavy layoffs in the industry as well
as the decrease in frequency of publishing the news.
One of the more concerning
things in the chapter was about what the loss of journalism means. McChensey
gives the example of the explosion in West Virginia that killed 29 coal miners.
The Washington Post and New York Times did exposes after the
mine exploded and found that the mine had over a thousand safety violations. The
problem with this is that the records were available giving this information
before the event happened which means that “we are entering an era of ’hindsight’
in journalism.” (181) That’s a huge problem that journalism doesn't prevent
problems by making them public anymore but rather they report the issues after
they happen.
As a future Public Relations
employee I shouldn't have a problem with the fact that the Pew Center “found official
press releases often appear(ing) word for word” in news stories. But I do, because that means that journalism isn't
being done as much as it was in the past. Right
now the ratio between PR people and journalists are 4:1. Public relations
professionals are supposed to persuade and journalists are supposed to be
objective. You can’t just get rid of journalism and replace it with press
releases from public relations professionals. It changes what news is all together.
However, I think his most
interesting point was about the Wiki Leaks
situation in relation to satisfactory journalism. McChesney writes that to some
that Wiki Leaks released an immense amount of secret US documents between 2009
and 2011 is an example of investigative journalism at its best and a demonstration
of the power of the Internet as an informational source. However, it was only
after journalists wrote about the releasing of the documents that it came to the
public’s attention. Journalism was
needed to give the material credit and to analyze what it meant. McChensey made his opinion known about the
scandal with the strong words he uses on page 196. He writes that the US journalism
stood by meekly when the government took steps to render Wiki Leaks ineffective
and that “all the signs suggest that Wiki Leaks, rather than being the harbinger
of a new era, may have been the last gasp of an old one.” (196)
All of this to me is depressing.
What has happened to journalism? What parts of the loss of journalism struck you?
Do you agree with McChesney about Wiki Leaks?
I enjoyed reading your blog, Caroline. I definitely agree with what you said about journalism and press releases. From interning a news station over the summer, McChesney’s point that you brought up in your post is definitely true. Many of the stories we posted on the station’s website and covered on the news were press releases from local colleges, universities, businesses, and hospitals. These places wanted to promote new ventures in their respective fields. However, we did not deliver them to the public word for word because the station thought that would be too easy. Instead, we simply rewrote them. I don’t see this as any different from posting them word for word since it’s the same message, but the producers there did. I think press releases are so popular to cover because they are easy to report since the PR rep did the work, and the story has plenty of official sources in the piece that journalists can rely on which McChesney states as being a problem with journalism today.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, I thought the most shocking part about the declining of journalism is how unfair coverage has become. McChesney says that the news is geared towards the rich which causes lower income people to be hit the hardest: “They are the least attractive group commercially, so labor news aimed at the bottom third or half of the population began to decline decades ago” (182). It is sad that just because these groups of people are not as “commercially attractive” as the upper class, they do not receive news that pertains to them.
Thank you for your response, Jordan! I agree with you in that the unfair coverage is a very shocking aspect in the decline of news. I think that the lower income people do need to receive news that pertains to them maybe even more than the rich people do.
DeleteI had a similar experience as you, Jordan, at a local newspaper. The editors were desperate for content, regardless of whether it adhered to journalistic standards. While the situation was frustrating, the editors had little choice but to print press releases, largely because they were free stories that filled the pages of a paper with dwindling profits. It is the unfortunate reality of the journalism industry, especially because the internet could have served as a revival for journalism because of its structure as a platform that promotes, hypothetically, equal access to content, production, and commentary for its users. As McChesney pointed out, the problem with online journalism derives from the open approach it took from the beginning, not anticipating a need for pay walls or additional revenue from online divisions. I know that the traditional media industry is working to mitigate the damages, but it is a difficult problem to solve because the precedent of free content is already set.
ReplyDeleteThank you for commenting, Rachel! I agree with you that the internet could have served as a revival for journalism but failed to with not anticipating a need for pay walls. The precedent of free content is indeed already set and I really doubt people will want to start paying for it now.
Delete