Professional baloney
June 26th, 2009
Michael Jackson coverage on CNN.com
Yesterday’s coverage of the tragic and unexpected death of Michael Jackson made me think about the divide between traditional media and new media. For a while, I have been sensing “traditional” journalists are being self-righteous about their status and place in society. I was constantly nagged by a feeling that this is about more than ideals and standards.
While I work, I like to listen to the news on the internet. I think it was during Woff Blitzer’s show that CNN announced that Jackson had been transported to the hospital after a reported cardiac arrest. The way the story evolved and was reported on various venues got me thinking again.
TMZ.com was the first to report that Jackson was dead. For about 30-45 minutes CNN reported that he was in a coma. At the same time, TMZ and then KTLA and the Los Angeles Times had already gone live with the news that Jackson had passed away. Only some time later, CNN was reporting that “multiple sources” were reporting that Jackson was dead while making a point of stating that they had not yet “independently verified” that information.
It was this fixation on independent verification that quickly annoyed me. Now, I can understand responsible reporting, checking your facts and doing due diligence. I’m all for that. But this ostentatious dwelling on independent verification seemed to point to a deeper issue.
I don’t believe CNN was being excessively process-oriented. They like to draw out the development of a story for the suspense and greater viewership. This story evolved with protracted titillation, the CNN hype engine redlining as they jumped from expert to past Jackson associate to consultant to reporter-on-the-scene. What a blatant effort to get viewers glued to the TV!
CNN has been a leader in embracing social media elements through Twitter, Facebook and even their own iReport program. They have extensively utilized eyewitness-generated content (ad nauseam) during the recent unrest in Iran. All the while, they kept saying they could not verify these citizen-generated reports independently - but looped the same pieces of cell phone video (ad nauseam) nonetheless.
Earlier in the week, the discussion on one of the CNN shows took a tangent into the discussion of social media and citizen journalism vs. professional journalism discussion. The discussion, as I recall, rested on the conclusion that there is no substitute for professional, credentialed journalists. Apparently, only “professional” journalists are capable of investigating a story, checking facts and only they realize that what is reported must be independently verified.
This is reactionary and it’s protectionist. It’s also arrogant. While it is intended to send a subtle message that only professional journalists should be trusted. Promoting yourself as a trustworthy source of the news is one thing. Displaying an attitude that only you have a license to deliver the news betrays a Gollum-like sense of ownership of the story: “If it’s not from CNN, it didn’t happen or is not true!”
Yes, there is some really crappy writing in the bloggosphere with people talking out of the wrong ends of their digestive tracts and not checking their facts (or even being aware of the responsibility to o this). However, it seems that traditional media venues embrace social media when it increases viewership/readership or enhances their content and then turn around and disparage independent social media venues as not “professional” when those threaten their authority and livelihood.
What’s that smell?
Email & Share
June 27th, 2009 at 5:23 am
Arthur,
When I was on the road as a salesman I learned that the weakest argument for selling what I had to sell was to knock the competition. That works both ways.
Yet, I agree with the meat of your post, which is that all media is commercial. I’m old enough to remember when TV promised to be a revolution in information dissemination–we know where that media has taken us.
The jury is not out yet on so-called social media. So far, it seems like commercial manipulation and misinformation compete well with information in the blogging and social networking world. Don’t forget that circulating on Twitter recently have been reports of the death of Harrison Ford and Jeff Goldblum, neither of which have died.
It’s entirely possible in the Jackson case that the hospital, police, etc, were not releasing information to the press and the mainstream press’ inclination is not to pass on potential rumors (not that it always succeeds) because as soon as they are caught doing it, the media is once again labeled irresponsible, and often by bloggers.
June 27th, 2009 at 9:38 am
I think you’ve hit on the biggest problem with CNN and their ilk–they aren’t in the news business, they’re in the entertainment business. If you have a 24/7 time slot to fill, you need to drag out every story to fill as much time as possible, and the more sensational the story, the more it is gets strung out. Bad-mouthing your competition is all part of the game.
In CNN’s defense, other media, going back to the dawn of media, aren’t immune from the same. The muckracking journals of the 1800’s, as well as the Hearst papers of the early 1900’s, weren’t any better.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I’m a little late to this party, Arthur, but as the spouse of someone who runs an entertainment website, the instantaneous nature of the news business is what has changed the landscape. This kind of issue first came to the forefront with another untimely death, Heath Ledger’s.
At the moment the reports started coming in, much information was thrown about the web, including something along the lines of was one of the Olsen twins involved, whereas it turned out he was only renting their apartment.
Ultimately the big question in journalistic circles remains, is it better to be first or is it better to be right? And also being old enough to remember a time with only three networks (and a newspaper reader) perhaps you know where I lean.
In this most recent story, TMZ was willing to go out on a limb and be wrong with news of MJ’s death, CNN wasn’t. Now in knowing you have a pro like Blitzer (however boring sometimes) to rif for three hours to milk the story, I’m sure CNN didn’t feel the need to jump on the TMZ bandwagon - especially interesting since they are owned by the same company.
But again, there are those who want access to information regardless of where it comes from - look at any tabloid and see what their “sources” say - and others, like me, who’d rather get the real story, even if it takes a lot longer…
August 13th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Remember when CNN rushed to judgment and reported that Al Gore beat Bush in the 2000 election? And remember all the embarrassment CNN was under when they had to then retract the story and announce Bush as the winner? That was the primary reasoning behind CNN’s cautiousness with announcing MJ’s death; plus, out of respect for the family, CNN probably had to wait until they were given the okay to release the information. If competition was an issue, I think it was a minor one (though of course online media is a sore spot for “traditional” journalists). Interesting post!