“Endangered” Newspapers – Are Journalists Part of The Problem?
Friday, February 13th, 2009Diane Tucker of the Huffington Post picked up an old article of mine where I had basically said there was close to nothing papers could do to get me to read them (at least physical copies) because of how easy it is to either find, or be pointed to, news online.
One very valid rebuttal from the comments (and indeed, one that Diane Tucker alludes to in her post) is that mainstream newspapers need to be around to publish news online in the first place, in order for us to be pointed to them. Additionally, the advantage of the papers is the depth and analysis that can theoretically be reaped, which can offset the speed of online news.
All good in theory, but I still have an issue. Yesterday there were two people who were talking about how they were interviewed by mainstream media, and how what they said were either taken out of context or edited in such a way that their original points weren’t made in the original manner.
First of all, let me say, I get it. That’s their job. No one wants to read about a “fine and dandy” newspaper piece. If that’s the tone of the article, somehow it’s in the journalists’ interest to try their best to switch things around and make it more “newsworthy”.
But here’s the thing: As more and more of these instances happen, and more and more of the people interviewed use the internet as their “channel” to get their side of the story out, how much beating will journalists (and by extension, newspapers) credibility take?
How long will it be before all of us being interviewed bring along a Flip cam to record the entire interview, and then repost that online as raw footage to capture the essence of what was said, and use it as a comparative study with the shadow of that essence that journalists twist it into? It is already so easy to create original content and post it up online, and can only get easier as technology improves. Will this have to be the new way of “fact checking” the media?
How many of us, who will be communicating with the media in five, ten, fifteen years, will have unpleasant instances with journalists, combined with the rise of digital media and distribution (yes, it will happen), and begin to avoid the journalists whenever possible?
How many journalists will continue to, for the sake of a “story”, mold their “angle” at the expense of a good, professional relationship with the person at the other end of the interview?
How long before this we see a “blacklist” of journalists guilty of consistently shaping a story to suit their angle, and use that as a warning system to other communication professionals a la Chris Anderson’s PR blacklist?
Of course, I don’t write this post saying everyone in journalism acts this way. As with every profession, there will be the irresponsible and the responsible. Fortunately (or unfortunately, for journalists), that industry is one that is under scrutiny right now, and such acts are not as easy to get away with.
I’ve had great newspaper articles in which I was quoted as a source, and I would not hesitate to help when such a relationship is built on trust, but the more I hear about people being disappointed about how journalists have twisted their words, the more I feel wary about journalists I don’t know.
It’s not about control of the message anymore. In a few years, when it’ll be easy enough to set up a [Company X] channel, it might not even be about reach anymore. The temptation of bypassing mainstream media channels can only grow, and how responsibly or irresponsibly the mainstream media “gatekeepers” act, may well be a determining factor on how big or small that temptation is.
Tags: chris anderson, comparative study, diane tucker, endangered newspapers, fact checking the media, flip cam, gatekeepers, Gen Y, huffington post, journalists, PR blacklist
