Starving for fact
I ran across a well-written column from ESPN's ombudsman about how sports media handles news reporting. After watching ESPN talking heads loudly spout uninformed opinions about anything and everything, it's unnerving to see one of their employees write some thoughtful self-criticism (though that is her job, I suppose).
What struck me about her observations is how the blurred line between opinion and fact can be too easily applied to cable news media as well. Too much analysis from "experts" with questionable credentials, and too few attempts to dig deep into the story.
I find it problematic that the main goal of major media outlets isn't actually to inform the public--it is to make money. Informing the public is merely the means to an end. I'm not trying to suggest that accurate reporting isn't a priority, because it clearly is; however, it seems that it is merely a means to an end.
Perhaps this is a cynical viewpoint, but one that certainly explains the vapid analysis, sensationalist stories, and most glaringly, the increasing amount of time devoted to celebrity gossip. How else to explain coverage of Anna Nicole and Britney (whose last name no longer needs mention)?
With sports reporting, you could argue that there isn't enough material to fill up 24 hours of cable TV, but it's difficult to defend cable news in the same way. There's plenty of stuff happening around the world that could be reported, if anyone thought the audience were interested. But since the main objective is to get the audience to watch, there is no incentive for 24-hour reporting to achieve its vast potential. Imagine if the networks made informing the public and challenging their perceptions a priority...I'm not sure if the viewing audience would respond or simply change the channel to the E! network.
Ack, I'm tired of thinking about this. Back to my incessant football blogging...
What struck me about her observations is how the blurred line between opinion and fact can be too easily applied to cable news media as well. Too much analysis from "experts" with questionable credentials, and too few attempts to dig deep into the story.
I find it problematic that the main goal of major media outlets isn't actually to inform the public--it is to make money. Informing the public is merely the means to an end. I'm not trying to suggest that accurate reporting isn't a priority, because it clearly is; however, it seems that it is merely a means to an end.
Perhaps this is a cynical viewpoint, but one that certainly explains the vapid analysis, sensationalist stories, and most glaringly, the increasing amount of time devoted to celebrity gossip. How else to explain coverage of Anna Nicole and Britney (whose last name no longer needs mention)?
With sports reporting, you could argue that there isn't enough material to fill up 24 hours of cable TV, but it's difficult to defend cable news in the same way. There's plenty of stuff happening around the world that could be reported, if anyone thought the audience were interested. But since the main objective is to get the audience to watch, there is no incentive for 24-hour reporting to achieve its vast potential. Imagine if the networks made informing the public and challenging their perceptions a priority...I'm not sure if the viewing audience would respond or simply change the channel to the E! network.
Ack, I'm tired of thinking about this. Back to my incessant football blogging...
