Mainstream Media Buffeted In 2004 By Right And Left
December 23, 2004
By LIZ HALLORAN, Courant Staff Writer
It's been quite a year for the nation's traditional media: scandal, consolidation, layoffs, attacks, fabrication and an ongoing struggle to keep readers and viewers.
2004 may very well be remembered as the year the media got shock treatment.
While great work was done, the media was buffeted by partisans on the left and right. Needled by an explosion of bloggers critical of news reporting. Embarrassed by pre-war reporting lapses. Shamed by plagiarism, fabrication and circulation fraud.
And it struggled amid creeping media consolidation to keep up with the demands of a 24-hour news cycle while trying to maintain a quality report - often with fewer people.
We have asked a number of media experts and critics to make sense of events and to reflect on what they believe has been the year's biggest media story - the one that will have the most lasting effect on the business.
None of the answers we got were precisely the same, though most point to a continuing crisis within the traditional media and concern about where it all will lead. Here's what they had to say:
Jeffrey Dvorkin, ombudsman, National Public Radio
"The most important change, in my opinion, was the increasingly defensive posture that most journalistic organizations have assumed in order to avoid any charge of media bias. As a result of the stridency of talk radio, cable TV shows, media watchdogs and bloggers, mainstream media has sought to avoid controversy, even when it goes against their own journalistic values.
"Sloppy journalism at CBS, the New York Times and the BBC have also contributed. The slow but steady increase of ombudsmen at media organizations also indicates that many media organizations know that something has gone wrong in their world."
Geneva Overholser, the Curtis B. Hurley Chair in public affairs reporting, Missouri School of Journalism, Washington bureau
"This was the year when it finally became unmistakably clear that objectivity has outlived its usefulness as an ethical touchstone for journalism. The way it is currently construed, "objectivity" makes the media easily manipulable by an executive branch intent on and adept at controlling the message. It produces a rigid orthodoxy, excluding voices beyond the narrowly conventional.
"And it leads to a false balance of `on the one hand, on the other hand' stories that make the two `hands' appear equal even when factual weight lies 98 percent on one side. Objectivity's most effective use today is as a cudgel in the hands of those who wish to beat up on the media."
Steve Lovelady, managing editor of Campaigndesk.org, and former newspaper and magazine editor
"I think the most important media story of the year was the way in which the press was so easily manipulated by spin machines all the way through the election campaign, partly thanks to the fact that it was hopelessly hobbled by some of its own outdated conventions and frameworks. And that, in turn, is related to its embarrassing performance in 2003 on weapons of mass destruction and on the question of an Iraqi tie to 9/11.
"[It is also related to] its inability to be as nimble or fast on its feet as some blogs, and to continuing media consolidation, which invariably leaves editors with less staff and less space to make sense of the world for their readers. In some fairly scary ways, it all dovetails together."
Reese Schonfeld, co-founder of CNN and international cable network developer
"One of the most significant media stories was Rupert Murdoch's acquisition of DirecTV. Now he automatically has distribution for any network he wants to launch nationwide. None of the other major media companies are national. It gives him the freedom to launch anything he wants to launch.
"Now he's got the power, and Rupert knows how to use the power. If he wants to replace CNN International with Sky News, he can. He is the first major cable network provider to have access to a nationwide audience. It may make EchoStar [another national satellite cable provider] the most valuable company in the next year, and it wouldn't surprise me if someone like Sony or Viacom or NBC started looking at this."
William Powers, National Journal columnist
"The war coverage. The realization this year that the government had a huge intelligence failure going into the war, but the media also had an intelligence failure. We didn't get to the bottom of the story before this war was launched. We didn't see through some of these false claims.
"It's a really large failure, and there's been a quiet recognition of this. But it hasn't become the scandal of the hour, and it ought to be. If we can learn anything from this it's to question more rigorously intelligence the government claims to have and to do the due diligence. I don't pretend it's easy. But it was a massive failure overshadowed by little brush fires.
"The fact is we didn't get the facts going in, no matter where you come down on the war."
Walter Shapiro, author and former USAToday national political columnist
"We may look back 10 years from now and say this is when print media hit its tipping point. I'm a newspaper junkie, I wrote a newspaper column, but at least twice a week now, because I go online and check news sites, I leave the house without having read the paper. A year ago, the idea that I could leave the house without reading three newspapers would have been unfathomable to me.
"I'm getting news from newspaper websites, and sometimes it's just Mickey Kaus [on Slate.com] and Wonkette.com. We're getting into newspaper substitution land. This is the first time in my life that I worry that the first [morning] newspapers are in jeopardy. I grew up with newspapers. I'm the right demographic. And if I'm trying to find out if there is time to read the papers, imagine what the casual reader is going through."
Matthew Felling, media director for the Center for Media and Public Affairs
"Many say 2004 was the year of the blog, and they suggest that blogs are going to change journalism. But blogs are going to enhance reporting, not change it. They're the spicy sausage in journalistic jambalaya, making it more interesting.
"No, 2004 is going to be the year that Politics Permeated Pop Culture. From Michael Moore to conservativematch.com to the bestseller lists to rock concerts, politics regained its status as barroom argument staple, as it was in Colonial times. The current overhyped `values' debate is an offshoot of that as well.
"Will it last? Afraid not. Mitch Albom's treacly apolitical book is No. 1, JonBenet's back on TV and it's tougher to argue cabinet appointments over a cold one."
Jack Shafer, media columnist for Slate.com
"The Newsday/Hoy/Chicago Sun-Times/Dallas Morning news circulation scandal."
Daniel Okrent, The New York Times' public editor
"We all see things from our own perspective, but I think it was the way both the left and the right were primed and armed to assault the press. I felt this very keenly in my job when complaints came to me. There was a determination, a vigilance that staggered me. There was intimidation and self-dealing.
"It was amazing to me that Adam [Nagourney, the Times' national political reporter] and his colleagues can still keep their eyes on the ball. Obviously, everybody's got to be on their toes all the time to do a fair job and complete job, you have to not be intimidated but also not ignore it. I think it can affect what's in the paper - Ed Wasserman (Washington and Lee University journalism professor) calls it `negotiated news,' where the response is dictated by efforts to keep people off your back instead of what you deal in - news.
"[The barrage] has tailed off substantially since the election, but it will start up again with the first Supreme Court appointment. I hope it comes after May 31st when I'm done with my job. Hang in there Mr. Rehnquist!"
Barry Sussman, editor of NiemanWatchdog Project and former newspaper editor
"We learned two main things about the news media in 2004: First they do some great work, large organizations and small ones both. Second, get past the great work, and the rest tends to be mediocre to poor to a disservice. No sense of what's important, what's not. One- or two-day stories that became regular beats; stories of immense importance ignored altogether. Network TV disappeared from view."
"But one great story stands out in my mind so vividly was a joint effort by the Washington Post and [PBS's] `Frontline' in which a number of Post reporters and `Frontline' spoke about the Iraq War. It was just a stunner. I'm not used to seeing things that good, and TV is such a marvelous vehicle for reporters who are knowledgeable.
"The problem is that what sticks in the mind isn't the good work, but rather the failures. I think the failures are systemic. It's the way the owners and chief editors want it. They don't want to rock the boat. They set the tone, and reporters are quick to understand. They won't do better until the publishers and chief editors want to do better."
ctnow.com |
