Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (46244)	7/21/1999 3:25:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Christopher, it is very hard to discuss something with someone who claims, as you do, to have expertise in so many different fields. I spent years working full-time as a journalist, and I feel I DO have a better handle on the profession than you do. However, I do not claim to know anything about the Law. I'll get around to your specific points later, if you don't mind. Joan

To: The Philosopher who wrote (46244)	7/21/1999 7:00:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Follow-up on the media... Christopher, I will respond to your points, but not in the order in which you made them. I will begin with those points that stem -- again -- from a misreading of what I wrote. The Conclusion. I wrote: "The problem with the mainstream press, in my opinion, is not that it is politically 'biassed' towards the left or right wing of this spectrum, but that it is not intellectually adventurous and/or inclusive enough." Your response: "My point is that there should be NO views, accepted, left, right, in news coverage." Did I maintain otherwise?? All I meant to convey in my conclusion is that certain TOPICS are ignored, or skimped on, by the mainstream press. Of course, I am just as much in favor of "objectivity" in news coverage as you are; after all, I did point out that "objectivity" is the mantra of journalism. 1) Advertisers. (My emphases.) I wrote: "You also completely overlook the influence of advertisers. Not that they dictate content. But the desire not to "offend" advertisers often leads publishers, editors, and reporters to engage in *sometimes almost unconscious self-censorship,* a very prevalent phenomenon." Your response: "..It always surprises me how little influence advertisers have on media content." As you can see, I never said they had influence on specific content. But if you never noticed the prevalence of self-censorship, you missed a lot during your journalistic career. I should no doubt clarify: it is not so much a matter of offending a particular advertiser, as of challenging the whole corporate structure, of "biting the hand that feeds you," as it were. So certain subjects are simply not covered. And that is why you are unlikely ever to see an article like Edward Herman's in the mainstream press. 2. Role of reporters. I wrote: "The higher up on the totem pole of your media organization you are, the more latitude you have in choosing what stories you are going to write about. But most reporters are assigned stories." Your response: "Feature reporters are assigned stories by editors...But beat reporters...have more scope to decide what they will write about..." Beat reporters are higher on the totem pole than feature reporters, or, for that matter, general-assignment reporters. But even then, they are usually expected to cover what the editors consider the "major stories" first. Let me take an example with which I am very familiar. Suppose you are a bureau chief in a high-profile post, such as Moscow. You get a message from the editor saying "The big story of the day is Yeltsin's operation. Please get us a piece ASAP." You may think Yeltsin's operation is of no consequence whatsoever, in comparison with some OTHER story that is brewing. But you had better give the editor what he wants first. (And if you are in radio, it's even worse, because they will expect you to produce five or six updates on that same story. Some radio people NEVER get out of the office to "cover" anything. They are kept busy rewriting wire copy all day for the insatiable folks back home.) Or, let us say, you think that something really important is going on in City X, and you want to travel there. That requires some travel money, and requires your being "away from the desk beat" for several days. You make your proposal. The editor turns you down. "We need you in Moscow, because of..blah, blah, blah." Two days later, City X really blows, and you get an urgent message from the editor: "Get to City X ASAP!!!" The biggest complaint really good reporters in the field have is that their editors do not trust their (the reporters') judgment, and are too preoccupied with the day-to-day "big news." Editors often just want to "scoop" the "competition" on the "big story" that is breaking on any particular day, and hence miss what may prove to be much more important stories that are just beginning to "break." What this complaint boils down to, in short, is that the bosses tend to be too "reactive": they respond, rather than anticipate. Hence you get the phenomenon that I have dubbed the "piling on the football" syndrome. Have you ever noticed that when something "major" happens, the whole paper (or the whole newscast) is devoted to that one subject? Everybody piles on that one football, even though a zillion other footballs may be bouncing around on the field, unobserved & uncovered. And how many reporters do you think are yanked from their regular "beats" to contribute redundant coverage of the event that everyone is fixated on? A lot! Enough for now. Will try to get to your other points at some other time. Joan