5 ms·

While I agree with your sentiment the real world isn't so simple. The primary qualification of a good reporter is access. Access to sources, access to document

by mixmax 13y ago

While I agree with your sentiment the real world isn't so simple. The primary qualification of a good reporter is access. Access to sources, access to documents, access to hints from people in power and access to confront and interview people in power. For a reporter there's a fine line between gaining and keeping access and using it to do reporting. Access relies on trust, reporting often relies on breaking it. Since people in power have the ability to cut you out of the loop you need to be very careful about what you write else you'll find that your calls aren't being returned, you aren't being invited to press conferences and can't get interviews. Which makes you useless as a reporter. Source: A lot of my friends work in media, and quite a few of them have relations to the political game, have interviewed heads of state, etc. Most of them are truly troubled by this state of affairs, but what can they do?

sillysaurus3 13y ago
Has there ever been a time when seeking news was the most important priority?
- mixmax 13y ago
  [edit] - sillysaurus edited his comment slightly - I hope this rely still makes sense... I think your'e giving good reporters too little credit (note the good, which is unfortunately a minority). My experience is that these people are aggressive in their search for truth and the uncovering of corruption. Their problem is that to do their job they often need inside knowledge, secret sources and the ability to confront the potential perpetrators. So they need friends in the very places they are trying to dig up dirt. It's a very fine line. To some degree I think media has always been like this, but it's gotten worse over the last 10 years. I see 2 obvious reasons for this: 1) The political game has moved, and there is much more emphasis on controlling the agenda than there was before. In the modern media world there is no way you'll get access to a high-standing official before having been vetted by media consultants, spindoctors and aides of all sorts. An impenetrable layer of spin between the reporter and the official has sprung up, and without some cooperation on the reporters side he won't get the interview/tip/story. This is a huge problem for truth and democracy. It also shows itself in how the news is being reported, since this layer of spin consumes so much attention. Note how the news is less and less about the story and more and more about the process. It's not "Why did Putin invade Crimea", but "Is Obama weak because Putin invaded Crimea". The layer of spin uses their power to throw dirt at the other side of the aisle. 2) Traditional media is in decline. This has some fairly serious consequences for the news landscape. Less and less time (money...) is allocated to producing more and more stories, and as an obvious result the quality suffers. Ironically this also means that often reporters know they are being fed a story by the spin machine, but they don't have the time to disassenble it or be critical of it if they are to meet their daily qouta of X articles. The editors also require more and more sensational stories, based on less and less research to keep readership and clickrates high. The recent story in Newsweek where they claim to have found the founder of Bitcoin is a good example. Note that I'm from Europe, and the dynamics here are a bit different - namely that we often have public radio and TV (like PBS) that don't have a political agenda or affiliation, and that we often don't have the media conglomerates that you do in the UIS that try to push a political agenda. This is a very serious problem b.t.w.
rthomas6 13y ago
This reminds me so much of the book Manufacturing Consent. One sounds like a crazy person when they say elite powers (indirectly) control the mass media, but after reading most of that book, the conclusion is inescapable. Of course news outlets self-censor, they don't want to get shut out. Of course they play up victims of atrocities caused by our enemies, and largely ignore victims of atrocities caused by the United States and its allies. Of course media sources shy away from reporting on stories that would harm their owners or advertising dollars. Of course they use official press advisers and PR people, who they talk to every day and who understand how the industry works. Of course they use neatly packaged press releases when they're on tight budgets and deadlines. Of course they don't take the time to report all sides of a complex issue, if some sides are neatly presented, and opposing sides take days of research.

by mixmax 13y ago

sillysaurus3 13y ago

Has there ever been a time when seeking news was the most important priority?

mixmax 13y ago
[edit] - sillysaurus edited his comment slightly - I hope this rely still makes sense... I think your'e giving good reporters too little credit (note the good, which is unfortunately a minority). My experience is that these people are aggressive in their search for truth and the uncovering of corruption. Their problem is that to do their job they often need inside knowledge, secret sources and the ability to confront the potential perpetrators. So they need friends in the very places they are trying to dig up dirt. It's a very fine line. To some degree I think media has always been like this, but it's gotten worse over the last 10 years. I see 2 obvious reasons for this: 1) The political game has moved, and there is much more emphasis on controlling the agenda than there was before. In the modern media world there is no way you'll get access to a high-standing official before having been vetted by media consultants, spindoctors and aides of all sorts. An impenetrable layer of spin between the reporter and the official has sprung up, and without some cooperation on the reporters side he won't get the interview/tip/story. This is a huge problem for truth and democracy. It also shows itself in how the news is being reported, since this layer of spin consumes so much attention. Note how the news is less and less about the story and more and more about the process. It's not "Why did Putin invade Crimea", but "Is Obama weak because Putin invaded Crimea". The layer of spin uses their power to throw dirt at the other side of the aisle. 2) Traditional media is in decline. This has some fairly serious consequences for the news landscape. Less and less time (money...) is allocated to producing more and more stories, and as an obvious result the quality suffers. Ironically this also means that often reporters know they are being fed a story by the spin machine, but they don't have the time to disassenble it or be critical of it if they are to meet their daily qouta of X articles. The editors also require more and more sensational stories, based on less and less research to keep readership and clickrates high. The recent story in Newsweek where they claim to have found the founder of Bitcoin is a good example. Note that I'm from Europe, and the dynamics here are a bit different - namely that we often have public radio and TV (like PBS) that don't have a political agenda or affiliation, and that we often don't have the media conglomerates that you do in the UIS that try to push a political agenda. This is a very serious problem b.t.w.

rthomas6 13y ago

This reminds me so much of the book Manufacturing Consent. One sounds like a crazy person when they say elite powers (indirectly) control the mass media, but after reading most of that book, the conclusion is inescapable. Of course news outlets self-censor, they don't want to get shut out. Of course they play up victims of atrocities caused by our enemies, and largely ignore victims of atrocities caused by the United States and its allies. Of course media sources shy away from reporting on stories that would harm their owners or advertising dollars. Of course they use official press advisers and PR people, who they talk to every day and who understand how the industry works. Of course they use neatly packaged press releases when they're on tight budgets and deadlines. Of course they don't take the time to report all sides of a complex issue, if some sides are neatly presented, and opposing sides take days of research.