|
 hizzO
thinks news sucks.
Well, duh. Who doesn't?
Unlike Bernard Goldberg (author of Bias), we at WhizzO aren't
so lathered about liberality, which may be on a downtrend. What
gets us angry is media arrogance.
What do we mean by media arrogance -- and perhaps more important,
what do we do about it?
Here's our take on the roots of
the problems behind arrogant, sucky news, plus our easily implemented,
hugely intelligent cures, which will never come true.
|
Ding ding ding ding! A bulletin from UPI! "President
Nixon will resign tomorrow."
UPI ran that short sentence at 11:-01 EST the night before
Tricky Dick announced his resignation. No attribution.
No detail. No source.
Ding-ding-ding-ding! "This according to informed
sources." That ran at about 11:-05.
The whole story -- using unnamed sources -- finally cleared
the wire at 11:35.
A few years later, we had the chance to ask Helen Thomas,
UPI's White House Correspondent and the ugly broad who
opened and closed press conferences, just what the fuck
was going on that night. Why did it take 35 minutes to
clear the most imporatnt story of the decade; why was
the story full of nothing but gossip?
"Well, I wrote that story," she retorted.
"Then you should be able to answer my question,"
I followed on.
She didn't.
|
The big problem with news is that
it often can't be trusted or believed.
There are many reasons newsies rank with used car salesmen
and politicians at the bottom of the trust scale.
Yes, you
are being spun. Probably half of all news originates from
public relations sources (and the other half consists of reporters
interviewing each other).
Indeed, almost every story in the trade
press begins life as a press release.
Newsrooms receive hundreds, even thousands of press releases,
story ideas and interview possibilities every day, all free-of-charge
and usually followed up with a phone call offering a free lunch.
Publicity is such an ingrained fact of modern media that
reporters expect (and often require) PR flaks to steer a story.
What this means is that the "news" (maybe we're old-fashioned,
but full-frontals of Britney Spears, however useful they may
be, are not news), is being manipulated by unseen forces toward
unknown purposes by hordes of flaks who are paid to twist and
"position" the erstwhile truth.
This bubbling cauldron of spin intrudes on your life even more
than advertising or email spam. It is ubiquitous, yet it is
rarely revealed for what it is -- spin, spin, spin, designed
to advance some company, country, cause, or Svengali.
Amazingly, news organizations refuse to admit a story was pitched
by a PR agency, citing, incredibly, "the confidentiality
of the source!"
It's a unique application of a dubious standard when unsolicited
information printed on PR agency or client letterhead is called
"confidential" -- but what's even scarier are those
times when PR flaks offer select information on one topic in
exchange for favorable media coverage on another.
These "quid pro quo," "you scratch my balla
and I'll scratch yours" deals happen hundreds of times
a day, in every newsroom from the humblest newsletter to the
mightiest network.
For this deceitful fact alone, we ought to be skeptical of
the news. The only saving grace is that most PR flaks are too
clumsy to spin effectively, thank god!
Solution: Press releases aren't "confidential
sources." If a news item began as a PR pitch, or if PR
lined up talking heads or information for a story, the PR agency
and its client should be named either in the body of the story,
or in the credits.
If just one of our 'solutions' could
come true, this would be it. If PR sources received article
credits, we suspect even editors and publishers would be shocked
at their level of influence. We'd either get more real news,
or smaller-sized media. Either way, it's a win for the public.
|
