Sunday, October 14, 2007
Popularity contest anyone?
Frank Sesno spoke specifically about media competition; I have encountered this a few times in the last year.
Sesno said journalists are supposed to be responsible and the journalism profession is not about popularity.
I could not agree more with Sesno; however I find it difficult in today's world to find such pure-hearted journalists: They are few and far between.
At The Daily Campus we often find ourselves competing directly with The Dallas Morning News. Especially lately with the Bush Library story standing still like it is. Everyone is on edge just waiting for an announcement, any announcement, perhaps the announcement. There have been a few instances in the past year where the DC and DMN have been in direct competition for updates on the story. A reporter from New York went as far as to deny the faculty's request for a media restricted meeting. He sneaked into a closed meeting just to have an edge over his competitors.
The DC has competed with the DMN on other stories usually relating to sports. This isn't unusual. To be honest the competition is a friendly one. It's not as though we're hostile toward one another.
The important thing about reporting on topics such as the Bush Library is that we get the facts right the first time. There is no sense in posting "breaking news" if it's only speculation or opinion.
Sesno said such reporting can lead to holes in stories and the point will often be lost on the public.
There's a sense of competitive pressure sparked by the obsession of "multi-media." Many news sources insist on having multiple media outlets - for example newspapers have massive Web sites (made up of Blogs, video and pop-ups), which are often difficult to navigate. Advertising drives media to this point. It becomes and endless cycle: Newspapers aren't selling so companies pull their ads and look for new places to put them, but as the Internet becomes more tailored to peoples needs adverting is forced to dig deeper.
I also agree with Sesno that we as journalists have a purpose to inform the public. My definition of a journalist is someone who delivers the facts. People are much more capable of making informed decisions with straight facts.
At the end of the day it's not about the ratings; it's about informing the public. ¶ posted by Neely at 9:43 PM •
Sesno said journalists are supposed to be responsible and the journalism profession is not about popularity.
I could not agree more with Sesno; however I find it difficult in today's world to find such pure-hearted journalists: They are few and far between.
At The Daily Campus we often find ourselves competing directly with The Dallas Morning News. Especially lately with the Bush Library story standing still like it is. Everyone is on edge just waiting for an announcement, any announcement, perhaps the announcement. There have been a few instances in the past year where the DC and DMN have been in direct competition for updates on the story. A reporter from New York went as far as to deny the faculty's request for a media restricted meeting. He sneaked into a closed meeting just to have an edge over his competitors.
The DC has competed with the DMN on other stories usually relating to sports. This isn't unusual. To be honest the competition is a friendly one. It's not as though we're hostile toward one another.
The important thing about reporting on topics such as the Bush Library is that we get the facts right the first time. There is no sense in posting "breaking news" if it's only speculation or opinion.
Sesno said such reporting can lead to holes in stories and the point will often be lost on the public.
There's a sense of competitive pressure sparked by the obsession of "multi-media." Many news sources insist on having multiple media outlets - for example newspapers have massive Web sites (made up of Blogs, video and pop-ups), which are often difficult to navigate. Advertising drives media to this point. It becomes and endless cycle: Newspapers aren't selling so companies pull their ads and look for new places to put them, but as the Internet becomes more tailored to peoples needs adverting is forced to dig deeper.
I also agree with Sesno that we as journalists have a purpose to inform the public. My definition of a journalist is someone who delivers the facts. People are much more capable of making informed decisions with straight facts.
At the end of the day it's not about the ratings; it's about informing the public. ¶ posted by Neely at 9:43 PM •
Comments:
<< Home
Good post. I appreciate the concrete examples.
I'm curious to who you consider to be your public. We often make claims about our duty to inform "the public."
Who is "the public"? Is there such a thing as the public sphere? If so, how do we define it? If not, who are we really serving and why?
Post a Comment
I'm curious to who you consider to be your public. We often make claims about our duty to inform "the public."
Who is "the public"? Is there such a thing as the public sphere? If so, how do we define it? If not, who are we really serving and why?
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home