I often hear complaints about the quality of the American news industry: for instance the supposed lack of in-depth analysis and the lack of international coverage. This is often blamed for a variety of ills (for instance check out the thread in IMHO about Americans’ ignorance of the world).
An example of this is a recent column by Krugman (who I usually like)
Two problems for these kinds of complaints:
1)Public TV and radio: These provide high-quality news and current affairs shows every day for free. For instance anyone who wants an in-depth news show on TV can watch the PBS news hour.
2)The Internet: Most people have access to the Internet , if not at home, at least at the public library or university. There is a vast amount of news from all over the world most of it for free.
Here Krugman says:
“And the Internet is a fine thing for policy wonks and news junkies
— anyone can now read Canadian and British newspapers, or
download policy analyses from think tanks. But most people have
neither the time nor the inclination. Realistically, the Net does
little to reduce the influence of the big five sources.”
But why is this? After all getting news from the Internet is no more difficult than from any other source (in fact it’s usually more convenient). It’s not as if Internet news is restricted to foreign newspapers and think-tank analyses; you also get the New York Times and Newsweek.
It seems to me that anyone remotely interested in high-quality news can get it for free,now more than ever. News sources like Fox cater mainly to people who are not interested in the quality of their news or who actually want biased,superficial news. Why is this a problem?
I’d agree that real news is available to those who want it. It looks as though many do not want it. The daily news programs on network tv are, more and more, not news but entertainment. A lot of people don’t want any actual news, but they want to kid themselves that they’re making an effort to be well informed: they welcome an entertainment show that bears a “news” label.
Good news sources are easily accessible to anyone in America. The problem is, the big moneymakers have to cater to an increasingly illiterate society.
But in practically every newsstand I go to, a copy of The Economist sits right alongside glossy toiletpapers like Time and Newsweek. So the greatest weekly newsmagazine in the world is within easy reach of any American consumer, should he be daring enough to read something other than sensationalist articles aimed at soccer moms.
Yes, those who sincerely want it know where to get it. But that’s not my complaint.
Given the enormous influence US has on the world stage, one would expect more Americans to be well-informed (especially useful in choosing their leaders!) and as you pointed out, they’d rather just watch network or sometimes equally superficial cable TV or listen to talk radio in their car while people indulge in piss-poor debating on key issues that affect the world.
The only way this is going to change is if the mainstream media decides not to consciously dumb down their news content , start dealing with issues more in-depth (not just keep saying it while giving us inane soundbites) and start thinking of the world we live in as inter-connected and important.
But, you raise a valid point. In the free market, if people are always going to flock to the channel that has news/infotainment that is easier to digest, then there is no incentive for any network to change. Somehow the idea of “quality sells” is counter-intuitive when it comes to some markets. Is there a way to address this other than to change people’s minds? I wonder if improving/changing school curricula can have an impact (I have been told that world geography is an elective!)
Is there any evidence that only policy wonks are using the internet? 'Cause it seems to me that the hit statistics of the major news cites and even the minor ones suggest that a LOT of people are getting their news online.
For instance, there is a blog called Instapundit which gets something like 100,000 hits a DAY. And this is a small, single person operation that appeals to a narrow spectrum of people, and which does absolutely zero advertising. It’s all word of mouth. Even my own little politics/humor site has had a quarter of a million page views this year.
The larger political sites like Slate and the political journals like National Review Online and Salon.com get millions of hits per day, and it’s not the same people.
Multiply that by the huge number of news sites online. Then factor in statistics that show that Americans on average burn up something like five hours a week at work surfing the net, and it suggests to me that the Internet is coming close to having the same kind of readership as any of the traditional news methods (all of which are also online).
Wow almost no disagreement so far. So where are the people blaming the network news for the problems of the country.?
I should add that even network TV is quite good sometimes. Nightline, Face the Nation etc are decent. It’s the regular evening broadcasts which are weak. And as mentioned earlier viewers always have the option to watch the News Hour on PBS every weekday.
ISTM that Krugman’s real complaint is that news from a conservative POV is available. He wants to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine in order to reduce or eliminate it.
Well he is arguing about more than that. He seems to believe that the news business is becoming concentrated in a few major corporations (which he believes are right-leaning) to the detriment of the public. He is ignoring public TV/radio which provide lots of news and of course the Internet.
He sure is. In fact, news is far less concentrated. Forty years ago, TV had 3 stations and that was it. Now they still have ABC, CBS and NBC, but they’ve been joined by Public Television, CNN, FNC, and MSNBC, not to mention talk radio and the internet. It’s because Krugman’s apparent complaint is so ridiculous that I think his real message is that he doesn’t like conservative news sources and wants them to be suppressed.
“I think his real message is that he doesn’t like conservative news sources and wants them to be suppressed.”
Well I guess I don’t see that sub-text. I think that he sincerely believes what he is saying though he is wrong about it.
I think the subtext is that he dismisses conservative news sources as not being ‘real’ news outlets. And since it seems that talk radio, the internet, and FOX have a conservative lean to them, they simply don’t count in the Krugman analysis.
The same kind of thinking leads a lot of conservatives to dismiss much of the traditional news media. It all depends on whose ox is being gored.
I don’t think he says that the Internet has a conservative leaning, he just seems to believe it’s not that important.
As for Fox and talk-radio not being good news sources that’s pretty accurate , especially for talk-radio. I don’t think Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly count as serious journalists. If the only thing that had happened in recent decades was the rise of Fox News and talk-radio then Krugman might have a point. But they aren’t.
“Are you saying that it is not a fact that the news is increasingly owned by large corporations?”
Well large news corporations aren’t necessarily right leaning (or left-leaning for that matter). Secondly good news organizations have a separation between the editorial and the business side. Thirdly practically everyone has the option to get their news from public radio/TV. And finally the Internet has vastly expanded the news options for many people.
“If you want some actual statistics about where people get their news…”
I wouldn’t mind looking at these but it doesn’t necessarily show much since this reflects the free choices made by people. If people choose to get their news from Fox or the Washington Times that’s their right. The important point is that they could choose PBS News Hour or the Washington Post (now available for free online) if they wanted.
—And finally the Internet has vastly expanded the news options for many people.—
Options, but not exactly quality. If anything, the thesis that the internet would deversify the “news” into squabbling blogs has been proven true. If people want, they can get news spun the way they like it, down to the strangest and most minority fetishes. And, it seems, people DO want that.
Fact is, Fox won not because they are good journalists, but because they are fun to watch. If liberals care so much, then they should figure out how their agenda can be made entertaining and fun, rather than dire and dull.
I alwyas think it’s funny that people think that the reason Nader isn’t president is simply because the media wont disseminate his views widely enough of have him on Tv. Yeah, he’d make GREAT Tv…
As I said earlier, there could be a valid reason why people rather watch O’Reilly Factor or Donahue than News Hour or listen to talk radio than the BBC. I agree there are enough sources out there, especially with the growth of the web, and it is free choice, but only as much as culture and money influences it.
“Options, but not exactly quality”
Well there is a lot of junk ,of course, but it is easily ignored if you want. On the plus side there is a huge selection of major news sites from around the world, government sites for official documents and statistics, academic sites, think-tanks etc. Quite amazing ,really, though we have become used to it now.
to me, it seems that the big 3 networks still provide the news to the masses. i can remember being at my grandmothers as a child and her staying up until 11:30 so that she could watch the nightly news.
of course there are other places from which people can get their news. but how many of them have a clue that what they’re getting isn’t nearly the whole story?
i remember taking a trip to toronto, and being utterly amazed and fascinated at how much international news was covered there. it was completely different than “a terrorist scare on a bus in pennsylvania”, where a man said he was taking his passengers “to the taliban” when they heckled him for taking alternative routes to avoid traffic. certainly everything on tv is aimed at gaining as many viewers from its target audience as possible, so there is a necessary amount of sensationalism and entertainment.
and anyone who uses those sources as his primary source of news has no idea that they ought to look to other sources, regardless of whether or not they know those sources exist. “they’ll just say the same thing.”
whether there is blame to lay in this situation is unclear to me. but it is clear that the situation exists.
