Have the media changed?

Great Debates
1

After seeing this, it got me thinking: have the media changed? Specifically, have they changed in the way described in the editorial cartoon? That is, they are not as probing and combative with their interview subjects as they used to be?

If this is the case, what caused them to change, and is there anything that can be done to bring them back to their proper role?

2

Eh, all this goes in cycles. Reporters that are aggressive tend to get the dirt, and because they get the dirt people stop giving them interviews, and because they stop getting interviews they stop getting the dirt.

Media follows the money. Make no mistake. If Fox News thought they could double their earnings by becoming Uber-Kerry supporters, they’d do it.

3

It definitely describes the current state of the media. When they want an example of a tough interviewer, the name the media usually offers up is Tim Russert, who did an interview with Bush inside the White House that went pretty much exactly like the second version in the linked cartoon. (I mention that example in particular to deflect an excuse of “liberal bias”, but it’s not the only time.)

I believe it was on CNBC where Cheney was complaining about the New York Times coverage of the 9/11 commission report, and when asked he denied ever having said a certain event was “pretty well confirmed”. The woman interviewing him had the quote right in front of her, but faced with Cheney’s denial she simply dropped the issue and moved on.

The media want access to the people in power. If they’re too hard on those people, they’ll be denied access in the future. Afraid of losing out to coverage by the other networks, they do what they have to do to stay in good graces.

4

So where’s the “cycle”? You described a one-way street that ends up in aggressive journalists stop getting interviews. How do aggressive journalists re-appear in the next part of the “cycle”?

[QUOTE}Media follows the money. Make no mistake. If Fox News thought they could double their earnings by becoming Uber-Kerry supporters, they’d do it.[/QUOTE]

In general, yes, but not in the case of Fox News (if you know who its backers are).

5

So where’s the “cycle”? You described a one-way street that ends up in aggressive journalists stop getting interviews. How do aggressive journalists re-appear in the next part of the “cycle”?

In general, yes, but not in the case of Fox News (if you know who its backers are).

6

I see this, but what I don’t understand is how journalists were able to be more aggressive in the past. Why weren’t they concerned about staying in good graces back then?

7

I don’t think so. I think Murdoch, businessman though he is, would be happy to run Fox News at a financial loss if that were the only way to maintain its current editorial policies.

8

I think the difference is in who they’re working for now – half a dozen giant corporations, instead of independent family-owned newspapers like in the old days. In that kind of environment, how far do you think a journalist’s career arc can rise if he’s the kind who asks the powerful too many difficult questions?

9

Also note that today’s 24/7 always-on news cycles puts more pressure on keeping ratings up instead of “rocking the boat.” If the White House decides to deny your folks access to their press conferences and events, that puts you at a distinct disadvantage compared to your Administration-kowtowing competitors who are there first with the hot announcements.

10

Once upon a time there were three broadcast networks, two wire services and two “national” newspapers (the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.) If a politician wanted national exposure, he HAD to play ball with them. If that meant a tough interview once in awhile, that was the cost of the ticket.

Now, if a politician doesn’t like, say, NBC, he can go on Imus, or Rush, or USA Today, or CNN, or Oprah or Letterman. Not only does he still get his message out to millions of voters, but NBC loses its access.

While “the media” are more concentrated among a few giant owners, there are more “media outlets” to play against one another.

11

My understanding is that in other countries, journalists still have the spine to ask tough questions. (Remember the mess when that Irish reporter who interviewed Bush was reprimanded for interrupting him during his rambling monologues?)

Surely there are more than a handful of media outlets in those countries… or are there? Why haven’t foreign journalists all fallen into the same trap as American journalists?

12

No, I’m afraid I don’t. Cite?

13

Here’s one.

14

:eek:

The White House lodged a complaint with the Irish embasssy in Washington over an Irish journalist asking inconvenient questions of the president?

Double- :eek: !

And triple- :mad: !

15

Not so much in Australia, I’m afraid. We have one of the most concentrated media ownership structures in the democratic world. We have an election coming up in just under a month, and a well-respected journalist on a well-respected news and current affairs show was asking the Prime Minister some questions. The questions were fairly critical, but the PM kept giving evasive non-answers, and the journalist kept letting it slide. From the transcript:

I kept waiting for the journalist to say “you haven’t answered my question, Mr. Howard” but it never happened.

And, as others have mentioned, the key is this:

There have been a lot of studies done about the “decline” of journalism. Some theorists, such as Julianne Schultz, attribute it to an increase in the concentration of media ownership. Others, like Aeron Davis, attribute it to structural factors in news production - journalists are expected to do more and have less resources than they used to, so they don’t have the means to do investigative reporting, and so rely on pre-packaged information like PR news releases. Many theorists say that the power of sources has increased relative to journalists. Politicians used to compete for the attention of the news media, but now the news media compete for the attention of politicians.

And often, combative journalism can be frowned upon. I remember a year or two ago, Pauline Hanson - an almost nationally-reviled politician - was torn apart during an interview. The journalist was widely criticised for being too aggressive, and it was suggested that she should have allowed Hanson to dig her own grave instead of attacking her opinions.