I don’t often agree with Rupert Murdock but i think he might have a point in his latest comments.
Are newspaper journalists out of sync with their customers?
He may have a point, but it’s hard to take anything about trustworthiness and respect for readers when it comes to Rupert Murdoch.
Reading that at face value is silly. Murdoch has long been subjected to elite condescension over his tabloid-based empire. Despite his great wealth and business acumen clearly this criticism bothers him at some level or he wouldn’t be so evidently annoyed by it.
If Murdoch here was really saying journalists need to break down the barriers of engagement with their readers, and do real reporting, then that would be commendable. But clearly he isn’t. His empire is the worst offender when it comes to selective contempt for populism. And even his broadsheet outlets show anti-intellectual contempt for more serious readers. His outlets love populism except when it comes to real issues, in economics, social policy, national security where there is a consensus around more centre-left political positions. They just love cultural populism which has no serious consequences for his business interests.
He’s simply saying this so that his stable of journalists stop dwelling on professional standards of excellence typified by journalism awards, which have a moderating effect, and instead go balls-out for the next big tabloid success.
Is Murdoch the guy that has Page 3 girls in his newspapers in the UK?
I think worrying about their “audience” is the problem with news media these days.
Forget liberal / conservative bias. They’re so worried about getting readers or viewers that they no longer report news, they report whatever grabs attention.
This is why I am much more prone to trust NPR or PBS for decent news coverage. They’re not perfect either, but have not sacrificed themselves on the alter of info-tainment.
My editor made some very funny comments about that today - his thesis was that for the last decade or so, the people who manage newspapers have made decisions that indicate they think their audience hates to read newspapers. (He meant decisions like cutting back on the size of the papers.) This is not a recipe for success for obvious reasons.
That sounds more like a truism to me than anything.
You know, this hit the nail on the head for me. I’ve been subscribing to a daily newspaper for 24 years. Before that I lived in dorms, or at home, where other people subscribed to a daily paper (the dorm managers, or my parents). In any case, except when I’ve been travelling, I’ve read a newspaper every day of my life since my teen years.
With that as background, it annoys me how terrible the local newspapers have gotten over the last ten, and especially over the last five, years. After reading the paper I used to feel that I had a pretty good understanding of all the important international, national, and local news stories. Plus a lot of interesting local angles on business, arts, etc. Nowadays I come away with the sense that something is missing.
Ed
Missed the edit window.
Sometimes I wonder why I still subscribe. For two reasons, mainly:
-
I’ve been doing it for so many years, it’s part of my daily ritual. Reading the newspaper in the morning is part of how I wake up.
-
I don’t know of another way to get comprehensive (such as it is) local news.
Ed
Of course not, my dear. Don’t worry your pretty little head about such things.
Run along, now.
Some papers might still have page three girls however it’s hardly Murdochs fault, here was a time when two of the three Austrailioan papers carried them as well.
Nobody is more condescending to or contemptuous of its audience than Fox News.
So you watch Fox a lot.
Have you ever considered changing channels to something that will provide you with an affirmation of your particular belief system?
And why do you waste time watching any TV news anyway? There’s nothing there that wasn’t on the net hours, and sometimes days before.
Sure.
Nope. I’m not a conservative. I don’t require affirmation of my own beliefs.
I’m morbidly drawn to right wing media.
Murdock’s comments don’t really make any sense. Who has a monopoly? Over what? Certainly there isn’t a monopoly amongst paper owners, there are several different owners of the US newspapers.
And newspapers as a whole certainly haven’t had a monopoly over peoples news-sources at any recent time. TV and radio news have been around for decades, and I imagine weekly news magazines have been around for at least that long as well.
Murdoch is always right.
As a newspaper editor, I feel “complacency and condescension” has come into the newsroom, but I feel it has arrived there from the top. In the last couple of decades, I have watched the bottom line become the driving force in more and more newspapers. Conglomerates have purchased more and more newspapers taking their slice and pushing not news coverage, but “the product,” which roughly translates as the conglomerate’s infotorials, columns, ads and the like. Promotions go not to the best newsmen or women, but the people who can toe the corporate line best, who can cut the most bodies from the newsroom thus keeping the profit margin up.
I often see the loyality of the newsroom denizens not to the public where it belongs, but to the boardroom and CEO so, of course, a biproduct is complacency and condescension.
OK, I am now off my soapbox.