What *is* news?

Great Debates
1

Not to mis-quote the Pilate, I suppose.

This is inspired by this thread on Americans and International News. Many people are discussing (or lamenting) the American lack of interest in international news.

And it got me to wondering…

Some background: I’m a media guy. I’ve work radio at times but I’m primarily a print guy. I’ve worked trade press and news press (including political press). Currently I’m doing business stuff for a military publisher. I flatter myself that I’ve thought a bit about news and the media.

So what is news? I would opine that ‘news’ is information that should conform to these statements:

A) The information must be ‘breaking’. (that is…be new since the last news cycle)
B) The information must have some effect on the reader/viewers life.
C) The information must be sufficiently unusual that it has some novelty.

There seems to be an assumption that it is information of world shaking importance. That international political and cultural information is ‘news’.

But what about local news? To the man on the street the weather report is of much greater importance than another suicide bomber in Israel. And local traffic information can be vastly more important.

Hell, I might argue that the suicide bomber isn’t news. The simple fact is that when a media outlet runs a story on a new bombing they’re not reporting anything worthwhile (other than to the victims and locals, I suppose). Real news would be ‘Peace breaks out in Israel. Sharon and Arafat share french kiss in Jerusalem…plan economic development.’

Another example: The recent admission of the eastern bloc countries into NATO. The Washington Post covered it by saying: 7 countries to be admitted to NATO (with analysis). They did this for a week prior to the admission. But what was actually the ‘news’ angle here? The simple fact was that this was known months ahead of time. Was it really worth the front page of a leading media source for a week? What new data was communicated days 2-7?

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that the public shouldn’t be informed. A well-informed public is a great defense for democracy (and I like democracy). But informed of what? How does reporting day-to-day deaths in Afghanistan assist in increasing the level of ‘information awareness’ of the average citizen? I believe it doesn’t.

Let’s look at today’s Washington Post Online (NOTE: I’m writing this on 12/2/02)

Supreme Court ot Hear Race-Based Admissions.
Immigrants Fueled Growth
UN Inspects Ex-Scud Plant
United Mechanics Make Deal
Ben Bradlee On Graham Book
DC Court Tries New Initiative
African AIDS Fight Falters

So we’re looking at:

Three items I deem ‘news’ (Supreme Court, United, DC Court)
One ego piece for the Post (the Bradlee thing)
Three non-news information items (immigrants, AIDS, UN Inspections)

And even of those…

The Supreme Court ‘decides’ to hear a case. Weak news. Hard news would be when they reach a decision. Until that time it will not influence anything.

The UN Inspection is ‘non-news’ because it can be assumed they’re doing so. News happened when Iraq agreed to allow them in. News will also happen when the A) find something or B) give Iraq a ‘good citizenship’ award. Reporting that they’re doing what they’re supposed to be doing is a waste of space.

The United story is real news because less than a week ago they voted DOWN an agreement. There’s been a change in the standing information regarding United and it’s relations with its machanics union.

So what is news?

Am I off base in thinking that most news as reported is merely a waste of paper and ink just designed to put space between the ads?

2

I agree with A), I partially agree with C) (e.g. the Millennium was going to happen anyway, but it was still news).

However, I strongly disagree with this assertion: B) The information must have some effect on the reader/viewers life..

Anecdote: in the UK Survivor a few months ago, one of the contestants had heard about September 11, but hadn’t read any stories about it, or seen it on the news. “It doesn’t affect me, so why should I care?” was her attitude. Everyone was incredulous, and rightly so, IMO, and people’s attitude to her changed.

3

The way that our society works these days is based on a system of fear. We are continually scared into a state of helplessness. That is to say, if the government/media scares us enough, then we feel that our only protection is from them. This way, they have more power, as is often (if not always) their goal. When we see the news here near Philadelphia, the major stories are always about a robbery at a gas station or a fire in an overcrowded apartment building. For anyone other than the thirty people involved in these incidents, this is obviously unimportant to know. And for those thirty people…they certainly already know what happened! But, even though this doesn’t relate to us, we are scared by it, and that leads to things like us being more willing to sacrifice personal rights in order to further empower law enforcement. Then they continue on to the ‘World In A Minute’ section of the news, where they cover the events of the entire rest of the world in 60 seconds. It’s pretty sad when you think about it.

4

Hey! I scared a newbie out!

Welcome to the SDMB Superspy. I hope you enjoy your stay.

jjimm, I think maybe you’re misinterpreting what I said. It is certainly possible for things like the WTC attack to effect a viewer/reader’s life. As Superspy said, however, a great deal of so-called ‘important’ stories are anything but important.

5

Misunderstanding, not deliberately misrepresenting. The way I interpreted what you said could be expressed thus: the WTC attacks didn’t affect me directly, because I don’t live in the US or Afghanistan. But because I watched them on the news, they affected me greatly. But if they weren’t to be justifiably news due to their lack of direct relevance to me, then I wouldn’t know about them.

6

Since I’ve worked in media for almost 20 years, some 5 or 7 years of those with news, I’ll add my own definition: It’s news if we label it News.

Rule of thumb, when working with news:

  • Dog bites man (not news), Man bites dog (news)
  • House in the neighborhood burns down (news), House in other part of country burns down (not news).
  • Celebrity in your own country gets a divorce (News), 10.000 chinese die in earthquake (not news).

The Public Interest (TPI) is always falling exponentially with distance.
TPI always go up, when affecting own life and/or wallet.

And let’s not forget the Americanism: “If it bleeds, it leads.”

This is not my view, just my own cynical thoughts and one reason I’m not working with news anymore.
All commercial news sources have focus gruops and check what stuff will get the highest ratings/circulation in a given target group. For The Post that target group differs a lot from the one The National Enquirer has.
So it all boils down to what I said at the beginning: It’s news if we label it news.

7

Are we talking about news in terms of what is actually ‘news’ or what is ‘newsworthy’ because I think that there is a big difference between the two. I personally am speaking of what I consider news, while it seems as though the responses are trying to justify their points by defining what the media considers news…

8

Gaspode, I intentionally avoided the cynical approach to the question. As a business sort I could easily define ‘news’ as ‘that which moves magazines out the door’.

I’m more concerned with what I perceive as a perception that all political or international news is considered ‘important’ while more mundane items are less so.

9

Jonathan. But that depends on who you’re talking to. When I hang out with my friends who’re still active, working with news, What GWB is up to, World AIDS day and the US demands about getting ointo the computers of European airlines is “news” and “important.”
When I speak to my parents, they tend to talk more about local politics, and what happened last night on Survivor. To them, that’s the “news” and more “important.”

Or are you arguing what you think should be the news?
My teacher in journalism taught me that news is “what happened and what is going to happen” and I agree. So I don’t think your claims in the OP are valid. I also don’t think it has to be breaking news, to be news. Deeper insight, a new comment from a player… There are lots of things that are newsworthy.

Superspy: I’m not trying to justify anything, I’m only saying how it works.

10

So I decided I would try to be specific about the matter by consulting Webster’s Dictionary to find out the accepted definition of the word. Well it seems like we run into a paradox here because in the argument of whether information included in newspapers is truly news or not, the dictionary doesn’t help. The definition is: News=Material reported in a newspaper or on a news telecast. Seemingly we have come full circle and are chasing our tails. However, the second definition that Webster gives leads a little further: News=Matter that is newsworthy. Upon looking up ‘newsworthy’ it gives the definition: Newsworthy=matter that is interesting enough to the general public to warrant reporting. So it all adds up to a brick wall of vague statements. Thanks alot Webster…

11

As a post-thought I looked up the word newspaper.
Newspaper=A paper that is printed and distributed usually daily or weekly that contains news.
But the definition of news was anything that is contained in a newspaper. So how can it be news before it is in the newspaper in order for the paper to distinguish it?
Sounds like Socrates argument of the love of the Gods. Unfortunately many still can’t even agree on THAT argument which took place thousands of years ago…

12

** Superspy**, welcome to the wonderful world of journalism. I don’t want to even consider the number of times we had this debate in the newsroom. What you found out supports my post:
If we label it news, it is news.

13

I am a veteran of 10 years in the TV news business…the last seven of those as a producer. As a producer, I alone had the power to decide what went in a newscast that would be seen by tens of thousands of people. In that context, news is what I said it was. As long as my superiors trusted my judgement, I was allowed to keep this power. Now to the nitty gritty. In a 30 minute newscast, I had to find about 12 minutes of news. The rest of the time was taken up by commercials, weather, sports, teases, etc. Of that 12 minutes, I tried to find the most interesting and relevant information I could…because that would bring in viewers and keep their interest. This was important, obviously, because of the ratings and the dollars that hung on thier every move up or down. If there was only about six minutes of real news, I found something to fill the rest of the time anyway. The bottom line is yes, in many ways, news exists to fill the space between the commercials. The commercials are the reason the station is on the air in the first place.