Of all the things I heard on Thursday the soundbite that keeps reverberating in my ear as I sit down to write this, is one of our speakers’ cheery assertion that maybe Iraq gets bounced from the electronic front page for a sports piece–because you know, more Iraqi deaths is really not a new story.
So then, let me see if I get you right—the people now decide what they want to hear/listen/see and if I object to that I am calcifying fossil who might as well quit now. On top of that I am an elitist who believes I know what’s best for people. But wait a second—- I did not come to journalism school because of my insatiable desire to please. I actually came because I believe that the relay of information (yes some information more than others) is vitally important in the pursuit of some mix between democracy, justice and plain old knowledge.
But alas, there is an audience out there. And that audience may be more interested in the Mets than a couple-dozen dead civilians. This has always been true, but at least they had to turn to the back of the paper, knowing they were willingly skipping what “the newspaper gods” deemed substantially more important and maybe even having there eyes forced to gaze upon a photo or a headline on their b-line towards the funnies.
Now, although this discussion has been simplified into pitting the progressive technologists v. the traditionalists, I have to say I am not resistant to technology nor the use of it to convey news. I do have a problem with packaging that consistently panders to news “special interests”. I am guilty too. I almost never read business news and I often skip the arts. But I’m glad for that fateful run-in with a piece that I neverwoulda read if it didn’t fall on my foot on the train or f I hadn’t pressed enter too many times on my computer and happened to see a photo that peaked my interest.
I think we should be in the business of making news– all kinds of news– as accessible and tantalizing as possible. To me, that means taking a news junky and getting them to read a sports story and vice versa. We don’t need to tell people whether the Mets or Iraqi civilian deaths are more important. Ultimately this decision rests with the consumer anyway. But if the news is a national dialogue, shouldn’t we occasionally land on the same page?
3 responses so far ↓
joybergmann // September 28, 2006 at 12:30 am
Excuse me if I get all possessive of grandma-status in our group…[pause for third Olay application of the day]
The thing is, readers will no longer happen upon something in cyber-journalism. They will see what they’re already interested in and click-n-go.
So.
Everything we create has to be sizzling to the masses. At least if we are employed by a mass-press.
Or, we have to come at our stories with a niche-audience in mind. A delightful elite who’ve been happy not to pay for the giggles we writers provide.
Ergo, the existential gloom.
Whatever you do, Ms K, do not visit the fiction of Michel Houllebecq. Tis the sourdough starter of all that has destroyed the joy in Ms. Joy.
Jeff Jarvis // September 28, 2006 at 2:13 am
A very perceptive takeaway and internal debate. Let’s talk more about the act of selling as an act of informing.
uptown blogger // September 28, 2006 at 3:32 am
Oh boy Joy, I know. In some ways the niche audience could make it easier on us (writers) and elevate the craft. Hard news writing no longer need be read at a 7th grade level? No problem with that. But then we are not just writers. We are journalists. Journalists that have to live in the world that we help shape.
While some of us are increasingly concerned over the declinig value of journalists to their employers, I’m getting worried about journalism’s value to the public.
P.S. Sorry if I wasn’t clear, but I told Ellen (and solicited her opinion) over the raging debate currently going on on the blogs, not of their existence.