Goodman, J. David. "Now in Blogs, Product Placement." The New York Times, Sunday, June 13, 2010, pg. 3.
NBC News at 5, Monday, June 14, 2010.
Sachdev, Ameet. "Blogger Eventually Cites Jackson Ties." Chicago Tribune, Tuesday, June 15, 2010, pg. 19
All right, I know that only in the contorted randomness of my mind do these three things have any relationship. On the other hand, the connection really bothers me.
In 1976, I watched Network, a really dark comedy that dealt with the trend toward changing television news from a reliable information source into another entertainment show. The "new" news showcased beautiful talking heads, brought in a live audience, featured a seer, introduced a segment "Vox Populi" that gave poll results, and starred an insane, charismatic anchor who began every segment by shouting, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."
Flash forward--and take a look at news websites and television newscasts. They invariably--with the possible exceptions of the seer and the mental status of the anchor--mirror all of the things that amused me with their sardonic impossibility in the movie. Stories are open to comment, a daily poll asking for opinion is featured, O'Reilley, Limbaugh, Olberman, et. al have obsessed fan clubs, and blogs are a featured link.
In the Times article, an extraordinary number of Brooklyn blogs feature a reference to Absolut vodka. The reporter discovers that the bloggers have been paid for product placement. The second article from the Tribune reports that a noted legal blogger for the Huffington Post and frequent guest on Fox News had blogged that Jesse Jackson, Jr. was clearly blameless in the Blagovich senate seat for sale mess; it turns out she has a direct, financial link to Jesse Jackson, Sr. And, wow, on last night's local newscast, Ellen DeGeneres made a "spontaneous, unplanned" appearance right after the report on the Blagovich trial.
I really want to keep current on the affairs that matter in my world. I accept my responsibility for evaluating information. But what do I do when I can't rely on the good faith of others to accept and abide by the same ethical tenants?
The First Amendment grants absolute freedom of the press as one of the essential cornerstones to our social contract. But shouldn't there perhaps be some requirement of honesty and incorruptibility beyond libel and/or defamation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Linda, I agree with you that this is quite disturbing. I would think such a conflict of interest would already be barred by an existing law, but I'm not sure how that would work exactly. I also agree that it's our own individual responsibility (and the mark of a well-educated, intelligent person) to critically evaluate information. That has always been the case--those old adages "consider the source" and "don't believe everything you read/hear" are, well, old. The problem is, it's getting harder and harder to do that, even for those with a great deal of common sense.
ReplyDeleteThe great thing about web 2.0 is that just about anybody can generate and publish information. The bad thing about web 2.0 is... that just about anybody can generate and publish information. "Authority" almost seems like a nostalgic concept anymore.
I think I totally agree with what you are saying here. The best that a citizen can do is attempt to fully inform themselves about current issues by gathering information from multiple sources.
ReplyDeleteUh, Oh. I'm ranting: Enough with stories that are not worthy of national news like Joran Vanderslute or whatever that guy's name is.
Enough with such outright bias, on the part of liberal and conservatives.
We need some type of taxpayer funded news organization based out of St. Louis or Houston or somewhere that will just provide straight news and not have to be concerned with ratings or profits.
With the advent of the internet, this should not be a problem. We are not in the 1970's where the only source of information about current events were the newspapers and news programs. I see the Web more as a accurate source of information, and FOX and MSNBC more as entertainment. This is where there has to be some responsibility on behalf of the person to seek good sources of information, because it is out there.
ReplyDeleteYou said it yourself. Only you can be responsible for how much veracity you assign to the information you receive from the new and improved web “journalists” you choose to follow. That some of the sites you follow are receiving advertising fees from vodka companies speaks to their motivation; the almighty dollar. I myself am glad for sources like Fox news because I question everything they say. It is hard to trust news sources especially when they are web based. Anyone can post anything at any time. Whenever I receive information from the web I try to verify it through independent sources. Most journalism classes teach this. Verify, verify and verify! It is a lesson that would serve us well as we become information specialists.
ReplyDeleteJames, me, too, as much as I can. I check MSNBC, CNN, Fox, and BBC. But, boy, is it time consuming!
ReplyDeleteHi All,
ReplyDeleteWhat about PBS? Where do you turn when you don't have time to get everyone's perspective? Where do you go when you just want the facts? I, too, am very troubled at the trend away from ethical journalism toward one sided sensationalism. Perspective and bias have always been the dirty side of reporting.
I vote with my viewership. I don't watch FOX. They've ruined their credibility and their neutrality.
Jennifer
Jen, I agree, but I force myself to check out their "fair and balanced" website because it influences and affirms what others say.
ReplyDeleteAs one of my very politically conservative friends told me, "It's the most popular news." Of course, popular isn't the same thing as right, and proclaiming that you're fair and balanced doesn't make it so.
Linda,
ReplyDeleteYour post really me think. I agree with some of the previous comments that we need to be aware and decide for ourselves if newscasts are biased or lean one way.
On the other hand, I am increasingly bothered by all of the ads, particularly on news websites. Here is the link to Fort Wayne's news website. Nearly half the page is dedicated to ads. None of the ads are raunchy or inappropriate, but I am still bothered by them being there.
Leah
lol, wow, your 1976 dark comedy sounds like it was quite good at predicting the future. Maybe the seer you mentioned was there more for envisioning the future than for the plot of the movie.
ReplyDeleteI remember watching some of the footage/commentary from last year, when Walter Cronkite died. One of the things that really stuck with me was one of the 'tributes' talking about how much Cronkite mourned the decline of neutral reporting, and that providing balanced news was important to him. Where has that ethic gone? And how do we get it back?
Okay, so I have a feeling that I am going to be ostracized by my next statement but isn’t that the risk we take when dealing with Free Speech. I like, and go to, Fox News more than any of the other news networks. I find that their news is just as good as anyone else’s. They have hired some of the most respected journalists out there (Bret Baier, Brit Hume, Shepard Smith, Chris Wallace, and Brian Wilson, to name some) but as soon as they take the set on Fox they are labeled as biased right-wingers. All news, on air or in print, has bias we need to be able to recognize and see through it. We also need to be able to differentiate between the loud commentators that give their opinions (i.e. Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck) and the actual news. All networks are out to make money and all use sensationalized hosts, but we should be able to recognize the difference between what is news and what is entertainment.
ReplyDelete