Howard Kurtz's new book Reality Show was just published yesterday. Kurtz is a media expert and has been covering the topic for the Washington Post since 1990 and has written numerous books on media. Also just out: this week's Newsweek issue focusing on women and power is worth a read, mainly because Media Maven Arianna Huffington (the online Huffington Post founder) is one of the 11 women featured (so is one of my women-to-watch, Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin).
I don't watch major network news (ABC, CBS and NBC) but with 25 million viewers, they still are major agenda setters in our society (Kurtz notes and I agree, that newspapers are still the major agenda setters). Kurtz's Monday WaPo column on how the major three network news anchors handled how to cover the war (an excerpt from the book) and another Q & A about his column and tv anchors is worth a read. In the Q & A, one reader asked "why it is important what the three network anchors think about the war (or any topic for that matter) if they are just supposed to report the news as it happens?", Kurtz responded:
...(the news anchors) play a crucial role in shaping their broadcasts. How do they decide when to lead with Iraq and when the news is too incremental? How do they balance the continuing violence with other kinds of reporting from Baghdad? How do they deal with criticism from the administration? How do they press Bush about the war when they have a chance to interview the president? Plus, both Williams and Couric have reported from Iraq this year. So what they think matters big time.
This is where cable news takes a big jump and provides opinions along with the news reporting. Nowhere is this more true than with John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, whose shows on Comedy Central can be brutally twisted yet revealing in the underlying perspectives of truth presented. While major news organizations have cut their international bureaus, Stewart and Colbert are going strong globally.
Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly's conservatism can be juxtaposed against MSNBC's Keith Olberman with opposing views on many issues. Compared to the major network news reaching 25 million, Fox News reaches only 2 million. Blogs and other outlets are making their mark by bringing up news, opposing presented news, or keeping certain stories alive when they might otherwise "be buried."
A good media poll is one on trust released yesterday by Gallup showing "a wide gap
between how Republicans and Democrats view the mass media. Nearly 3 in
4 Republicans say the media is too liberal. But overall... less than half of Americans,
regardless of partisanship, have a great deal or a fair amount of trust
in the mass media....Republicans in America today remain
deeply distrustful of the national news media -- in sharp contrast to
Democrats, who have a great deal more trust in the media's accuracy."
Exactly twice as many Democrats (66%) express some faith in the media
compared with Republicans (33%). Fox News' O'Reilly's guest this week attributed the reason major media has become liberal is because of women and minorities.
Other media reads: a review of Kurtz's book on HuffPo and Kurt'z blog on his new book;
HuffPost's Media page and scroll down for the media links.
Last year I wrote in Blogs, News and Trust in the Information Network that nearly 1 in 3 people said they trust blogs AND 1 in 4 said they dropped a news source in the last year because it lost their trust.
I've not done studies on this matter since fall of '06. Who do you trust? Our go-to sources of news are changing. Is it because women and minorities are eroding journalism? I think not.
Does anyone seriously think that the erosion of the news media is to be blamed on women and minorities? That is "almost" laughable. The only thing I can agree with is that the news media has definitely eroded and is not trustworthy.
After the Dan Rather incident, I have completely lost in any of the big 3 news outlets specifically and I'm highly suspicious CNN. Additionally, the few times I've been interviewed for a news story it was so clipped and twisted when it went to print that it hardly revealed the true spirit of the conversation. Perhaps I am jaded.
Posted by: Antique Mommy | October 10, 2007 at 08:34 AM
I think any online news media source is pretty much all about clicks. They're more likely to print the sensationalism just just to watch the stats go up. Bloggers may do this to an extent, but they'll generally only print the sensationalism that personally interests them. Then, too, there's the option of earning the readers' trust through actual communication back and forth when you're a blogger. You "make friends" with fellow bloggers, and build relationships - although it takes a while to realize that the blogger is NOT the person, but a sometimes exaggerated, sometimes slightly and/or completely fictional version of the offline human being.
That said - yup. I'll trust a blog over a news source any day.
Posted by: Les Becker | October 10, 2007 at 08:34 AM
That was supposed to say I have completely lost "confidence". Kind of an important word to leave out.
Posted by: Antique Mommy | October 10, 2007 at 08:35 AM
Well, I used to watch CNN...was told it was too to the left. Heard that conservatives watch FOX news. Then I started to think...gee, I don't think I am a conservative anymore. I really don't know what I "am" anymore. I believe Charlie Gipson on ABC nightly news. Always, loved him and his integrity. I believe Oprah when she tells the things she knows for sure. That is, I believe she knows for sure those things FOR HER. I respect her putting her money where her mouth is. Belief in blogs is biased...has to be subjective to the author, no? Nothing is black and white. The truth is up for interpretation. Right and wrong are relative. Is that the coward's way out? I don't know. I know young men and women are being killed in Iraq every day. Can't make that go away...it is what it is. No gray area there. The environment is a big issue with me, because I live in New Mexico and it part of why I live here. Global warming...??? Do you believe Time magazine? Al Gore? I don't have time to sort it out. I am busy taking care of people at the ER. So here we are...back to the discussion of choosing to believe in a candidate, based on emotion instead of intellect. I read the headlines on msnbc.com. I read the paper, if I have an extra 15 mins. I listen to cnn headline news while I am getting dressed for work. I read motherpie everyday. I watch ABC nightly news with Charlie Gipson when I am home at that hour. I read O Mag, by Oprah. And I take it all in knowing the system is flawed...it is run by humans!
Posted by: carron hardin | October 10, 2007 at 12:08 PM
I subscribe to thinking rather than believing.
I have to question everything. It's annoying.
Posted by: Miss Havisham | October 10, 2007 at 03:44 PM
I've actually met Shirley Franklin!
Posted by: Eva | October 10, 2007 at 07:20 PM
Miss Havisham, I'm not a MySpace user and your site is very odd but thank you for coming to visit.
Posted by: MotherPie | October 11, 2007 at 06:55 AM
What can anyone believe? It's all sound bites and play-acting. I thank you, MP, for pointing readers in so many directions. Perhaps we all need to sit down and READ for an hour or so a day several newspapers (or whatever you want to call them, now that you can access them on the Internet), and forget TV altogether. Then perhaps we can start to figure out what is being deliberately covered by the media, and what is being swept under the carpet.
Posted by: tut-tut | October 11, 2007 at 09:44 AM