Did you hear the news?!

Well even if you did, you still might not know. That is because the truth is none of us may be hearing about really significant news stories and investigations. And why is this? This is the result of reasons that include, entertainment journalism, less reporters, and the techniques that newspapers/stations have been using to try and stay on their feet. Just yesterday, the Federal Communications Commissions Commissioner, Michael Copps, spoke with Patt Morrison on the radio (some of the conversation has been posted in article/written form on the stations website). A recent study has revealed that within the typical 30 minute L.A. newscast, only about 22 seconds are devoted to local government coverage, and the rest to sports or weather! Copps expressed concern in reaction to both this information and other signs, that he'd already noticed, suggesting that goal of news is slightly corrupted. He recognizes that cuts are having to be made, with many stations and news rooms closing down. There are less positions available and even less investigative journalism going on.However, he does not believe this justifies the routine that journalism seems to be following now. Serviss, the author of the article, summarizes, saying that, "the overall shift of broadcast media away from hard news reporting and toward an “infotainment” style of coverage". Infotainment essentially means that news content has sifted to become more entertainment focused in order to keep stories light and bring in as many viewers as possible. News networks are mostly seeking to stay afloat, so they encourage viewers to keep watching, in this case by keeping the government stories short.

Here's the deal...While we may not like to think so, the news is not really ever going to be completely objective because it is a part of the media. Now wait a minute! I am not calling the media "evil" or anything like that. I am just explaining that the goal of the news is not just to inform, but also to succeed. There is competition between all the stations to get higher ratings (number of viewers, etc) than each other, so the stations have to be sure that the audience will like what they see. You see, the larger the group of followers, the more money. As it says in the book Media Society, "Economic forces identify the goals and shape the terrain of the decision-making process [in media]," (p. 122). So, if the news is not just driven to inform us, but now most of the stories revolve around entertaining us, then should we change our expectation of what news is? I mean, I don't know about you, but I don't plan on lowering my expectations. Let me explain...While I don't expect the news to be completely objective, I do expect the news to follow significant issues, from the local government to international concerns. I would agree with Copps' description of news, "the information [we] need to be fully informed and to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the issues to be engaged in the discussions and decisions that affect [our] community." It saddens me to think that we are loosing sight of many important things going on out in the world, especially while we have so many resources that provide us the ability to connect with others all of over the world.

How much control do we have over this shrinking perception? I definitely feel as though I have little control. It embarrasses me a little, but I must say that the small pieces of information and knowledge that I gain about the nation and the world are incredibly influenced by what is covered in the media. For instance, most news coverage recently (well not very recently, but moving on) has sifted from coverage of the war in Iraq to the troubles in Afghanistan. Based on this, if I was asked about what was going on in both areas, I could probably only tell about some of the situation in Afghanistan.
Do you feel the same way? Are we so shaped by what others choose to call "newsworthy"? What do you think classifies something as newsworthy?

Think about it ;-)
Cristi