How does the media decide what is "news"

[Arduinna]

genuine question?? How does the media decide what is news worthy?? Past ratings/sales of similar type stories?? Do they take a pool?? Does a higher up decide what we need to hear??

Anyone know??

[kama'aina mama]

I think right off the bat anything that has a visual component stands a better chance of being covered. Simple stories over complex ones. Some newspapers cover complicated issues but many just don't/won't.

[anothermama]

two things

1) what gets the most viewers....veiwers = money

2) what won't piss off their sponsors

[Arduinna]

"what won't piss off the sponsers"

hmmmmm is the fed gov sonsidered a sponser??

[Elphaba]

It's going to depend on the outlet. What's front page, above the fold in the NY Times, may not even make the A section in a small-town paper in Texas. Plus, it depends on how much space is available, whether it was a slow news day or not, and the interests of the staff.
I was a news editor for a small to mid sized daily paper in Texas. Local things took precedence over state things, state over national, and international was barely a blip on the radar. The preferences of our white, middle-aged, straight male publisher and editor were given priority. When I had the opportunity to choose any story I liked to "fill a hole" I chose things that I thought were interesting, frequently women's issues or health topics. Sometimes things would get bumped at the last minute because of a fatality or arrest of a public figure, and sometimes some really lame stories made the front simply because there was nothing else.
One example of how varying viewpoints of what is NEWS can conflict, is the death penalty in Texas. My stance was that every time there was an execution, whicc BTW took place 40 miles from our newspaper, it should be front page with a photo because people should know how many people were being killed by the State of Texas and put a face to it. BTW, this was during the period when TX was routinely killing 3-7 people each week. My editor and publisher said it was boring and that only executions of people who had committed their crimes in the circulation area should be front page. Everyone else was B section, probably below the fold, maybe even inside.
And when the publisher's FOURTEEN YEAR OLD daughter took the family sportscar out and killed her friend while joyriding, I was the only one who questioned why we weren't reporting that. At least, I was the only dumba$$ to say it in the staff meeting.

[Arduinna]

ok but what about tv news??

[Elphaba]

I dunno. I'm a print girl.

Asherah would know, but I doubt she'll come here because the media always gets bashed and it's pretty hard not to take it personally.

[bonbon mama]

My sister is an on air reporter in MD and she brings story ideas to a meeting where everyone discusses possibilities. They are not chosen just by the journalists, however. She has bosses who are managerial/bottom dollar persons and they get a huge say. She is very interested in unusual stories, and is always asking me for ideas from you guys on the boards...GRIN.

[merpk]

Yeah, Elphaba, I was going to suggest someone PM asherah to give her a heads-up, so maybe she'll respond to the thread ...

But we have to all promise to behave.















PS - asherah

[Shell]

I just saw a great slogan...

Annoy the media... Vote for Dean!

There are LOTS of great reasons to vote for Dean in the primary. This reason is as good as all of them!

[Snowy Owl]

Well not all media can be lumped into the same category. I'll bash the poor ethics of corporate media til the cows come home, but that's not bashing all media.
Does asherah work for CNN or something? Why would she be upset? Sorry, I was not party to past threads on this topic... but anyone who works in the industry probably has someting interesting to say about it, right?
Anyway, about the OP, I immediately thought of the two major local newspapers in this city (like the two of all other cities I've lived in). The Sun and the Star. Owned by the same company but targeting different audiences. The Sun is an idiotic super right-wing rag written for semi-literates that focuses on half-naked women and usually has a sports story on the front page. It was Janet Jackson's breast the other day, of course. The Star is just your average newspaper, not particularly balanced or in-depth about anything, but you get your major headlines. I like the free newspapers and alternative news magazines.
And Mothering, of course.
By the way I don't have television so rarely watch the news, but when I do I am always appalled by CNNs standard of journalism. It's just a propaganda machine.
(Once again, apologies to anyone employed by CNN).
It's no wonder so many people are oblivious to what's going on in the world and what a farce the Bush admin. is if they're getting their info from corporate television news.....yuck!!!! Brainrot!!!! Yeah, it's no mystery how they determine 'news'....

[smittenmom]

I used to work at a small-market TV station for several years, and briefly in news radio. The decicion process was very similar to what Elphaba described. It depends largely on what the news director, and to a lesser extent the reporters and producers, find interesting. Every day began with a meeting where ideas were presented and discussed. Some days we covered stories that were pretty lame just because there was nothing better, but some days things got pushed out (or moved to another day) because there was so much going on. Local politics, jobs, education--those were the prorities. But if there was spot news during the day (an accident, plane crash, murder, etc.), it generally took top billing. There was also a lot of competition between stations, so if we thought another station would cover something, even if it was stupid, we felt like we had to do it too so we wouldn't get "beat". That was always sad to me.

I can say that there were a few cases when salespeople came in and requested that we do stories that would somehow benefit their clients (advertisers). I worked with a great ND who laughed at them, and I worked with a terrible ND who made us do the stories (while trying to convince us that they were good stories and he would never let sales dictate news--wow, I had forgotten how much I detested working for him!).

[asherah]

OK. I will answer if you all promise to be nice.
But first, this disclaimer for the sake of my job:

I am NOT speaking on behalf of my network in either an official or unofficial capacity. I am speaking as an individual journalist. I am NOT speaking about specific newsgathering or editorial issues at my network, but in a general sense based on my 17 years in broadcast journalism. Phew. OK.

There are lots of factors that come into play in editorial meetings where the news of the day is determined. These include (not in any particular order):

1) What are our own reporters working on/enterprising on their own? What will give us a big scoop and garner attention?
2) What are the newspapers/other networks of record working on?
3) What are world leaders/celebrities/other important people doing?
4) What is our travel budget? Where are our satellite trucks? What are the logitistics/costs of moving people and equipment from one place/one story to another?
5) What affects/interests the greatest number of people?
6) Where are the best, most compelling pictures?
7) What can we get the most out of with the least effort/expense?

Some considerations are purely journalistic, some are practical, some are commercial. They all get discussed, people argue(hotly!).. and decisions get made. You can complain all you want about ratings, etc.. being a factor.. but it is a business. You (and I) might want our journalism pure and untouched by any such considerations... but commercial media are just that. Commercial. And non-commercial media have their own, unique problems. So those things do weigh into the discussion.. but journalism does, too. It is a very messy process, much like democracy itself. Some days the good guys win, some days they don't.

As for considerations like not pissing off advertisers, or conspiring with the government:
I have NEVER... repeat NEVER... heard these things overtly brought up in news meetings. NEVER.
I am not saying they never happen (DUH) and I am not saying they are never in the back of some people's minds.. (DUH).. but they are not brought overtly to the table.

Those things are more likely to happen with individual stories and individual people.... and at high levels. The surfs in the newsroom.. who actually make newscasts happen... are much more panicked about filling dead air than with advertisers or corporate/political wheeling and dealing. I mean, do you really think Karl Rove is sitting in on editorial meetings? Or that memos from corporate headquarters are circulating with directions on censoring certain stories? Is this what people really envision? Well, it just doesn't happen. The everyday problems in my profession are much more mundane than that. Much more about sheer intellectual laziness than sinister conspiracies.

As for any comments about "standards of journalism.."
The fact is that most people haven't the first CLUE how news gets on the air. How many people.. literally DOZENS.. at the network level... have their hands on it before it makes air. How many sources of information there are for even a simple, 30-second story. How many arguments take place. How the news factory works. What the process is and how complex... where it breaks down and why. The answers are as complicated as the human condition itself.. it isn't accurate or insightful to just say "oh, they have no journalistic standards."

I could write more, but this is long enough.
I hope someone at least finds it interesting.

[Arduinna]

Thanks Asherah and everyone else who responded.

[asherah]

Oh, and one more word about "journalistic standards."
Journalism, of course, is not a profession in the sense that law or medicine are.
I don't have to have a license to practice journalism, and there is no body of authority to set uniform standards or revoke my license if I don't adhere to them.

Now, there are journalism trade groups and advocacy organizations and think tanks that ponder such lofty ideals.. and come up with "standards and practices," but.. of course they have no power to implement or enforce them.. and most have their own agendas.

So, "journalistic standards" are really in the eye of the beholder.. the beholder mostly being individual media organizations. And most major ones have large, detailed manuals of standards and practices.. and have people with various titles including Ombudsman or Public Advocate or Director of Standards and Practices who enforce them. Or don't enforce them. I don't pretend to know what goes on at every organization, or even what happens on every story at my own organization. I do know that I have participated in loud, shrieking fights in various newsrooms about these things.. with both surfs and corner-office holders.. because they aren't generally black and white. And I have won and lost major battles.

But unless you have read the manual, and done a study of the enforcement or lack of it... or studied and compared individual coverage over the long-term, it is pretty difficult to determine from the outside who is falling down on what standard.

Now, it is perfectly fair to say you don't like a network's tone.. or coverage of politics, or whatever. It is perfectly fair to say you don't think they are doing a good job, for whatever reason. Or that you don't think journalists or media organizations are "ethical." Or even to say you BELIEVE there is a vast, sinister conspiracy.

But things, as always.. are usually more complicated than they seem. And most media organizations, do, in fact, have "journalistic standards." Now, whether they are good ones, or whether they stick to them, is another argument.
And not one I care to have on these pages.

[AdinaL]

Moved to Books, Music and Other Media!

[Snowy Owl]

Originally posted by AdinaL
Moved to Books, Music and Other Media!

umm....this is about the media in the context of coverage of political/world events
and 'who control the media' which is overwhelmingly an activism topic, is it not?

[*Erin*]

ita with you snowy owl!
i must do something really distastful to me and defund cnn...*hork* cnn was/is the only network to sell airtime to adbusters for their uncommercials. cbs, nbc, abc, msnbc, all of them said no. most on the premise that it would conflict with thier sponsers.
advertisers control television content all the time. news stories are no different. the only reason we're hearing about bush going awol right now is because of micheal moore, and his comment while introducing wesley clark-one news outlet picked it up, 14 million hits on his (MM's)website later, its news.
my bil is a broadcast journalist for a major commercial news outlet, and he's confirmed that, at least at his station, self censorship (and if that's not enough -blatent censorship) to satisfy corporate interests is quite common.
i appreciate your post asherah-i agree that things are usually way more complicated than they seem. it's good to know there are womyn like you fighting to get the news shown!

personally, i dont like the tone, and the lack of political, womyns, enviromental, health coverage on all the commercial networks. i havent really believed anything i've seen on the commercial news in ages. it burns me too. news for profit. how can you ever trust that you're getting any truth if all the news outlets are owned by the same few corporations, and the news is sponsered by thier products?!

i get my news from a bunch of different websites (bbc, pbs, salon, IMC...)

[Snowy Owl]

wow, Erin, that's really interesting about CNN....
I have to say with my first post that blasted the network I was speaking with the prejudice of someone who never watches TV...and so the last time I did, about three weeks ago, I was left with a very strong impression of CNN. I watched the national Canadian news, CBC, and then watched CNN report it's headline news.
It was the night there was a shooting of protesters in Iraq. The CBC covered the story extensively, but the CNN news devoted like ten minutes to this fluffy story of a soldier coming home to his wife from Iraq, and then gave about ten seconds to the shooting of protesters story. They were called 'violent protesters' and they showed clips of a group of people throwing rocks or something. Plus, there was no mention of the fact that American and British soldiers were involved. They only mentioned 'police'. And I don't think they mentioned that the protesters were protesting massive unemployment. I was shocked....like, do people call this news?
So this was my last impression of CNN. Actually, I have a different kind of relationship with the website...today, because of this thread, I compared notes on online BBC, CBC, and CNN and found them all very similar. BBC is definitely the best, however. IMO.

Anyway, to conclude this post: sometimes I'm not sure if some of these networks are taking advantage of ignorance or perpetuating it.....

:

[Benjismom]

I get to view media from the other side, as a source. I work in the corporate governance field and since all the corporate meltdowns and conflict of interest-type scandals (stock analysts, auditors, NYSE) I have had many many opportunities to speak to reporters in the print and broadcast media and to appear as a guest on shows.

While many reporters are well-prepared and know a lot about the issues, what is shocking to me is how many come to a story without doing much research and then ask me to educate them on the issues, including some of the most basic stuff. Of course I'm happy to do that because what I'm doing is getting a lot of influence over the shape of the story. Part of me deplores this state of affairs while the other part of me gladly uses it to move an agenda of reform.

In some sense, there doesn't even have to be a big conspiracy since those in power are more able to fund outreach operations and otherwise influence the media. The only reason I've been able to have a seat at the table is that the scope of the scandals and degree of public outrage has legitimized my formerly-marginalized position that corporations should be accountable, responsible and transparent.

Beth, hoping none of the journalists I talk to are reading this (you're all in the first, good category if you are)