Part 2
Are you a news channel or entertainment? It is a simple black and white question only made gray by those who want the ratings of the entertainment
world while trying to play under the guise of credibility and status afforded to a news organization. For my two cents I don't understand why
everyone does not just stop playing around and go straight to porn. You could lay off just about everyone, shoot it on the cheap and ratings would be
through the roof. Heck you could even have iReporters shoot it and then you would not even need to have cameramen. I have little doubt there would not
be droves of volunteers. If it is just about return on investment and clicks then instead of showing clips of the Victoria's Secret fashion show on
endless loop for days as Fox News did a few years back while talking about how horrible it is that this was aired on one of the major networks when
kids could watch (apparently kids don't watch Fox News), why not just leap ahead to the inevitable conclusion.
The 24-hour network news channels in America right now have more in common with TMZ, arguing radio talk show hosts, CourtTV, Jerry Springer and 5th
grade level debate between political hacks spitting out talking points that are as predictable as the sun rising in the morning, then they do news
organizations.
From my perspective this is not the fault of many of the top old-school correspondents, producers and anchors who work tirelessly with little
resources and fight endless battles just to eke out a minute here or there to try and heroically explain something that can't humanly be done in less
than 10 minutes. Many of you are on this list and I know the situation you face. The problem lies deeper within the evolving culture and revenue
driven model of what's passing for a news organization today.
The painfully short major network news heavyweights at NBC, CBS and ABC still hold to a higher standard but in a changing media market and different
lifestyle schedules many people simply do not happen to find themselves sitting in front of the TV and tuned to the same channel as they once did 15
or 20 years ago and even when they do, the extremely short time spans these shows have to inform their viewers of all the key events in the world
makes it impossible to get all the high profile stories in, let alone do them justice in two minutes. However, I have watched in amazement as people
like Lisa Myers and others do just that under what seem to me to be impossible constraints.
There are also other true hardcore journalists still out there who can get air time to share just a small fraction of what they know. Michael Ware at
CNN is one of those people. It's balanced, well-researched, insightful and informative reporting. The catchy headline takes second seat to actually
informing the viewer and helping them walk away smarter on an issue than they were 10 minutes before. It's reporting like that which we so
desperately need more of in the States. Either that or France24 needs to increase its profile here.
Making all of this worse is that the problems are not limited to broadcast. Shrinking budgets, staff and resources at major newspapers, magazines and
wire services are only further complicating things. As old business models are turned on their heads and the all-mighty click metric rules the day.
Wire services like AP, AFP and Reuters are the staple of life when it comes to knowing what is going on in the world. Should a push to do more
entertainment or resource cutbacks begin to impact coverage in certain areas, it would quite literally be as if those places ceased to exist in many
ways for those who read the news but for now their reporters strewn around the world continue to fight the good fight and provide that one reliable
outlet. AP reporting from Afghanistan and Pakistan and elsewhere has been terrific and showed a depth of knowledge and source development that is what
real journalism is about. The problem here though is not that the stories are not being done but rather how many people are seeing the stories if they
do not get picked up.
On the newspaper side there still is no one that can hold a match to the in-depth reporting that is done by papers like the Washington Post when they
really get behind a story. The Washington Post's two multimedia features in recent years on al-Qaeda and most recently the IED issue were a more
solid and informative treatment then I have seen in any American media and not just on those issues but on almost any terrorist issue. They are an
example of what can really be done when the appropriate time, resources and space are allocated to allow the journalists to do their job and the
reader to be informed. All is not well in the newspaper world though and the changing landscape is bearing down heavily on the old models. Much of
this was captured in the final season of David Simon's brilliant insight into urban life in America on HBO, "The Wire", when he focused the
spotlight on The Baltimore Sun.
Despite these two last bastions, I'm deeply worried. It's simply not enough. As a print person it pains me to say it but in today's day and age, if
it is not on TV, more often than not, it did not happen. Whether in the circles of government or in the mind of the public, the morning paper may
still often set the news cycle but it is the 24-hour news networks that determine whether or not it grows legs. Even as an intelligence professional,
myself and my colleagues often find ourselves running in circles because someone saw something utterly insignificant and unimportant on TV and well of
course then it must be urgent and so emails get dispatched and everyone stops what they are doing to answer the questions of the customer who happened
to flip on a TV. Give the same person a critical intelligence report on something they do not get and that is not on TV and you are lucky if they
bother to read it in some cases.
This brings me back to one simple question. If all the news powerhouses in this country are not going to buckle down and decide that ratings or not,
in the post 9-11 world it's important to educate and inform Americans on these issues, then who will? Also, informing does not mean taking one out of
hundreds of FBI bulletins that leak removing all context and common sense and flashing them across the screen as breaking news. More of this tired
practice is not needed. What is needed is knowledge and context and real reporting.
At our company, we just released a wall chart with the logos from 39 different active terrorist groups. How many Americans do you think could even
think of the names of say five or more groups? Similarly there are more than 50 groups actively operating in Iraq right now. I'd put money down that
if you were to walk the street and ask Americans to name just one group other than al-Qaeda they could not. Yet these groups are killing Americans on
a regular basis. If we cannot name the groups who threaten us, how can we even begin to understand the nature of the threat and the challenges that
face us.
[edit on 7/28/2008 by schrodingers dog]


