Is this news?
Why is the British press concerned with how the American press covers the Tom DeLay indictment? Is this news?
(see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4293102.stm)
The BBC piece is more evidence of what one might call derivative journalism.
The BBC finds that the American press is stinging in its criticism of Tom DeLay, following the senator majority leader?s indictment on criminal charges of illegal fund raising. They note that even in DeLay?s home state of Texas, newspapers have been harsh.
It is hard to see why they are surprised. The article exists on the supposition that American newspapers would naturally whitewash the issue, making criticism newsworthy.
I question whether the piece is a valid use of journalistic efforts. I mean that honestly. I can see where reporting on the reporters could be a valid endeavor, such as when a state-run press promotes a dictator, or when advertisers influence content.
But the preponderance of these stories troubles me. With so much wrong in the world, is it worthwhile for the BBC to spend time on what American newspapers think of Tom DeLay?
Is it worth my time to analyze what they?ve done with theirs?
Derivative
Derivative journalism has always been with us, but it seems to get worse all the time. The most glaring examples are when news outlets rely on polling data, though this data can serve a useful purpose. Rather than having journalists talk to a few people on the street or get a mere sense of what people think or how they plan to act, polls can be far more accurate. They are problematic in that once they are reported they can then influence behavior. They ideally put a mirror up to society, but many times this is a fun-house mirror. Worse is when polling data is substituted for true reporting, as when the press concentrates on polls around election time and entirely ignores stories about how labor endorsements and local politics can influence state election results–the grittier, harder to report stories.
Still, at least reporting on polls attempts to cover existing sentiment. When media reports on media, there is less of an argument for applicability to a general readership. So, I?m not referring to trade publication coverage of media, which analyzes movement within the industry, etc. But when the mainstream press write about what the mainstream press is thinking, it’s clearly masturbatory.
It is entertaining, though, and blogs have jumped onboard (I’m guilty of this right now). The public?s fascination with the subject has been fanned by the scandals surrounding Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Dan Rather, Mike Barnicle, etc. These are great human interest stories worthy of press attention.
(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_fraud.)
But is the piece in question, which does a shoddy analysis of a highly covered event, useful? I suppose the BBC could add value if it corrected inaccuracies or demonstrated that all the newspapers in a particular chain were taking a specific stance. Otherwise, their coverage is superficial.
I think at the heart of my discomfort is the notion that the press was initially conceived to report, not to criticize—not in the news section, anyway. Analysis is definitely a part of the reporting process, but it is growing and now we have “news” stories that really belong in a “media criticism” section. The overall trend is definitely toward less reporting and more analysis. It is far easier to take a news nugget and surround it with “expert” analysis than to dig deeper for more nuggets. And quoting experts covers a journalist’s rear.
Even taken as pure criticism, the BBC story is sophomoric in the sense that it is unscientific in its qualitative criticism. How many papers are positive on DeLay? How many are negative? It does not say. The author browses some newspaper editorial pages, adds a paragraph about the indictment, and concludes.
But what if the story did attempt to really report on the media’s response. Should the reporter leave out radio pundits? Television anchors? Blogs? And if all this data were compiled, what would it prove? Would it discover how media feels about the indictment, and why would this be relevant? My sense is that it would be irrelevant no matter how well the story is handled. What’s relevant is what happens to DeLay. Less so, how people feel about it.
