Reaganomics of Media Reporting
J. Patrick Coolican’s article “The Perils of Political Narrative,” was a very thought provoking assessment of the state of politics today. Even those trying to operate outside the conventional sphere find themselves slipping back into its rhetoric. I would say what Coolican is essentially doing is making an analogy for trickle down economics as it applies to the media. He and his colleagues both wrote and operated under the assumption that the culinary leadership was very strong and would provide a united front for which ever candidate she choose to support. This mirrored the same presumption that local and national media choose to operate under. Only on caucus day the union ended up going for Clinton as oppose to Obama, a complete one-eighty than what had been promised by the leadership. What happened as Coolican correctly points out, he and his colleagues who normally operate on the fringes bought into the false narrative, and “rehash[ed] the campaign machinery’s narrative. Someone how that message still penetrated the minds of the bloggers and independent thinkers.
Coolican finishes by asking how can this idea by avoided? In this sense I don’t think he is being very realistic. Taking the opposite stance for the sake of being different won’t always make the journalist
standout or free thinking, sometimes it just makes him or her a loner. He or she would be infact doing his readership a disservice because I feel that the readers deserve an accurate commentary on the prevailing thoughts, after all as a society we seem to live and die on polls and statistics. If after hearing the “conventional wisdom” the readers decide that is really who they want then by way of commentary the journalist has promoted the democratic spirit.
Conversely, if we actually look at it from an economic model the more stories that backup a particular idea the more credibility it is said to have. Since most consumers of news have no time to decide for themselves what is credible news than they are going to want to read the stories they feel that everyone else is reading so as to stay up on world. Giving that understanding the journalist that goes against the mainstream is not going to be as successful in getting his story out into the free market place of ideas. I think a better question for Coolican to ask is how can we better balance the prevailing narrative with other less conventional thoughts and ideas?
Questions:
1) How can we find a better balance between prevailing narratives on politics and more abstract/obscure thoughts and ideas?
2) Do you think that the more bloggers grew and become a part of the mediated world their message and voice will start to resemble more conventional news, or in other words be more accepting and accommodating prevailing narratives?
kegill said,
May 6, 2008 at 8:43 am
Interesting analysis, the “trickle down” thought.
Whitney said,
May 6, 2008 at 10:45 am
Your approach to this article is really interesting, and not one that I had considered. I think we are already beginning to see the effects of bloggers’ conventional news voices and their impact on both traditional media and readers. I am not sure, though, that the reason for their credibility is because of their numbers. Many bloggers push and write about stories they believe are important for society and these types of things usually take a while to catch on to traditional media (think Monica Lewinsky and the Drudge Report). In this sense, I think that yes numbers might be important, but I think content and sourcing is more where readers gage credibility.
paks2008 said,
May 6, 2008 at 10:45 am
Jason, I think that you make a good point in saying that taking the opposite stance on an issue just to be different won’t really make a journalist stand out. I agree in that it would be doing our readers a disservice because we’re supposed to be reporting the truth and in editorials and commentaries, we’re supposed to be expressing our true opinions and even if we do end up going with the majority, I think that readers would appreciate the honesty more.
To answer your second question, I think that as bloggers grow and become more popular, I think that they may resemble conventional news more in their topics, but I still think that bloggers will still have their own voice among the media community and provide commentary and narratives of their views on the world.
nkb4 said,
May 6, 2008 at 10:47 am
In answering your second question: I don’t think that the more bloggers grow and become part of the mediated world they will look and act more like conventional news. In fact, I think they will try to act much differently than conventional news because they will want to stand out and have a different role in the news industry.
A majority of the blogs that I read are not people reporting on “breaking news” and are the first ones to cover stories… instead, many bloggers use their posts to comment on news stories that they heard about from other sources or just spread the word further by giving small summaries on big news stories. Bloggers are not behaving like conventional news media now, and I don’t think they will ever become quite like the traditional news mediums we have today.
nicology said,
May 6, 2008 at 10:47 am
Reports, who aren’t an expert on a certain subject, are taught to look to “official” sources for their information. But when dealing with politics and each candidate’s person views and agenda, how “official” must one take that source? Your post reminds me that these supposed “credible” officials are just reflecting the views of someone higher above them. Coolican learned that as a reporter, you have to be wary of what people say, even if they are experts. As journalists we learn to be objective. But I feel that journalism is hardly objective. One is subjective when they choose to cover one story and not another. One is subjective when they decided to put one story on the front page and the other text to the obituaries. Journalists should look at different sources and question the “official” ones because as this article proves, may not always be right.
week 6 - social media and politics « Social Technologies, Media and Politics said,
May 6, 2008 at 10:49 am
[...] (count off- half the room comments on each) : Jason and [...]
tynerw said,
May 6, 2008 at 10:50 am
In response the question #2:
Bloggers are, today, a part of the mediated world. Their voice does resemble conventional news in some fields. For example, in the celebrity gossip media world http://perezhilton.com/ is viewed as a gossip resource for the masses, almost equal to US weekly or Star. The main blogger, Perez, is thought of as credible by many of his devoted fans. In the real estate world, John Cook, a blogger from Seattle, offers a respected and educated insight into real estate. People in the industry tune into his blog because it is credible and fair. In my eyes, these bloggers are convention—at least 2008 conventional
khairup said,
May 6, 2008 at 10:52 am
Very interesting post. What I wonder is whether all stories that are published under the influence of main-stream media are credible sources? I concur with your thoughts on finding a balance between these two kinds of journalistic media. I also think that many of the less conventional journalists try to post ideas that are opposite to those posted by the main stream. However, when they find less readers they gradually move towards more conventionally accepted views. I think it is what humans tend to do – try to fit in society.