This piece really does strike at the core of how Iowa Republicans found the Ruby in this election cycle. What I feared would happen was made real. Local journalism is being replaced by a one-size-fits-all and local politicians and candidates for office are not being held accountable. No longer are councils meetings, supervisors meetings, or board meetings being covered or scrutinized by journalist. Rural areas no longer have their small-town newspapers on which to place their trust; they get the same news and lean as larger cities. Usually, the one the parent company decides. Even if the rural newspaper is printed, it usually appears to be a mini version of the parent with some sprinkles of local benign puffery. As a result, subscriptions go down, layoffs of reporters occur and the parent is left with no other choice but to dissolve the entity. Oh, the disappointment and sadness they proclaim from behind the curtain, while smiling and winking with approval. Thus, engulfing the local market and forcing its readers into the realm: Captive readership. Now, news is obtained either by cable news or conglomerate print and the Ruby gets polished. Enough said. Thank you for this amazing read!
Another factor is the amount of content that needs to be produced for various types of "media" on a 24/7 basis. The public has been trained to demand and expect immediacy, accuracy be damned. I remember during a recent school shooting in Texas, facts were "too slow" in coming out of the scene so various outlets/people/influencers just started speculating about what happened, then that speculation was shared as if it was truth.
Thanks Dave and yes, this "reporting" using written statements makes me crazy (ier). In addition, I've also noticed that even when an interview is done by a print or other journalist, the questioner often accepts that answer at face value and moves on. Rarely does it seem that the journalist will really listen to the answer given and make the effort to probe. Is it time that's the problem, a lack of inquisitiveness, a lack of knowledge of the subject matter that makes one hesitant, a concern about seeming to be impolite, a bit of all the above, or something else?
John, I could go one at length on this topic. Many reporters are thinking so hard about their NEXT question that they don’t listen to what the interviewee is saying. A skilled interviewer can do both. And yes, there’s a general tendency to be polite and not be a jerk. But there’s a way to ask challenging questions in a direct but polite way. Example: Tim Russert. He didn’t accept wishy-washy answers. He also was prepared and smarter than the average bear.
Good interviews require preparation and reading up on the subject. That certainly takes time, which is in short supply in most newsrooms.
One other point. Politicians are so much better trained at the pivot these days. Good reporters need to listen carefully, recognize spin, and bore in for a real answer. That doesn’t mean you’ll get it, but you should try.
I think the folks on Iowa Press generally do a good job asking follow-ups and not letting public officials squirm off the hook.
In the days of the great newspapers, people were aware of and no bones were made about the fact that some had a more conservative editorial slant which their reportage tended to reflect, and others were more liberal.
You wanted "fair and balanced," you read two newspapers.
Now, cable news has polluted the waters with the "fair and balanced" virus causing a reflexive need to present "both sides" to every story even if there is but one. Even reporting straight facts requires "the other side" to weigh in with competing opinion, as if fact and opinion were equally capable of informing.
Thanks for the comment, Jeff. A subject for a future column, for sure. My experience tells me if you have to market your news product as "fair and balanced", it's probably anything but.
There's a column rumbling around in my brain to write about when and why things changed. There are several key moments in the past few decades that led to our politically divided media world. Stay tuned, and thanks for reading.
I had the same frustration. Every time law enforcement offered a statement after an arrest or accident I thought: I don't want a statement, rather an opportunity to ask questions.
Bob, thanks for your comment. Sometimes it makes sense for police to issue a statement about an accidental death or something where reporters just need some basic facts about what happened. A lot more efficient for the PIO to send a release to all media. I get that. My concern is more with politicians or people in power putting out spin and not having to face any follow-up questions. That’s the part that has really gotten out of control of late.
So my question is this: What is the green reporter to do (assuming under 25 working weekends) when asked by the desk/producer “”What’s the response from the other side to the comments?”
If they only release a written statement, what (in the extremely limited time) of a political tv spot are they supposed to do?
It seems the capitalistic nature of the current news environment has been exploited to favor this response… solutions?
Mike, the reporter and editor should have learned in journalism school not to take a written statement just because it’s offered. But you’re right. Time pressure will usually cause them to take the path of least resistance. My hope is that you as a reader/viewer will now recognize it and judge the story accordingly.
Dave,
This piece really does strike at the core of how Iowa Republicans found the Ruby in this election cycle. What I feared would happen was made real. Local journalism is being replaced by a one-size-fits-all and local politicians and candidates for office are not being held accountable. No longer are councils meetings, supervisors meetings, or board meetings being covered or scrutinized by journalist. Rural areas no longer have their small-town newspapers on which to place their trust; they get the same news and lean as larger cities. Usually, the one the parent company decides. Even if the rural newspaper is printed, it usually appears to be a mini version of the parent with some sprinkles of local benign puffery. As a result, subscriptions go down, layoffs of reporters occur and the parent is left with no other choice but to dissolve the entity. Oh, the disappointment and sadness they proclaim from behind the curtain, while smiling and winking with approval. Thus, engulfing the local market and forcing its readers into the realm: Captive readership. Now, news is obtained either by cable news or conglomerate print and the Ruby gets polished. Enough said. Thank you for this amazing read!
Another factor is the amount of content that needs to be produced for various types of "media" on a 24/7 basis. The public has been trained to demand and expect immediacy, accuracy be damned. I remember during a recent school shooting in Texas, facts were "too slow" in coming out of the scene so various outlets/people/influencers just started speculating about what happened, then that speculation was shared as if it was truth.
Thanks Dave and yes, this "reporting" using written statements makes me crazy (ier). In addition, I've also noticed that even when an interview is done by a print or other journalist, the questioner often accepts that answer at face value and moves on. Rarely does it seem that the journalist will really listen to the answer given and make the effort to probe. Is it time that's the problem, a lack of inquisitiveness, a lack of knowledge of the subject matter that makes one hesitant, a concern about seeming to be impolite, a bit of all the above, or something else?
John, I could go one at length on this topic. Many reporters are thinking so hard about their NEXT question that they don’t listen to what the interviewee is saying. A skilled interviewer can do both. And yes, there’s a general tendency to be polite and not be a jerk. But there’s a way to ask challenging questions in a direct but polite way. Example: Tim Russert. He didn’t accept wishy-washy answers. He also was prepared and smarter than the average bear.
Good interviews require preparation and reading up on the subject. That certainly takes time, which is in short supply in most newsrooms.
One other point. Politicians are so much better trained at the pivot these days. Good reporters need to listen carefully, recognize spin, and bore in for a real answer. That doesn’t mean you’ll get it, but you should try.
I think the folks on Iowa Press generally do a good job asking follow-ups and not letting public officials squirm off the hook.
I would add the "scourge of "fair and balanced.""
In the days of the great newspapers, people were aware of and no bones were made about the fact that some had a more conservative editorial slant which their reportage tended to reflect, and others were more liberal.
You wanted "fair and balanced," you read two newspapers.
Now, cable news has polluted the waters with the "fair and balanced" virus causing a reflexive need to present "both sides" to every story even if there is but one. Even reporting straight facts requires "the other side" to weigh in with competing opinion, as if fact and opinion were equally capable of informing.
This is not journalism. This is pandering.
Thanks for the comment, Jeff. A subject for a future column, for sure. My experience tells me if you have to market your news product as "fair and balanced", it's probably anything but.
There's a column rumbling around in my brain to write about when and why things changed. There are several key moments in the past few decades that led to our politically divided media world. Stay tuned, and thanks for reading.
Brilliant piece!
Thanks, Jeremy.
I had the same frustration. Every time law enforcement offered a statement after an arrest or accident I thought: I don't want a statement, rather an opportunity to ask questions.
Bob, thanks for your comment. Sometimes it makes sense for police to issue a statement about an accidental death or something where reporters just need some basic facts about what happened. A lot more efficient for the PIO to send a release to all media. I get that. My concern is more with politicians or people in power putting out spin and not having to face any follow-up questions. That’s the part that has really gotten out of control of late.
So my question is this: What is the green reporter to do (assuming under 25 working weekends) when asked by the desk/producer “”What’s the response from the other side to the comments?”
If they only release a written statement, what (in the extremely limited time) of a political tv spot are they supposed to do?
It seems the capitalistic nature of the current news environment has been exploited to favor this response… solutions?
Mike, the reporter and editor should have learned in journalism school not to take a written statement just because it’s offered. But you’re right. Time pressure will usually cause them to take the path of least resistance. My hope is that you as a reader/viewer will now recognize it and judge the story accordingly.