I liked the definition of journalism that was brought up in class: storytelling with a purpose. This, to me, says that journalism should give people what they need and what they want. It is a tall order, to be sure, but a good writer must fill the desire for news and try to be entertaining. This goal has not always been met, as evidenced by the rise of infotainment, which we can safely call a failure.
The trouble with trying to give people what they want instead of what they need, is that, all too often, they end up changing their minds. Here is an article from Thursday's NYT about one strange phenomenon: type-writers are coming back in fashion. Just as the first "digital generation" comes of age, the permanence of paper, ink, and manual keys becomes chic. Not that there is any particular moral imperative in typewriters versus I-pads, but it demonstrates that the consumer is quirkier than is sometimes assumed.
Another issue is that, surprise! Different people like different things in their news. I have noticed this with Dr. Cressman's infamous NY Times quizzes. As far as I can tell, he prefers national news (business and political), anything to do with Apple, and the fascinating lives of political figures past...very little arts, international, scientific studies, or Metropolitan Diary. In short, the exact opposite of what I go to first when I pick up a newspaper. Doubtless this is healthy, but the take-home message is that the media must cover a lot topics.
I just have to include this SNL example of what not to do. I think that if journalists keep in mind another journalistic principle "Be loyal to the citizens first." If journalists are honestly looking out for their readers' needs and interests, they will not seek to crowd-please with the sensational or bore them with reports that no one likes.
No comments:
Post a Comment