The Military’s Media Problem

[marct]

Hi Guys,

Interesting debate - I suspect that both of you are, actually, fairly close in your positions vis-a-vis the professionalism of the media.

....As the media are so good at doing, they created a media storm around her which detracted from their coverage of other events. I'm not sure what to write about this phenomena. I'm sickened by the 24-hour news coverage of Anna Nicole's death, but as a media outlet, what choice do you have if you're competition is covering the event? I would suspect the only thing a company could do would be to have a more compelling story to air, changing the dynamic with your competition.

The other thing I always keep in mind is that television is closer to hollywood than journalism. Video lends itself to dramatics in a way print does not. The other thing I try to keep in mind is the intense pressure a correspondent is under when in the field to produce compelling stories.

I think you've raised a really accurate picture of the environment the media operates in. I think that the environment has also deteriorated as a result of so many new channels appearing, so you end up with a form of hyper-specialization going on - we certainly saw that in the case of certain genres of news reporting (e.g. Shock News).

This raise some interesting issues about the profession as a profession. For example, are all reporters "journalists" since many appear to abrogate the accepted codes of ethics of the profession? Does the profession have a way of disciplining members who contravene professional ethics?

Another point that needs to be made is that the argument about "compelling stories" relies on a particular model of the audience - one that assumes the audience is a) passive and b) stupid (not ignorant). "Compelling" relies on the use of emotional arguments / imagery rather than rational argument or descriptive reporting and I think you are quite right to point out that this type of presentation ("dramatics") is more likely to appear in television. Compare it, for example, with the Australian Broadcasting radio report on COIN.

The sad thing is newspapers generally make 20-25% profit annually. Television stations perform even better, making 40-45% profit. If Wall Street's shareholders weren't so greedy, profit margins could be reduced, supplying additional funding for editorial staff, increasing the number and quality of stories. Generally, the economic model of today's news should bear the blame for a majority of faults within journalism.

Honestly, I don't accept that. It is certainly true that the profit motive is one of the reasons for why the industry is in its current form, but that does not abrogate the responsibility of individual journalists to act unethically. In effect, it is a "I was just following orders" excuse that no self respecting journalist would accept from any person they were interviewing, so why should we accept it from journalists? I suspect that this is one of the things that leads 120 to say

So, until the media quits being able to excuse themselves of their own mistakes, I will consider them to be the "real" enemy and not trust them. I am a huge fan of conducting operations without publicity, instituting media black-outs, and considering media on the battlefield as spies. As long as we have an ignorant and apathetic American public, I think domestic I/O is a hugely over-rated field.

Marc