News You Can Use
I worry about the future of newspapers. Every month I read about the dwindling circulation figures and I work out how long it will be before some of the most famous titles are selling fewer copies than my old school magazine. Then I try to do my bit by buying two or three papers every time I'm catching a train. I also make sure to toss them in the bin afterwards so that no one else can read them for free. I hope that helps. Not the planet, obviously.
But I don't just worry about newspapers; I worry about the future of news itself. It's one of my favourite conversation topics. Just get me started on this and I can clear a room within ten minutes. I'm not kidding.
I first performed this vanishing act many moons ago during a BBC Review Board. These are meetings where we gather to discuss and dissect recent output. People come from different departments and with different points of view. Sometimes I suspected they had colluded before those Review Boards and agreed to say nice things about each other's programmes. A non-hostility pact, if you like. At other times the meetings could descend into mutually assured destruction as estranged colleagues settled old scores.
That doesn't happen anymore. Well, not often.
But it was at one of those Review Boards, when I was voicing some criticism of Radio Scotland's news output, that the programme editor defended himself with the following question.
"But what do you think we missed?"
I didn't quite understand what he meant, so he elaborated.
"I mean, was there anything in the newspapers that morning that we didn't cover on the radio. Did we miss any stories?"
Well, the discussion went on for a bit. Some people made their excuses and left. Others were so numb that they couldn't think of an excuse and just threw themselves out of a window. Finally I had to accept that we hadn't, in that sense, "missed a story" but it confirmed my view that news journalism can drift too easily into information-processing. One journalist gets a story and everyone else transforms it into a radio or television piece, a magazine column, an online article, a blog and so on. The next morning that story is "taken on" by seeking reaction from a relevant person or organisation.
When I worked in commercial radio every political story had to be followed up by reaction from other politicians and then the CBI and STUC. Always riveting stuff, of course.
Journalists ought to be defined by their ability to find or cover that original story. To be first with the news, in fact. To tell people things they don't already know. To ask the right questions.
And that's what worries me about the demise of newspapers. Fewer journalists will mean fewer original stories.
I imagine that, around the world, there are newsrooms full of dedicated, intelligent staff who are working very long hours processing a very small number of stories...and that news agenda seems to be getting narrower all the time.
More than a year ago, at the Radio Festival, I found myself making headlines because I dared to state the obvious and point out that news was becoming dominated by stories about celebrities like Amy Winehouse and her trips to rehab. I went as far as to say that there were plenty of young women in Scotland whose lives were also being ruined by drugs and that we, as journalists, should find ways of putting their stories at the top of our bulletins.
News, I said, is what we say it is and we don't all have to say the same thing. It's why, on BBC Radio Scotland, we created the fortnightly Investigation programme...and why we have programmes like Give Me a Voice where real people - not professional journalists - get the chance to tell their own stories and demand answers from the authorities.
But maybe I'm wrong. Arrogant, even. Overweight too. Sober, though.
Maybe news should only be about what sells newspapers or bumps up listening and viewing figures.
So you tell me...what should be in the news?
And if you would like to read a more eloquent view of modern journalism, please look at this piece from the Nieman Foundation for Journalsim at Harvard.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~47~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Of course the big stories of the day should be 'covered', and as the 'facts' of a story generally (cough!) don't change from news outlet to news outlet, the other aspect of news journalism that has to be present is analysis and opinion. That elevates mere news bulletins to something that is both informative and entertaining (in the widest possible sense). As any writer or undergraduate student will tell you, it's what differentiates a good essay from a bad essay and engenders plurality in the industry - people will seek out multiple sources of news and not just settle for one on the basis of 'dogma' or 'habit'. They will do so because they value what they are purchasing.
More quality news = more consumption of the product. I wonder what lesson could be learned from this? :-)
Complain about this comment
The future of newspapers is a fairly big concern of mine so I couldn’t let this piece get by without comment. There are quite a few issues but I will stick to one. People will always buy a newspaper for the local issues that have an impact on their lives, particularly if they have grown to trust the integrity of the newspaper. Whether it is to flesh out the story they have heard on the BBC or for all the little local titbits they could not read or hear elsewhere. They will look for multiple sources but hopefully still identify with a newspaper.
So JFE is perfectly correct in the above,– and says it far more eloquently than I could. I agree completely with quality news = more consumption.
Hopefully you are contributing to my circulation with at least one of the copies you buy JZ?
Complain about this comment
#2&3
I think JZ is looking towards the interesting & broading eternal question 'what's new' which if pursued exclusively results only in an endless parade of trivia and fashion, i.e. an obstacle to the future!
Complain about this comment
Well JZ maybe one should look closer to home as to the demise of proper journalism not just in the papers but also in other formats especially in Scotland.
Ever since the administration changed in 2007 in our devolved governence the 'hatred' shown by both printed and verbal media against that change has become more apparent by constructing the news rather than reporting in an impartial fashion consequently the public have diverted to more reliable sources to get the the truer facts rather than be fed nuLab's press releases.
Complain about this comment
From BBC this is laughable!
As an American, I used to use BBC as an impartial (I thought) news source.
I made a complaint to BBC just two days ago -- to which they did not respond -- complaining about a news story that was obviously nothing more than printing a Labour Party news release. I have written news releases. I recognize one when it slaps me in the face.
This was what should have been in Scotland a fairly important story (the reshuffle of the Shadow Cabinet to be exact) and it was given the MOST biased coverage possible. It could only have come straight off the Labour news release.
There was no hint of question about why so many (29 out of 40) MSP on the front bench. No questioning of the Iain Gray comment about Wendy Alexander's "big future" in spite of the fact that she wasn't one of the one's now on the frontbench. No mention of the fact that a certain MSP was ignored and was it because of his open split with the party line over the al-Megrahi release.
It could have easily competed with our own Fox News for miserably biased "news reporting" and believe me I use the term advisedly.
The BBC, particularly BBC Scotland, has become a laughingstock in world news with its bias. I am ashamed that I once respected this organization.
As far as newspapers, first they have to earn the trust of their reders that they will first and foremost tell the TRUTH. Everyone knows that newspapers cannot be trusted. People have long since turned to other sources.
BBC take note!
Complain about this comment
Good and important discussion...thank you JZ.
Don't agree with JR about BBC Scotland. As an active journalist in the USA, I stream BBC Radio Scotland throughout the day even at work. In total the programing provides a good variety of what could be/should be defined as news across the board (along with the best music bar none).
Is the news business in trouble? Yep and one of the reasons here in the USA involves the corporate news giants swallowing up local daily and weekly newspapers and not focusing on local news.
These corporate monsters also own radio and television outlets in the same cities, so the news becomes homogeneous.
Then throw in production people who think in "bites." Once again you have just the basic "who, what, when, where, why and how." Forget the in depth reporting and/or investigative perspective, so that there is more room for advertising.
Right now I am part of a group looking at putting out a weekly newspaper with just news. Might not be easy, but worth a try.
New project is to resurrect the town crier and that one would probably fly with little effort.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS