We talk about how an elected official is or is not exhibiting leadership. We refer to the president of the US as "leader of the free world". Marvel Comics has a bad guy for the Hulk who has an over-sized head named "The Leader". Alternate history author Harry Turtledove refers to Hitler in another universe as simply "The Leader".
But what does it really mean to be a leader?
Leaders can be those out in front, with others following their actions. Leaders can be those sitting behind a desk, delegating tasks to others who are out in front.
In journalism, being a leader means being the most trusted, and accurate in your reporting of events. It seems that modern journalistic leadership means being the first to "break" a story. For as long as there have been newspapers, there have been those who want to "scoop" the competition. But with the 24-hour news cycle, this seems to have gotten out of hand.
This just in. Lasagna is hazardous to the health of cats, except those who hate Mondays.
But this also seems to be a double-edged sword, because some of the best reporting comes from that attempt to scoop the competition. Breaking news stories don't get to be fact-checked. When one is reporting "from the scene", we, as the news consumer are getting what we really want. Reporting of just what has been observed. This is journalism at it's finest. Where the reporter has facts of the moment, and gets more information as it becomes available.
Usually, this kind of reporting comes about in covering a big court case, or other local interest story. Sometimes "coarse" language might get on the air in cases like this, because not everyone on the scene at something like that is a trained reporter.
Other times it comes about from disasters (fires, flooding, industrial accidents, etc). The imagery can be horrific, because there is no editor deciding what will or will not be seen. September 11, 2001, was a day of such reporting. Now, some images have been edited by some (not all) media outlets, because they might be "too graphic". To some of us who remember seeing things unfold on that day, there almost is no such animal.
The point is, "breaking" news is what I think of when I think of true journalism. It's raw. It's not been edited or even dumbed-down for me. It is the world, as it happens.
All too often though, what gets reported in the 24-hour news cycle is NOT the world as it happens. It's the world as seen through the biases of the talking heads, the directors, editors, and producers. Even what should be "on the scene" footage get's carefully posed, so as to not allow anything to spoil the "perfect" image.
Usually, this kind of reporting comes about in covering a big court case, or other local interest story. Sometimes "coarse" language might get on the air in cases like this, because not everyone on the scene at something like that is a trained reporter.
Other times it comes about from disasters (fires, flooding, industrial accidents, etc). The imagery can be horrific, because there is no editor deciding what will or will not be seen. September 11, 2001, was a day of such reporting. Now, some images have been edited by some (not all) media outlets, because they might be "too graphic". To some of us who remember seeing things unfold on that day, there almost is no such animal.
The point is, "breaking" news is what I think of when I think of true journalism. It's raw. It's not been edited or even dumbed-down for me. It is the world, as it happens.
All too often though, what gets reported in the 24-hour news cycle is NOT the world as it happens. It's the world as seen through the biases of the talking heads, the directors, editors, and producers. Even what should be "on the scene" footage get's carefully posed, so as to not allow anything to spoil the "perfect" image.
Think about it. How often do you watch something with, say, a CNN reporter on the scene, and NOT see a reporter from MSNBC there? Then you switch to MSNBC, and see just their reporter at the same scene? The press likes to position things to get as wide a shot as possible, but make it seem like they are the only ones there to let you know. Televised reporting is theater as much as a sitcom. The only difference is that a laugh track doesn't get put over the news.
Even this "news" didn't have a laugh track. It was a live audience...
It almost seems that if you want accurate news today, you have to either be at every major news scene yourself, or rely on the internet and sit through hours upon hours of youtube videos submitted by people who are at those scenes. The proliferation and bundling of technology means that with just a cell phone, EVERYONE is a cameraman on the scene. Which means that for every event, you can literally get 5 views of the event. And 5 opinions.
That is why we rely on the media (televised, cable, and print) to tell us about what's going on. We trust that it is easier to have someone else slog through the information, footage, and opinions, and give us the straight story.
Which raises another issue. It doesn't matter who the editor/producer/director is. They have an opinion. And in the way the story is written (for reading by the public, or by a talking head) will communicate this, even if only in small ways. For years some have said there has been a liberal bias in the media. It's what gave rise to folks like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck. It's what spawned Fox News Channel. The decision to find some way to offer another point of view led to an "alternative" media, in which a conservative viewpoint is offered. To give people a choice. Because when looking to know what is going on, I want an opinion forced upon me.
Which raises another issue. It doesn't matter who the editor/producer/director is. They have an opinion. And in the way the story is written (for reading by the public, or by a talking head) will communicate this, even if only in small ways. For years some have said there has been a liberal bias in the media. It's what gave rise to folks like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck. It's what spawned Fox News Channel. The decision to find some way to offer another point of view led to an "alternative" media, in which a conservative viewpoint is offered. To give people a choice. Because when looking to know what is going on, I want an opinion forced upon me.
Let me be clear. I personally think there is a bias in the mainstream media. That bias tends to be toward a liberal point of view, with which I do not agree. But I also acknowledge that there is a conservative bias in the so-called "alternative" media. This is a bias with which I generally agree. But the real truth is lost.
When I want to know what's going on in the world, I don't want to know what the Republicans say, or Democrats respond. I just want to know the facts. And the facts get lost. I have read articles written as what should have been hard-news stories, just a reporting of the facts, that have demonstrated through phrasing, word selection, and even overall tone, a bias. These stories come "over the wire" from services like the Associated Press, Knight Ridder News Service, and Rueters. These are supposed to be non-biased news services meant to be generic stories sold to outlets who then report these stories to the public. In exchange, the news service involved gets a mention. Suddenly the truth becomes a commercial enterprise.
In a world where information is given to us through so many pipelines, why should there be conglomerates who sell news to others, who in turn sell news further down the line, with each level adding their own "spin" to the story?
Gottabethefirst!Gottabethefirst!Gottabethefirst!Gottabethefirst!Gottabethefirst!Gottabethe...
There is so much interest in being the first to report a story, time is not taken to check to see if it is actually fact (Hell, even so-called "fact checking" websites have their own opinions proudly on display). There is so much interest in beating the other guy, to be what is mistakenly called the leader, that no time is taken to make sure something is what it has been reported to be.
News outlets will take "information" from any source, and report it as fact, with no interest in checking their sources. Just recently were two stellar examples of this.
Joe Paterno, long-time head coach of the Penn State University football team, was caught up (unfairly, in my opinion) in a scandal involving allegations of sexual abuse by one of his assistant coaches. He has been known to be ill for a while, and was unceremoniously fired for his "involvement". After being fired, his health took a turn for the worse, and he was hospitalized. Media camped out outside the hospital where he was, going so far as to asking a priest departing the hospital if he had been there to offer last rites to Paterno (the priest refrained from stating why he was there, stating that whoever he was there to see deserved privacy). Then Paterno was reported as having died.
This story was inaccurate. The media decided to run the story, not because it was correct, but because it fit the circumstances. They never bothered to confirm the veracity of the report, and just went ahead and told the world that the coach with the best win-loss record in college football had died (he did die, but not until the next day).
News outlets will take "information" from any source, and report it as fact, with no interest in checking their sources. Just recently were two stellar examples of this.
Joe Paterno, long-time head coach of the Penn State University football team, was caught up (unfairly, in my opinion) in a scandal involving allegations of sexual abuse by one of his assistant coaches. He has been known to be ill for a while, and was unceremoniously fired for his "involvement". After being fired, his health took a turn for the worse, and he was hospitalized. Media camped out outside the hospital where he was, going so far as to asking a priest departing the hospital if he had been there to offer last rites to Paterno (the priest refrained from stating why he was there, stating that whoever he was there to see deserved privacy). Then Paterno was reported as having died.
This story was inaccurate. The media decided to run the story, not because it was correct, but because it fit the circumstances. They never bothered to confirm the veracity of the report, and just went ahead and told the world that the coach with the best win-loss record in college football had died (he did die, but not until the next day).
More recently, reports of the death of musical performers Cher and Adele made the rounds on Twitter. These stories however failed to reach the wide reporting by the mainstream media. But they could have.
"Someone tweeted Cher died? Quick! Run that story!"
"Wait a sec... Shouldn't we make sure she died before we roll out the pre-prepared obituary?"
"Maybe. I'd hate to waste that. Okay, check the facts and get back to me."
With the rise on social networking, and the 24-hour news cycle, everyone thinks that they can be a reporter. And sometimes the mainstream media lets it happen that way. A person tweets something from a "hotspot", and boom. It's fact on the air. We'll do a retraction if we have to, but we've GOT to be first to report this. We have to lead.
And that's the problem. There's limited accountability for the media. They can apologize for getting a story wrong, and toying with emotions of loved ones or fans, but they face no consequence in the pursuit to be "the leader" with a news story.
Maybe instead of trying to lead, with no accountability or responsibility for what they do, maybe someone in the media can emerge as a true leader? One who takes their responsibility to be a trusted reporter of events as they actually happen, and not "spinning", or "scooping"?
Or am I just a leader of fools for thinking that something like that could ever happen?
