Can We Blaim the Press for Writing for Politicians and Advertisers Instead of Us?

It is nearly impossible for a member of the news media to avoid any sort of bias. When I say this I am not talking necessarily about left or right leaning bias but rather the bias that comes from advertisers as well as the pressure to maintain a positive relationship with particular politicians or political organizations.

            In Journey’ with George Alexandra Pelosi successful maintains an up close and personal relationship with George W. Bush during is first presidential campaign despite being vocal in her opposing view points. There is a rare occurrence, however, it is most often that reporters must mind their ps and qs if they wish to gain “special access” of sorts in the political world. Upsetting a politicians could upset the relationship, which an entire news organization has with this particular person. Advertisers who support a particular candidate may also cut their advertising if they feel articles, or reporting are not positively reflecting their political stand point. One can refer to the Jaimeson reading on healthcare reform to see how reporting was geared to particular politicians as well as particular advertisers.

            If the question is “is this a problem?” then the answer in simple terms is “yes.” How this is fixed is not so simple. News organizations are businesses, which are in existence to ultimately make money. If they don’t make money then their employers can’t get paid and the news organization will ultimately cease to exist. News organizations claim to just report the news but often they will do it with a certain slant to keep their advertisers happy. This is because the advertisers are the primary supporters of any newspaper, newsmagazine or news broadcast. The subscribers to these forms of media are only a small figure in the realm of profits.  One can refer to the excerpt in the book Newspapers: Everything You Need to Know About Making It In The Business to see how circulation only accounts for a minute portion of a paper’s profits. ttp://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2058044_2060338_2059942,00.html\\. 

News organizations would be out of business if they didn’t appease the advertisers, and they would lack insider content if they did not have access to politicians. As views and readers we expect the most open and honest news but at the same time we want to pay as little as possible. The cost of receiving news can be kept relatively low because of the advertisers, therefore as patrons of the news we must accept that we are not the most important group to appease, or please.

Hey That's Personal!

Most people, including myself do not know what it's like to have the public eye watching us at all times, cricizing and once in a while applauding our every move. Celebrities from the entertainment world and politicians a like often complain about the paparazzi and other forms of news media reporting on their personal lives. The media often retaliates by saying that these professions are chosen knowing that they have the potential to put the person in this occupation in the public eye, thus under public scrutiny. There is glory in being a "famous" individual and all of the perks. Some say, come along with the watchful and often very critical eye of the public.
   The problem is politicians aren’t movie stars. Pop sensations or reality TV instant celebs There job is not entertain but to keep the government of the United States up and running. Despite having such serious positions, high profile politicians on the federal level, are people too. When they are not in the office they are mothers and fathers, husbands and wives and with that come the problems of family life. People, whether we like to believe it or not are not perfect, they make silly mistakes and some not so silly ones as well. The difference between you and I and a high profile politician is that the whole world is not watching us make these mistakes.
It is my opinion that the media needs to find a happy medium between "lap dog" and "watch dog," which has become more like a "hound dog" searching for juicy meat. I generalize when I say this but the media tends to chop on any thing that seems less than perfect in a politicians life, and to be honest, I know these are public figures but I really don't believe it is my business if President Clinton has an affair or ten. Not that I approve of people having affairs, however that issue should be between him and Hillary not him and the world. When the media first reported on the Lewinsky scandal people, including some in the media were calling for his impeachment. After he lied about the affair, the thing is if an accountant lied to his co workers about having an affair he wouldn't be fired from his job would he? Using this example, I can say that I believe the media has crossed the line when it comes to sharing information about politician's personal lives, as what President Clinton did was not illegal. Elliot Spitzer on the other hand is another example, as what he did, use an "escort" service, qualifies as using a prostitute and is therefore illegal in the United States. Whether or not one believes that prostitution should be legal is beside the point as at the time Spitzer made the choices he made prostitution is and was illegal. Politicians should be exposed when partaking in illegal activities. I do not feel that politicians much like any one else, has the right to privacy when participating in illegal activities. If an average citizen is caught committing a crime a local paper might report it, using their name, if they are over the age of 18, the same should go for politicians. Politicians are the countries law makers and should therefore have to lie in the bed that they make, which is more than just an expression for the Spitzer case.
  A politician should not have the right to cry media fowl play if they are participating in fowl (illegal) play themselves. This being said, there is a thing called the right to privacy, something that many American citizens claim when things such as security cameras are installed in public places or extra security is added in air ports. The media needs to focus more on how a politician is doing their job during working hours, and less on a senator who has an extra cocktail (but is of course not driving under the influence, that would be illegal!).
1998 CNN Lewinsky scandal coverage poll :http://articles.cnn.com/1998-01-29/politics/poll_1_bill-clinton-union-speech-clintons-ability?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

What is Soft News (New Media New Definitions?)

Hard News has always been defined as politics and economics and soft news is considered to be "lifestyle" information. With the onset of new media competitors like "professional bloggers" for example many traditional news outlets, like The New York Times as well as local news and cable news networks are turning to more soft news than ever before. Most "news snobs" would say that this is no good serious news is meant for "serious" topics, and the use of health stories and shopping tips to atract more readers could be considered selling out.
Although I do believe that traditional news outlets have used more and more non-traditional news topics in order to gain and hold on to reader interest; who is to say that this is all negative. One can argue that using more soft news takes away from important hard news issues, distancing Americans further and further from political issues. However, to play devil's advocate one can say that if people want to hear and read soft news they will find a way to read it. Why shouldn't traditional news sources cash in on the fact that people have an interest in things other than politics? If old media sources survive that means jobs survive, and that is talking economics.
The New York Times' Style Section is one example of a section in a highly respected newspaper that is often looked down upon, however in a consumer society shopping and fashion can be considered economics as well, along with the travel section and the entertainment section. If people buy clothing, travel, and go to the theater (assuming they can do all of these things with out going into debt) they are most definitly stimulating the economy. Although not traditional economic statistics telling people in a consumer economy the best, newest, and greatest things they can buy could be considered economics as well. Despite seeming a bit trivial imagine what would happen if everyone in the United States stopped buying new clothes, stopped going out to dinner, and stopped going to the movies.
I would not say that soft news does not have its consquences; in general the coverage of the news is a chicken or the egg situation. Does the news cover what people want to hear or do people want to hear what the news tells them is important? Americans are becoming increasingly disenfranchised from politics both American politics and world politics; however soft news is not the only thing to blame. Even if it was, soft news does not always mean bad news. Although The Kardashian's should not be on the front page over say a meeting at the United Nations and the new Hermes bag is not nearly as "important" as a newly declared independent country that new Hermes bag is made by a company employing hundreds of people and that junk reality show that is a guilty pleasure of yours employs hundreds maybe even thousands of people when looked at as part of a bigger network. Getting rid of everything frivolous in the news and in American life would probably put an end to the economy as we know it; thus leading to political turmoil and economic distress, and that is not so soft.
    To clarify, if major news sources stop talking about pop culture and leave that to say E Entertainment, and the Style Network, the economy as we know it will not come to an end. There will still be plenty of advertisements for companies in every other aspect of our lives. This being said, today's media culture filled with DVRs and internet viewing has meant that advertisers of products that aren't exactly nessecary for human survival must find creative ways to advertise. Remembering that the media is a business that also needs to make money, they partner with advertisers to get their product in in anyway possible. In the case of scripted and reality shows there is product placement and the same in a way is true for news show. I do not advocate for this but simply believe that this is reality, and until some media scholar or scholars figures out how the media can make money with out the ever important advertiser I do not believe this reality is going away.
In the above portion of this blog I discuss the use of so called soft news fashion tips, where to go on vacation etc. it is not to say that product promotion should be included in the news but rather the definitions of soft news seem to be changing, as soft news often brings to mind the idea of being unimportant. In a world where people want more and more, a western world of consumerism what to do where to go and how to shop is considered important to many. The Media is there to be a business serving the public therefore their news will cater to what the people demand, or think they want, because the media has creatively steered them in that direction. This may not be for the best but we must face up to the fact that the media can not be totally to blame for the shift in news about the economy in numbers to news about where to get the best prices on designer fashions. I am not advocating product placement but rather emphasizing the value people, besides those in the media have placed on lifestyle news.