Does the White House, in its criticism of Fox News, make some valid points about news coverage in general?
As the AP's Ben Feller reports today, the administration (like many before it), has been openly critical of the news media and the way some stories are covered.
Senior White House aides, Feller writes, "still mock the front-page coverage given to whether Obama's back-to-school speech" was an attempt to indoctrinate schoolchildren.
And the president was "openly incredulous" over the wall-to-wall coverage of his "beer summit" with Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and the Cambridge cop who arrested him.
Obama believes the media "prefer conflict over cooperation, encourage bad behavior and weaken the ability of leaders to help the nation," Feller writes.
Does the president have a point?
Jill Geisler, who teaches management and leadership skills at the Poynter Institute, a journalism training center, thinks so.
"Journalists are drawn to conflict, to the horse race," Geisler said in a phone interview. "It's easier for us to put two opposing soundbites on the air than to assign a reporter to do some research about complex issues."
Geisler, a former TV anchor in Milwaukee, says cable news in particular fills much of its airtime "with people who have conversations about the news." The problem is, "those conversations aren't sufficient to understand complex issues. Soundbites alone can't educate us."
More in-depth reporting would lead to a greater understanding of the issues, though such reporting "is expensive and frequently less entertaining" than talking heads, Geisler admits.
But even in an era of cost-cutting and downsizing at many news organizations, there are shining examples of such work. Geisler points to a recent story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about a 39-year-old unemployed man who joined the army to get health insurance for his wife, who's suffering from ovarian cancer.
"A reporter had to take a lot of time to follow this man, to spend time with his family," Geisler says. "That costs more to do than having a booking producer hit his Rolodex and call up two experts to have a debate."
Photo of Jill Geisler courtesy The Poynter Institute
Follow me on Facebook & Twitter
Comments
I was reading a book written by Tom Fenton called ‘Bad News’. He writes in his book part of the problem with the news is cut backs. I have to say “Yeah, cut backs create problems towards good journalism.”
But Tom Fenton also states in his book some of the problem is lazy reporting (not stating facts right instead of researching the facts, bias, stuff along these lines) I have to say this is problem too. I find some reporters or journalists just give a leader’s view point on a bill. For instance, take the health care bill. Newspapers and broadcasting news tell the leaders view point of instead of going to the bill, finding the facts in the bill, and giving a blow by blow report on it. I have yet to find something like this in newspapers or broadcasting news except in blogs I read.
I have yet to see reporters/journalist like the two that discovered Watergate and brought a president down. I have yet to see a reporter write a story about a leaders bad ethics that should be brought into check or oust of office. There should be more reporting on foreign affairs so we’re not caught off guard. There should be some old time journalism with the new, meaning foot work. As Tom Fenton also wrote in his book, journalist should be the watchmen for the people, letting us know “the British are coming” for the lack of better words. I agree with this but I haven’t seen it lately.
Miss Kathy, have you looked at PolitiFact? This team has won a Pulitzer for reporting. Closest you will come, in my opinion, on getting facts.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/