CE Week #14: “Downsized media fall to false news”
Every election season seems to introduce us to a slew of new pundits, even if many have resumes that don’t add up to the title on the screen underneath their television images.
Take, for example, Martin Eisenstadt, a self-described neoconservative who found his opinions in demand during the presidential campaign. Eisenstadt, identified on his blog “a senior fellow at the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy,” made waves by outing himself as the source of the rumor that Sarah Palin thought Africa was a country, not a continent. That Eisenstadt would know such information would not seem unusual given that the “bio” section of his blog identifies him as “an expert on Near Eastern military and political affairs” who “works alongside Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign, offering advice and liaising with the Jewish community in particular.”
And it wasn’t the first time Eisenstadt had achieved mainstream recognition. A Los Angeles Times blog had picked up on his July comments after the McCain campaign’s portrayal of Barack Obama as a celebrity akin to Paris Hilton.
There was just one problem: Eisenstadt is the Borat of the campaign season, a fictitious character created by a pair of aspiring filmmakers, Eitan Gorlin and Dan Mirvish, in their quest to get a TV show. Now, plenty of media outlets have egg on their faces.
“I think we’ve learned that often in the 24-hour news cycle, bloggers and even mainstream media work so quickly that they don’t really have the chance to check,” Gorlin told me last week. “I think also where news has become entertainment … where I think political news is almost following, now, celebrity news … where it doesn’t matter what you say about Britney Spears, as long as something was said. Basically, gossip posing as news.”
This incident is bigger than Gorlin and Mirvish. It speaks to a larger problem of what happens in an age of newsroom downsizing. It reminded me of something I read months ago in the entertainment bible Variety about the “domino” nature of today’s media.
There, columnist Brian Lowry observed: “Shrinking print coverage threatens to trigger a ‘domino effect’ as news operations downsize, feeding the strange Internet age conundrum where there’s more information — courtesy of blogs and the Web — but less real news, especially as it pertains to backyard issues.”
I am one such domino.
My day begins every morning at a local convenience store, where at 3:40 I greet a truck arriving to deliver the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News. Two hours, 20 minutes later, I begin a live, current-events-driven radio show that lasts three hours. Although about half of the content for my show is determined the day before, I will use those newspapers and a variety of other news sources available in the studio to plan the remainder of the morning. If something leads the local newspaper, it most certainly makes my broadcast. I always offer attribution, and I attempt to expand on a given story with personal opinion. As a radio or television talking head, I don’t do reporting. I repeat. I analyze. I offer my opinion and I gauge the opinions of others. There are many like me in today’s media world.
But what happens if we remove newspapers from that equation?
It seems like hardly a week goes by without a headline about a major publication trimming newsroom staff. Earlier this year, the New York Times succumbed to “growing financial strain” by cutting 100 newsroom jobs – despite reported earnings of $209 million last year. This month it was Time Inc. beginning the process of cutting 600 jobs.
Unfortunately, those who report the news are a dying breed, even in the Internet world. The dearth of hard news and investigative journalism leaves the always-expanding number of outlets – 24-hour cable networks, satellite radio stations, blogs, podcasts – scrambling for anything they can parrot to a hungry audience.
The result? People eager for the next piece of news are easily taken in by characters such as Martin Eisenstadt. And those bad habits will continue to inch their way into cash-strapped, understaffed traditional news-gathering outlets where legitimate reporting is falling by the wayside.
“It seems like hardly a week goes by without a headline about a major publication trimming newsroom staff … This month it was Time Inc. beginning the process of cutting 600 jobs.” (Michael Smerconish). It’s evident that ever since the introduction of internet and broadcast media, the print media has lost its flare. What’s even worse is that it’s being replaced by such falsely informed reporters as Martin Eisenstadt and others. Without doing any real background check, the viewer simply assumes that the words coming out of Eisenstadt’s mouth are legitimate. The article also talks about the 24-hour news cycle, which has allowed room for more “infotainment” than necessary. For example: “It doesn’t matter what you say about Britney Spears, as long as something was said” (Smerconish). Hard-hitting news stories are losing their respective places in the media world, being replaced by silly gossip and celebrity scandals. It just goes to show that Americans are easily entertained, and the smart “reporter” will take advantage of such vulnerability while legitimate reporting continues to “fall by the wayside.” No matter how absurd a news story may seem, viewers continue to believe mostly every word, especially if it’s coming from the broadcast media.
Connection: In one sense, one could argue that Martin Eisenstadt is participating in yellow journalism since he takes a “flamboyant irresponsible approach to news reporting.” Although we associate yellow journalism mainly with Pulitzer and Hearst, there are those reporters throughout the world who commit minor offenses (such as lying in their political resumes) in order to gain recognition among viewers. Eisenstadt’s tactics seem to be working just fine for him considering “people eager for the next piece of news are easily taken in by characters such as Martin Eisenstadt” (Michael Smerconish). It may only be a short while before Eisenstadt’s reports create some sort of political uproar.
I do not fully understand how the two aspiring filmmakers were able to create an identity that was able to serve as a reliable source of information, but at the same time, I am not at all surprised. Anyone can say just about—scratch that—can say anything about anything or anyone on the World Wide Web. I do not particular like that this particular source was able to generate and fabricate rumors in the previous election, but I also understand that there are probably just as many reliable sources using the internet as a method of reaching an audience as there are unreliable sources. “It speaks to a larger problem of what happens in an age of newsroom downsizing.” This issue also speaks to the growing lack of journalistic integrity in blogs whereas print sources generally hold their material in a slightly higher regard. “…feeding the strange Internet age conundrum where there’s more information — courtesy of blogs and the Web — but less real news, especially as it pertains to backyard issues.” While more information is readily available, the quality and integrity of the information should expand in accordance, but in today’s news society, more information is often/often can be sacrificed at the expense of quality. Reader beware.
Connection: High-tech politics. As proven by the case of Martin Eisenstadt, the behavior of citizens and policymakers and the political agenda itself are increasingly shaped by technology. The impact of the fabricated information by “Martin Eisenstadt” expanded beyond the Internet and likely had some kind of effect on how people might have decided to vote.
I just had to laugh over this article. I agree with most of what he is saying. It is a sad thing that so many people no longer care about the happenings of the world. Americans, as well as a great many other nations in the world, are getting so selfish that they live in “their own little world” and everything revolves around them. NEWSFLASH- The World Is Bigger Than Just You!!!! Who really cares about which celebrity is dating which other celebrity, and which celebrity is pregnant, and who just divorced who, and so on and so forth. It is ridiculous! Whoopdeedoo, they sing well, or act well, or are cute well, but they don’t make laws that affect a citizen’s everyday lives. What happened to the reporting of what laws Congress is reviewing and discussing? (Oh, wait, that might be hard with the current Congress, they don’t do much of anything) Even so, where was the repoting of what was actually IN the bailout bill that Congress passed? How much pork barrel spending is a result of the bill? How much will it cost the public? Why are Americans so deterred by the fact that John McCain looks old, or Barrack Obama is black? The things that should be reported are what is going on in the world and our country. I kid you not, this morning I was watching the morning “news” shows and one network in particular showed a blurp on what is going on in India. It lasted for all of about one minute. Then, no joke, they showed hundreds of thousands of Americans the 5 minute long video of what the mother of a supposed murder victim, who happens to be the key suspect, talking to her family from jail and crying over the telephone. The network then proceeded to talk about how they knew they were being recorded when they spoke to her and yudedah and so forth. They showed no remorse for destroying the semi- privacy of this family. Isn’t it bad enough that they harass these poor people to death with speculation and rumors? How embarrassing for them if the little girl is found alive or the mother is cleared from the charges. I honestly think they hope Caley, I think that is her name, is dead and that the mother is guilty so that they can get a better story. Why can’t they discuss something of more importance for once? I wish we had a network or newspaper would actually report the facts instead of their opinion on everything. They should start calling them for what they truly are: Opinionpapers and Morning talk and opinion shows.
Connection: In the 2000 election the mainstream media was completely embarrassed when they called the election the wrong way. They had to retract their declaration and then retract the retraction and yet again retract the retraction of the retraction. (Whew, that was hard) It is the same with this Eisenstadt business. They were too eager for a good story and breaking the news first that they did not stop to examine the facts!
Our nation is caught up in the wave of entertainment. The average American does not know much about politics, but he certainly knows which celebrity is which. As Smerconish states, there is “less real news.” The media itself doesn’t know what is real. Eisenstadt (the pundit) was a made-up character! This truly shows that the media doesn’t care about the facts or accuracy of a story – it cares about the bang it produces. I find this very disturbing. Citizens of America should be worried. What does this event imply? That the media spoon-feeds the public what it feels that the public wants, that the media will not give the whole truth or simply lie to get a reaction, and that the information itself is not accurate.
This is also a reflection of our society. Citizens need to be aware, need to WANT to be aware, of what information they are being fed. It is important that our country questions the media. If people merely accept what is given to them, where will this nation end up? Questions stimulate the mind and will certainly keep the media and government on their toes. It’s a shame that people care so much about such trivial things as which celebrity is married to who. Do things like that really make an impact on society? What is important is what’s happening in India, or with the economy, or with Iraq. People need to realize this.
Connection: Infotainment
This article does well in demonstrating how people care more about being entertained than receiving legitimate information. The article states that “news has become entertainment” and that “gossip [is] posing as news”, which is the essence of infotainment. People are being informed about entertainment, not worthwhile information.
In response to Alexa:
I agree with you strongly when you mention the connection between public needs and the overall attention span of society in this sentence: “The media spoon-feeds the public what it feels that the public wants … and that the information itself is not accurate” (Alexa Erickson). Eisenstadt was able to manipulate public attention with his false reports, and Americans are not tuned in well enough to know the difference between real reporting and fake stories. As far as celebrity coverage goes, I’ve never really been interested in any of it, but there are many Americans out there who follow celebrity news as if it has a major impact on their own lives. “This article does well in demonstrating how people care more about being entertained than receiving legitimate information” (Alexa Erickson). This is certainly true given that the craving for entertainment can oftentimes be developed at an early stage of childhood, when video games and TV have become the daily after-school routine over homework and other worthwhile activities.
I agree with Alexa’s statement that the change in media reporting is a reflection on the American people. Actually, since the media reports to the average citezen, I have an easier time blaming the American public than the media. Because the fact is, when people argue that the media should be reporting more important issues, it is like asking the mass media to do bad at their job. The reason they report the way they do is because it brings in good ratings. It is for this reason that I disagree with Alexa’s statement “the media itself doesn’t know what is real” but agree with the statement “This truly shows that the media doesn’t care about the facts or accuracy of a story.” I think that the media chooses what is real, and that is a scary thought. Alexa’s final argument was that people need to realize what is really important. I just wonder if there will ever be a way to do that. How do you make the American people care?