media industry – Page 3

September 19, 2019September 19, 2019

Cokie Roberts Will be Missed

Longtime NPR and ABC News reporter and correspondent Cokie Roberts died last week and her presence will be sorely missed by those who believe in journalism. A woman who rose to prominence in a male-dominated industry, Roberts was an advocate for journalists at large, and for female journalists when their numbers were few.

According to NPR, “Roberts won numerous awards during her long career in journalism, including three Emmys and the Edward R. Murrow award. She was inducted into the Broadcasting and Cable Hall of Fame. She was recognized by the American Women in Radio and Television as one of the 50 greatest women in the history of broadcasting.”

Her advice to young journalists still rings true today…”Don’t get all involved in the politics of your institution, or competition in your institution. Just do your work and get it on the air, and then people will see if you’re good,” she said.

August 15, 2019August 15, 2019

Reporting on Racism

Journalists are struggling to figure out how to cover President Trump, and more specifically his recent tweets about four democratic representatives who also happen to be persons-of-color. The President’s Twitter stream, and his public comments made at campaign events and press conferences, have crossed a line for some reporters and editors who are now grappling with how to talk about the President who is accused of saying things that they interpret as racist.

The New York Times has taken heat recently from politicians and other media outlets for not calling out the President as a racist. According to critics, the NYT’s failure to call Trump a racist is enabling and promoting the rise of racism. But according to CNN, Executive Editor Dean Baquet, “has opted to explain what Trump has said, allowing readers to decide for themselves whether they consider his comments racist.” This approach has been the standard approach to non-partisan and objective journalism over the years, but one that leaves more progressive advocates calling for a change.

In a related issue, the NYT was criticized for a headline published, and then changed, in the aftermath of the El Paso and Dayton shootings. According to The Independent, “The first headline read, “TRUMP URGES UNITY VS RACISM”, but was changed to, “ASSAILING HATE BUT NOT GUNS” following outrage as the portrayal of the US president as a unifier.” In response, Democrat congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that the NYT’s initial take was a reminder that “white supremacy is aided by – and often relies upon – the cowardice of mainstream institutions”.

What do you think? Should journalists call out racism by naming it, or should they report on what was said or done and let the readers decide for themselves? And, if you’re a working journalists, take a survey to let them know what you think about the debate.

July 7, 2019July 7, 2019

Mad Magazine Pulls the Plug

After 67 years of publication, Mad Magazine is calling it quits. With their gap-toothed spokesperson Alfred E. Neuman (and his tagline, “What, Me Worry?”) the satirical magazine poked fun at everyone and everything that tried to be respectable. With a combination of teenage irreverence and silliness, the writers and editors used humor to address topics with serious political implications.

Launched as a comic book before becoming a magazine, Mad hit its peak circulation in the mid ’70s. As a teenager during that time period I remember the magazine well…although I was not allowed to have copies in the house. The contents of the magazine pushed the limits of what was, according to my parents, acceptable for young men. And as you can imagine, that made the idea of reading it all the more attractive.

Besides the news of their decision to end regular publication, the magazine has been getting attention for the uncanny likeness some see between Alfred E. Neuman and Democratic Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg. I’ll leave that one for your to decide.

March 13, 2019March 13, 2019

Without Journalists

I’ve been asking students in the Media & Society class to think about the future of newspapers/journalism/truth…in an age of smart phones and social media. As suspected, few read a newspaper and most get their news from their phones. That’s to be expected and there are many reasons why newspapers are fading into obscurity. But I’m constantly reminded that news reporting and journalism can not, and must not, die alongside newspapers. Here’s why…

Wondering about the future of journalism…

Without journalists we wouldn’t know that celebrities and wealthy business executives were involved in a scam to get their kids into elite universities. Fake test scores, made-up athletic achievements, and even photoshopped pictures of these kids were used to bribe coaches and administrators, and in so doing deprive worthy students of their seat at the table.

Without journalists we wouldn’t know what happened when a group of kids from a Catholic high school were confronted by a group of Black Hebrew Israelites and Native American protesters on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. We might have heard a rumor or one person’s interpretation of what happened, but we wouldn’t have found out how it really went down.

Without journalists we wouldn’t know that Michael Jackson and R. Kelly have dark pasts and that swirling allegations of child sexual abuse may finally be brought to light and justice may finally be served.

Without journalists we wouldn’t know about the opioid epidemic, the risk that black mothers face in childbirth, and the horrific rise of teen suicide among Native Americans.

Without journalists we would only know what people in power want us to know…and that is a recipe for…disaster/dictatorship/destruction.

But we’re in a strange place where we know that we need journalists and journalism, but we can’t figure out how to pay for it. We’ve been free-riding on the backs of legacy media systems that are failing…and the rising role of digital platforms like Google and Facebook has not held out much reason for hope. But one thing is certain…we need to figure it out soon, or we’re going to pay a much steeper price in the future. If you think gaining knowledge is expensive, wait until you see how much ignorance costs!

June 17, 2018

Profanity and Politics

You may have missed the 72nd Annual Tony Awards broadcast last week…actually, based on ratings you almost certainly missed it…but even so you may have heard that movie star Robert De Niro dropped the f-bomb in a political statement directed at President Trump. Networks censors were ready and bleeped the offending word, as required by the FCC, but viewers at home still got the message.

While LA and New York are known for liberal politics, it still came as a bit of a surprise when De Niro’s condemnation of President Trump was followed by a standing ovation. The famous Michelle Obama dictum, “when they go low, we go high” was nowhere to be seen.

This is not the first time that awards programs have drawn attention for outrageous or profane statements. U2’s Bono, Cher, Nichole Richie, and others have uttered “fleeting expletives” on awards shows in the past.

Profane political speech comes with a special challenge . According to Frank Bruni, opinion writer for the New York Times,

When you answer name-calling with name-calling and tantrums with tantrums, you’re not resisting him. You’re mirroring him. You’re not diminishing him. You’re demeaning yourselves.

The stunt by De Niro reminds me of a similar statement made by the editorial staff of the CSU student newspaper, The Rocky Mountain Collegian, back in 2007. After publishing a very brief editorial very similar in tone to De Niro’s statement, reactions from the community and alumni led to the student newspaper being moved off-campus where it is now published by the independent 501(c)3 non-profit Rocky Mountain Student Media Corporation.

The paper’s editor-in-chief J. David McSwane said in response to the controversy, “While the editorial board feels strongly with regard to first amendment issues, we have found the unintended consequences of such a bold statement to be extremely disheartening.”

Many would agree that the tone of political debate has indeed become “extremely disheartening” on many levels.

May 20, 2018May 20, 2018

Spotify’s Values

Spotify provides a streaming music service to millions of users, and like any media platform is legally entitled to pick and choose which artists and content to carry and feature. In what is very likely a response to the #TimesUp and #MuteRKelly movements, Spotify’s recent decision has become the subject of debate by both artists and listeners.

According to Billboard magazine’s website,

As part of the new policy, Spotify also de-playlisted works by R. Kelly, who has faced a slew of sexual abuse allegations he denies but who “never has been convicted of a crime, nor does he have any pending criminal charges against him,” Kelly’s team said in a statement Thursday, noting that the “lyrics he writes express love and desire” while Spotify “promotes numerous other artists who are convicted felons, others who have been arrested on charges of domestic violence and artists who sing lyrics that are violent and anti-women in nature.”

To be clear, I’m not a fan of R. Kelly, or XXXTentacion, but this new policy by Spotify raises some important questions about how sanctions are applied to artists/performers who have been accused of bad behavior. In the past it was often a criminal conviction that was the tipping point that led to censure. But in the absence of a criminal charge, on what basis is Spotify making this decision? And will this move by Spotify be followed by similar action by Apple Music, RCA, and Ticketmaster: other entities that have a stake in Kelly’s music? And what about other artists that have been accused of mis-behavior?

Spotify is trying to make clear their decision-making process and published a webpage for artists that details what kinds of private behavior may lead to censure by the company. According to Spotify,

We don’t censor content because of an artist’s or creator’s behavior, but we want our editorial decisions – what we choose to program – to reflect our values. When an artist or creator does something that is especially harmful or hateful (for example, violence against children and sexual violence), it may affect the ways we work with or support that artist or creator.

This problem is not limited to Spotify and we can expect to see similar responses from social media sites, especially content-communities such as YouTube and Reddit, when cultural norms are breached and offended individuals/groups bring complaints.

April 18, 2018

Pulitzer for Kendrick

This is an actual screen shot from The Onion website. While the headline may be outrageous, it’s actually true. Not until you get to the two quotes does The Onion’s trademark satire kick in.

But seriously, who would have thought that the Pulitzer Prize in Music for 2018 would go to a rapper from Compton. According to National Public Radio, “It’s the first time in the prize’s history that it has been given to an artist outside of the classical or jazz community.” And the song DAMN is, according to The New Yorker, “the first hip-hop composition to be honored since the establishment of the music prize, in 1943.”

Others have noted that this award is further indication that pop culture is finally being recognized instead of stigmatized by the culturally elite crowd. Just as Bob Dylan’s receipt of a Nobel Prize for Literature last year shook up the Nobel crowd, this may be the ultimate affirmation for a music genre that has typically mocked conventional and institutional values. And while this decision by the Pulitzer judges may be political, it is clearly not satirical.

April 9, 2018

Weakened Denver Post Struggles to Survive

The Denver Post, the flagship newspaper of the Centennial State, is suffering crippling layoffs and downsizing at the hands of its hedge-fund manager owners Alden Global Capital. In an editorial posted over the weekend, the Denver Post pleaded for help. “Reduction in quality leads to a reduction of trust.” “It’s time for those Coloradans who care most about their civic future to get involved and see to it that Denver gets the newsroom it deserves.’’

Evidence of the “reduction in quality” that results when editorial positions are eliminated can be found in a glaring mistake that was made in last week’s paper. Announcing the Colorado Rockies 2018 season opener to be played at Coors Field, a half-page photo used was for a ballpark in Philadelphia, PA.

That may feel like an inconsequential error in light of the bigger issues of politics and world affairs, but it does illustrate the loss that Denver, the state of Colorado, and the country are facing as media corporations chase the bottom line while ignoring the communities that they’re supposed to serve.

April 6, 2018

Sinclair Stumbles

Sinclair Broadcast Group owns 193 local TV stations in 89 markets around the US. As the largest owner of local TV stations, they wield enormous influence and are closely watched by those who are concerned about media convergence and consolidation.

If you were paying any attention to social media this past few days you probably saw a short video (edited by Timothy Burke of Deadspin) that mashed up recordings of Sinclair anchors/reporters reading from the script that was sent to affiliate stations. Here’s the script that Sinclair’s management asked each station’s news department to read on-air:

“Hi, I’m (anchor A) ____________, and I’m (anchor B) _______________…
(B) Our greatest responsibility is to serve our (station location) communities. We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that (station call letters) News produces.
(A) But we’re concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.
(B) More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories… stories that just aren’t true, without checking facts first.
(A) Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control ‘exactly what people think’…This is extremely dangerous to a democracy.
(B) At (station call letters) it’s our responsibility to pursue and report the truth. We understand Truth is neither politically ‘left nor right.’ Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever.
(A) But we are human and sometimes our reporting might fall short. If you believe our coverage is unfair please reach out to us by going to (station call letters)news.com and clicking on CONTENT CONCERNS. We value your comments. We will respond back to you.
(B) We work very hard to seek the truth and strive to be fair, balanced and factual… We consider it our honor, our privilege to responsibly deliver the news every day.
(A) Thank you for watching and we appreciate your feedback”

When you just read the script there’s not much that raises concern. Fake news and biased reporting shared on social media ARE, in fact, “threats to democracy.” And few would argue the idea that truth is “neither politically left nor right.” And in fairness to Sinclair the editing of the video was manipulative. The repetitiveness of certain phrases and the omission of the call for input and feedback was intentionally designed to create its own bias.

But the optics tell another story. Comedian and provocateur Jon Oliver said, “Nothing says ‘we value independent media’ like dozens of reporters forced to repeat the same message over and over again, like members of a brainwashed cult.”

The idea that a network of local TV stations, and their news departments, would be directed by their corporate owners to fall in line and deliver a commentary decrying “fake news” is problematic. For one, it sounds too much like the weaponization of the term “fake news” that President Trump has perfected in his first year in office. Add to that the fact that Sinclair leans to the conservative side of the political spectrum. And finally, Sinclair is asking the FCC to allow the acquisition of an additional 42 stations as part of their purchase of Tribune Media. All of this combined makes it look like a political maneuver rather than a sincere call to action.

Fake news and bias are real problems…but they won’t be solved by empty promises or by using the issue as a political weapon. What we need is a serious discussion about how we got ourselves into this mess, and how we can get ourselves out.