Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Cost of Covering the News
Posted by Bruce VanWyngarden on Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:44 PM
As the Flyer's Chris Davis reported online last week, there is yet another round of layoffs coming to The Commercial Appeal on February 1st. My condolences to those who will feel that pain. I've been there, and even though it was 20 years ago, I still get a hot flush of anger when I think about it.
Additionally, the CA has cut the size of the paper by 10 percent, effective January 14th. Most of the cuts come from the "A" section and will effectively reduce the paper's world and national coverage.
Frankly, I don't believe the CA is losing money any longer; it's just not making enough to make Scripps management and stockholders happy. I don't think the parent company is overly concerned about the quality of news its Memphis property gives to the citizens of Memphis.
- Katie Couric
And that's the problem with current journalism in a nutshell: It's top-heavy, concerned more with profit margins and executive pay and bonuses than getting news on the street. The CA, like most American newspapers these days, is a monopoly. It has no competitor nipping at its heels, forcing it to work harder. When reporters are more worried about losing their jobs than beating the competition, everybody loses.
The Flyer? Sure, we do what we can, but we have a tiny staff and budget and we are currently not a threat to become the "paper of record." The CA, for better or worse, owns the franchise in Memphis. They're the MLGW of news — and they're slowly turning down the lights.
The same dilemma is playing out with national television networks. NBC anchor Brian Williams makes $10 million a year; Katie Couric at CBS, $15 million; Diane Sawyer at ABC, $12 million; Anderson Cooper at CNN, $10 million. The average starting salary for a reporter in television news is about $28,000 a year. Can you imagine the kind of news coverage we could get if CBS spent, say, half of Katie's salary on reporters and researchers? Which do you think would give you a better sense of the situation in Haiti: Katie Couric and her hairdresser and handlers, or 15 reporters scattered around the island?
News ratings have fallen 30 percent in the past 10 years, and the decline continues. "Star-based" news is only part of the problem, but it's significant. So what happens after this system collapses?
The future is the Internet. We all know that. At least, we all think we do. That's how those of you reading this post probably get most of your news. And it costs you no more than your monthly wireless bill, or you're getting it for free at work. But eventually, someone's going to have to pay the people who actually go out and create the content — the "news." And whoever figures out how to create fresh content and make a buck, will remake the rules of news.
Comments (9)
Showing 1-9 of 9
Excellent points Bruce. I wonder, does anyone know how much Walter Cronkite was paid?
like
dislike
Having a choice would be nice. Maybe some rocket surgeon will figure out that people actually do care about news. They just haven't offered it in the last 15 years. It will be the retro network. Some place where you can get coverage of Darfur instead of Jon & Kate. A channel that sends people places to cover news, not just to have people guess where they are. If you care where Matt Lauer is, then you suck. But on a positive note, Current TV has some of the best reporting / pieces that I have seen in...well..ever.
Sorry Zip, but the media tried giving people relevant news instead of sensationalized infotainment, and the people voted with their remotes...witness St. Pete.
Number 1 station in the cellar in a matter of weeks due to only one change... they refused to mimic the other station's over-emoted 'dramatic' lead-ins, and put the wrecks and shootings on after the positive and informative local issues.
Viewers apparently hate that sort of thing, and the media has learned their lesson.
It didn't take rocket scientists, it took psychologists and econometricians to figure that out.
Add in the Peter Principle, and the other organizational mandates Bruce cited, and we have the media (as well as the government) we deserve.
I obtain almost all my news from the internet, though I don't necessarily enjoy it. The process is impersonal and chilly, and I don't need the myriad of options it has to offer. I'll take thirty minutes of evening news, a paper in my hand and the money invested in solid, well-researched TV and print reporting Bruce advocates any day. What a shame those days are gone.
It's sad. Newspapers used to hold themselves to a higher standard. Now, networks feel compelled to compete with the tabloid shows and their silliness trickles down to the local media level.
Maybe it's the socialist in me, but I still believe that the death of the newspaper industry came with corporate ownership. When publishers were beholden to their communities instead of a bunch of anonymous stockholders, they took their duty to the reader more seriously. Now they could care less about the product, as long as the bottom line makes the folks up the food chain happy.
Bruce, I get almost all my news from the internet but I still pick up a Flyer every Wednesday and actually read it front to back (even the stuff I've already read earlier online).
There's something special about the way enlightened words shimmer on the surface of hopefully recycled newsprint.
Sometimes I grab an extra if my Co-Cub Leader Cravens has graced the cover.
It then lights the fires that keep my children warm, so please keep printing them.
Note: I do read all the ads as I'm rolling them up for fire starters. So, advertisers, keep buying ads. I make all my choices regarding phone sex and strip clubs based on who supports my favorite paper.
I also get almost all of my news from the net, but I feel forced into it by today's media. The evening news is not much different than watching E! these days. The papers and net sources are all moving in the same direction of short snippets. You have to really search and dig to find out the whole story, unlike when I was a younger and newspaper would have the most complete, in depth coverage possible. That is one reason I love picking up the Flyer. While only being a weekly, your cover stories tend to be researched and provide as much information about the subject as there is (plus commenting on here is just way too much fun!) I miss the days of Cronkite, Brinkley, Rather (before he had his breakdown or whatever it was) and their like. Present me with well researched information and facts that have been meticulously verified and let me decide how I feel about the subject.
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
