Thursday, March 26, 2009

The New Journalism

With the collapse of the trademark Seattle newspaper last week, and the fall of similar ones throughout the country, the ushering in of the next generation of journalism has begun. The days of the huge story breaking after an overeager writer spends 10 months verifying hunches are a thing of the past, replaced by the quick headline that has become the trademark of the 24-hour news cycle. In the past, a journalist would raise a question, spend the time in legitimate research to answer the question, and then had a completed account that lived up to, not only his own personal standards, but often multiple editors that held the key to it actually being published. Not so much anymore.


The idea alone that there might be a story has become the story. Headlines are filled with what might be the case, the possibility of wrongdoing, the actual hunch. Once the headline is released, the reaction will determine whether the research and costs that would need to be expended to confirm the sources or delve deeper into the issue are warranted. The AIG mess is a perfect example of this "shoot from the hip" journalism. Release the story with few, if any, facts. “AIG to give 170 million in bonuses.” Great. Just enough information for the conspiracy starved, teetering on the edge of all out revolt audience really needs to jet right past inquisitive to flat-out pissed off. The hours’ worth of research needed to find out that it was government lawyers that signed off on these payments months ago with completely valid reasons, and that this decision to allow them more than likely saved millions in additional legal fees, just was not worth it until the reaction was determined. Additionally, can these payments even be called bonuses? Isn’t a bonus something paid beyond what the company is contractually obligated to pay? Since these payments were detailed in a contract, they cannot even be considered bonuses.


What makes this story an example of new journalism is that it is simply an extention of what the general public already knows. If some small bank out in West Bumblefuck accepted government bailout funds and then gave out a bonus, would anyone really care? There is no need or desire to go find the new story, the one that does not already have a place in the public consciousness. Everyone has already heard of AIG, making it a perfect target. Need a headline? Go to what is commonly known, and put it in a new light. If you’re really good, you don’t have to wait for the reaction, you simply tell the public what to feel. Introduce the story with words like anger, outrage, and greed. And just watch as everything falls in line. It is the easiest and least expensive way to manufacture ratings.


After succumbing to this manufactured rage, a group of enraged citizens filled a bus and went on a nice tour of the homes of the AIG executives to drop off a few letters. Surrounded by media that outnumbered them 2-1, they read the letter aloud for the camera before putting it in the mailbox in front of one particular mansion. Which outraged member of society was selected to read this letter? A part time high school coach earning $9,000 a year.


I wonder how many of his tax dollars went toward the bailout.

No comments: