CBC Floats Over Details

It is interesting to me that a public media outlet such as the CBC would downplay a left-wing concern that even Drudge put on his front page. Is the CBC being neutral or being sloppy? (Image: CNN) Hilary Clinton, Obama's Secretary of State, has been visiting Chinese officials this past week. Instead of focusing on a controversial remark that has many bloggers frustrated and concerned, CBC decided to stay positive.

During the trip to China, Clinton made the controversial remark that the economic situation takes precedence over humanitarian concerns. This comment was not in the headline of the CBC article, as it was with many other mainstream versions of the news.

The concerns are being relayed in the mainstream press, except CBC's that report placed the controversy low in the inverted pyramid. The AFP wire story was headlined "Activists 'shocked' at Clinton stance on China rights" in comparison. Why did CBC do this?

To me, this statement by Clinton should raise alarm bells for anyone acting in the public interest. How could it not be a concern, as explained by many responses to the news, that this stance will allow China to feel less pressure in future dealings? CBC did not act in the public interest in this article.

Some may not be surprised by this failure by CBC, but as someone who has had some respect for its work, I am a bit concerned by it. Some might not even see this as a failure, but I can't agree with that stance. The structure of the CBC article downplays the importance of this development. Even if there is significant information and background it is after the proverbial fold.

It baffles me that the CBC would publish such an article. With such an important issue of public interest at stake, the public media failed to act in a way in line with its "not-for-profit" goals.
Read more...

Take Your Pick: YouTube or Hollywood

No, I'm not literally asking you to pick, or suggesting that one will die in battle with the other. When recently listening to discussions about the "social web" and citizen journalism, I got to thinking that, while some believe we're witnessing an evolutionary step, we're really just playing into the old system. (Image: Digg) YouTube is a great example of a Web 2.0 site that is often directly compared to, what are now called, "old media" counterparts. Some hold the belief that YouTube is a viable replacement for the Hollywood studios, television networks, or broadcast news. This is simply not the case.

As mentioned by Michael Wesch, YouTube's content is not directly comparable to television content by any means. While there is explosive growth in the amount of content, most of the content is not meant for mass consumption. There are a few standout examples of people putting up high quality products for mass consumption (usually created during YouTube contests), but generally the content and production are not that great.

YouTube can provide endless hours of entertainment, but I would not pick it over the few TV shows I watch regularly. Likewise, I would never sacrifice CNN, or more broadly the Associate Press or Reuters, in favour of the Huffington Post or Daily Kos. Though both are great and tend to provide excellent background mainstream press tends to glide over, I would be uncomfortable relying on the Web community to not only produce opinion, but also to gather news as it happens in a credible and responsible way.

What I find more interesting than blogs, YouTube, or collaborative content is the concept behind sites like Digg. While Digg is primarily fed by mainstream sources, users control what content gets featured. What surprises me about Digg is how quickly stories can explode to the top of the list; many sites are competing for that spot and, more often than not, the best site for any given news item usually is the one to catch the wave of Diggs.

In some ways I see Digg as more democratic than citizen content creation because it is not a shouting match to get your voice heard, but a collaborative effort to pick out what's newsworthy or entertaining. It's an entirely different beast, and it's really something special. When it comes to the future of democratic media, I believe it will be the content presentation (via sites like Digg) that is far more valuable than the direct contributions of the blogosphere.

The blogosphere is a great thing in many ways and blogs really are a liberating force in allowing opinions to flow freely. However, what brings order to this is the power of collaborative filtering -- both in the form of Digg and in the form of social bookmarking like Stumble Upon or Delicious. Everyone should have their say as to what's newsworthy.
Read more...

Popular News: Code for News to an Even Lower Standard

Ever since my first post on journalism, I've been noticing quite a few shady practices in mainstream news. Yesterday, when I wrote about yellow journalism, I noticed some even more weird patterns around the web. (Image: Screen capture of CNN.com) On the CNN website, I noticed a section called "Popular News" below the latest headlines. This news seems to be primarily soft-news or articles from the entertainment industry.

Now, I have nothing against entertainment or soft-news outright, however, I think a news organization like CNN should be prioritizing a bit better. From my observations, on a typical news day, CNN posts 10 headlines under "latest news" and post about 6 soft-news stories under the "popular news" portal page section or in the sections beside it.

Despite the fact that CNN posts more real news than soft-news, the soft-news takes up as much if not more of the portal page's main section. This is a very odd decision in that CNN's brand relies on a tag line like "the most trusted name in news" when their website is increasingly dominated by fluff.

Much is said about the so-called "CNN-Effect" and how it has increased the amount of soft-news and editorialization due to the need to fill 24 hours. Though other news organizations have contributed to this problem, CNN was the root of the trend. Ironically, Fox News dedicates less space to soft-news entertainment stories -- called "Features and Faces" on their portal page.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not against this type of news categorically, however there is a time and a place for it. Placing this type of news side-by-side with the hard-news of the day is an injustice for the implications of the serious news. It's also interesting to see how these news stories resemble advertisements rather than news articles. They seem to have a "hook" in their title while using buzz words.

Overall, I believe there needs to be a clear distinction between hard- and soft-news for the casual reader. The web blurs the line a lot more readily than television tends to. On TV there are usually different programs for different styles of news, but on the internet these stories can appear right beside each other. This lack of distinction, as well as the fact that these stories are increasingly prevalent, are where I take issue with soft-news. Again, as I have found with all matters of journalistic integrity, the need for responsibility is key to fixing the problem.
Read more...

Yellow Journalism and the Drudge-Effect

The topic of "Yellow Journalism" has been popping up in several of my classes recently. It got me thinking a lot about my own writing online, other sites that play into this style, and the CNN-FOX effect. (Image: Drudge Report Archives) As much as I hate to admit it, sensationalism is almost a necessity for online news sites. Whether bloggers or online journalists, all reporters who want to succeed in this saturated market have to resort to sensationalism. Yellow Journalism is certainly not a result of the internet, but it has found a new home online.

Online, no one has succeeded more with the yellow strategy than Matt Drudge. The Drudge Report claims to have more than 24 million visits over the last 24 hours and about 638 million over the past month. Drudge makes full use of his 1990s web design arsenal, including the Drudge Siren shown above, to pull his readers into his world.

Though Drudge's content more closely resembles an outright tabloid, the site has gained a stunning reader base, which rely on it for news. During the presidential election, Drudge's traffic beat the New York Times, and just barely finished behind Fox.

Though yellow journalism does not fulfill the needs of democracy for a reliable, educational press, millions of viewers flock to sensational news while snubbing actual news. At MacNN, it never ceases to amaze me that hugely important positive stories get only a fraction of the reader discussion that occurs with moderately important negative stories.

I've witnessed first hand how easy it is to sensationalize something bad. On the flip side of the coin, sensationalizing a good story often results in a public denouncement of the story as biased. The double standard of the readers makes yellow journalism even more complex and confusing. While everyone enjoys a pile on, a group hug is out of the question.

When it gets down to it, there are few ways to control a phenomenon like yellow journalism. The public craves the sensational and will abandon your site, newspaper, or television station if you don't deliver. At the same time that media consumption has reached an all-time high, so has public ignorance. Though that judgement is a matter of opinion, I stand by it. I think citizens will need to demand better for this to ever change -- after all, yellow journalism is a creation of public demand.
Read more...