Note: This post first appeared as my article at Linking Indiana. I understand since the time of its original posting some of the circumstances regarding the Tiger Woods story have changed; I have no interest in researching them to update this post.
It was one of the "deadliest days in US law enforcement history." It really did read like something out of an old Western movie: An outlaw, out after being given a second chance in another state by a prominent political figure, walks into an eating establishment, and guns down four police officers before getting away. Eventually, this sets up a climactic scene in which a lone officer catches up to the fugitive, and shoots and kills him.
This actually happened in Seattle over the last five days, but you are about three times more likely to know more about the rumors surrounding the nation's highest-paid athlete's alleged indiscretions and wayward driving.
At first I thought it was just the circles I run in that made the Tiger Woods Hydrantgate episode ubiquitous. I follow a lot of PR people on Twitter and the blogosphere. Tiger's troubles, if nothing else, are a case study in poor PR management. Then I did a simple Google news search: As of Tuesday afternoon, when both stories were reaching their climax, "Tiger Woods accident" yielded 14,669 stories, "Seattle police shooting," 5,122.
More instructive: "Tiger Woods mistress" appeared as a form-fill option after typing just the first three letters of the phrase ("Tig"). Think about all the possible search queries that could be launched using the first three letters, "Tig." Google is so sure you're trying to search for information about Tiger's - ahem - "tail," it rules out all of them in half a second.
In college, we learned about something called the "agenda-setting" function of media. That is, news professionals have a great responsibility because they decide what is important enough to make it in their newscasts/paper/Web site, etc. I wasn't in college too long ago, and I was in the news business for four years after, but Hydrant-gate's outshining of the Seattle police shootings shows us that several factors are already whittling this big stick of journalism down to a nub. And it's not entirely the media's fault it seemingly focuses on sex and celebrities at the expense of more compelling stories.
First, there is the need to fill 24-hour news channels with content. How discerning can a producer really be if they are required to deliver "news" when there just isn't much happening? Some celebrity will always be doing something stupid somewhere. Content problem solved.
Secondly, we must account for the good and the bad in the rise of social media. Sites like Twitter allow people to report their experiences in newsworthy events via first-hand, real-time accounts. A major trending topic on Twitter replaces both the agenda-setting role of journalists and the journalists themselves. We saw this on full display in the aftermath of the Iranian elections, when reporters were unable to capture the events in Tehran.
But not everything discussed on social media sites should make the news. A topic's popularity among an audience is certainly a criterion for its newsworthiness, but not the only criterion. Many traditional journalists still seem largely behind the curve in leveraging social media tools, and seem to be over-compensating by elevating traditionally non-news items they find there to appear savvy.
While many people would say a third factor is the overall decline of journalistic standards (I've done my part to argue this, too), it's more helpful to remember that news in 2009 America is very much a consumer-focused commodity. The news delivered through many outlets is as market-tested, research-driven, and consultant-controlled as any soft drink on the grocer's shelf. More than ever before, increased competition is forcing news outlets to find what will attract that first few seconds of attention from viewers/readers/listeners, and developing their products around it. The disproportionate emphasis on attention-grabbing many times makes for shallow stories and even shallower anchors.
All this is means news organizations are starting to act more like advertising agencies. They are more and more in the business of marketing, which is largely based on an appeal to the emotions. This is a departure from how we normally think of news, that is, a largely intellectual and informative entity.
There's a backhanded compliment in there: We drive the news, sure, but that means what's on the news is there because they know we'll watch it. So the next time we see one of the ubiquitous blonde anchorettes on TV (seriously, is it just me who thinks they must have a machine in the back that produces these people?) deliver all the news except that which is fit to print, we shouldn't be too quick to shoot the messenger. After all, we had a major hand in sending her.
1 comments: