Slashdot Mirror
Chicago Tribune Reporters Don't Want Readers' Pre-Approval
theodp writes "Irked by the Marketing department's solicitation of subscribers' opinions on stories before they were published, 55 reporters and editors at the Chicago Tribune signed an e-mail demanding the practice be stopped. 'It is a fundamental principle of journalism that we do not give people outside the newspaper the option of deciding whether or not we should publish a story, whether they be advertisers, politicians or just regular readers,' the e-mail read."
And I read it as the reporters using the idea that you just said to accomplish what the parent suspects. They're smart enough to know that that is a very real drawback to the plan, but they ought to be smart enough to take the feedback and do something with it.
It might be a case of readers collectively wanting to suppress something, but it might also be a case of readers wanting information about something else and wanting resources to be freed to get that information.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
..yeah, but there's a niche in the market for an honest news-reporting newspaper, which they've settled into nicely in Chicago. If they start going pop then they'll find themselves competing with tabloids for less money. It's in their interest to stay quality.
I think that's a little paranoid. Fox declined to show the latest Obama press conference because it was during sweeps week and gets worse ratings than their normal programming.
What a democratically decided newspaper would put on the front page today (via Yahoo search traffic):
Swine Flu
Christina Applegate
American Idol
Kristie Alley
Jon and Kate Plus Eight
Sarah Jessica Parker
Twitter
Hi-5
Lady Gaga
NBA
Source: http://buzzlog.buzz.yahoo.com/overall/
Three observations:
1) There are media outlets that cover pretty much exactly this list. Good for them. I don't read those and never will. I question their contribution to democracy.
2) I get news from a variety of social media filters, and almost none of the information I get from these very useful selection processes are from this list (the flu outbreak is the exception). That's not to say that my information is better than yours - just that it's what I happen to want.
3) Therefore: A more useful "democracy" strategy might be to help readers select from the vast array of information coming out of organizations like the Tribune and put that on the "front page" akin to Amazon's personalized homepage metrics.
As a journalist, I will say that allowing anyone outside the organization to spike a story pre-publication opens to the door wide open to self-censorship. Critical journalism requires independence, or it becomes PR. Critical journalism is rare enough as it is without this.
In 2006, Democrats achieved majorities in the house and senate by promising to end the Iraq war. In 2008, Barack Obama was elected President by promising to end the Iraq war.
The Iraq war is no closer to being ended than it was when George Bush and the Republicans were in charge.
And yet no one in the press seems willing to mention that. Maybe they're too busy enjoying the tingle in their leg as the Democrats piss on us.
You say that, but all the newspaper stories I've been close to in real life have had misquotations, inaccuracies, and/or reporter bias. Everyone I've ever talked to has said exactly the same thing.
Journalists might be slightly more professional than your average employee, but it's not enough for us to keep putting them on some pedestal, any more than we would politicians. They're just people, and they make lots of mistakes.