Mark Thoma on "News You Can Choose"

[Michael Hardner]

Economists View

Quoting Ted Koppel:

To the degree that broadcast news was a more virtuous operation 40 years ago, it was a function of both fear and innocence. Network executives were afraid that a failure to work in the "public interest, convenience and necessity," as set forth in the Radio Act of 1927, might cause the Federal Communications Commission to suspend or even revoke their licenses. ... News was ... the loss leader that permitted NBC, CBS and ABC to justify the enormous profits made by their entertainment divisions.

Television News has many qualities that play into the democratic system itself:

1) Brevity and personality-based information. Information is prevented by a speaker, and the more interesting the speaker the more interesting the personality.

2) Television News is expensive to produce and distribute. Unlike a leaflet, or a web page - it costs money to produce news, and there is pressure to make it more entertaining, and thus more profitable. Also, only moneyed interests can afford to sponsor news - given the expense, and risk of loss.

3) The changing public attitude towards government involvement. People are less inclined to support government control of the media.

4) The advent of cable, and the web. These trends have opened up the infrastructure to more points of view, and therefore more disagreement and more fighting - in accordance with the points above.

As an information system, television cable news seems to be challenged now by the web and new media. I like that challenge, since the web is more similar to the media that gave birth to western democracy in colonial America, and thus is more suited to it.

Your thoughts ?

[M.Dancer]

Contrast "news is a loss leader" with the claim that advertising dollars influence news

[Michael Hardner]

Contrast "news is a loss leader" with the claim that advertising dollars influence news

"loss leader" - for some, not all

"advertising dollars influence news" - to what degree ? at a certain point, that's just a banal observation anyway

There are, of course, the types who insist, say, that the President of Sleep Country Canada gets to clear all news that stations with her advertisements broadcast. For these folks, the market has now developed tinfoil underpants to prevent them from being detected by Big Brother, when they walk through the theft detector at Costco.

[bloodyminded]

"advertising dollars influence news" - to what degree ? at a certain point, that's just a banal observation anyway

I'm not sure why it's a banal observation. Do you mean it's unsurprising? Or that, in itself, it doesn't tell us very much? If the latter, then of course that's true.

But yes, "to what degree" is a good question, and probably impossible to ascertain. In my view the effect is real enough, but is somewhat limited, of course. Advertisers don't specifically determine news coverage, nor even slant. Some no doubt have concerns about this, others probably don't care as much.

There have been exceptions. The Editor of (I believe) The London Guardian once pointed out that a story about an airplane crash will not be on the page facing a full-page ad for an airline. And since specific pages are bought by the advertiser...this is a de facto choosing of where the story cannot appear...a direct influence on news-stroy placement. The airline isn't asked; the newspaper folks simply already understand. And in the newspaper business, obviously on which page a story appears is a serious consideration.

All in all, however, advertising influence is far more subtle, far from direct, and impossible to measure. Is there self-censorship, with the knowledge that advertisers must remain happy in order to keep buying space? No doubt there is; but how much?

I imagine that, in and of itself, the effect is not enormous. But it exists.

[bloodyminded]

4) The advent of cable, and the web. These trends have opened up the infrastructure to more points of view, and therefore more disagreement and more fighting - in accordance with the points above.

As an information system, television cable news seems to be challenged now by the web and new media. I like that challenge, since the web is more similar to the media that gave birth to western democracy in colonial America, and thus is more suited to it.

Your thoughts ?

My understanding is that there was once a multiplicity of news sources, contradictory and contentious. For example, there would be Labour-oriented papers; there would be those with an Establishment tendency, and others with an anti-government slant. Openly capitalist and openly socialist newspapers.

Now, the distinctions are far less clear, the medium a lot more centred on the "professional," less varied style and substance.

So the web and new media have certainly opened things up somewhat, I agree.

[Michael Hardner]

My understanding is that there was once a multiplicity of news sources, contradictory and contentious. For example, there would be Labour-oriented papers; there would be those with an Establishment tendency, and others with an anti-government slant. Openly capitalist and openly socialist newspapers.

The fact that many newspapers have dual names attests to that history. Many people are unaware that The Globe and Mail were two separate papers, and so on.

More sources of information is generally a good thing, and text is also a good thing as it supports point-based arguments, following linear processing of facts, and cause-and-effect reasoning. The web supports both of these attributes, which is another reason why web-based democracy could eventually be a very good thing.

[August1991]

The arrogant paternalism of Ted Koppel caught my eye:

Much of the American public used to gather before the electronic hearth every evening, separate but together, while Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Frank Reynolds and Howard K. Smith offered relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know.

(My italics.)

As an information system, television cable news seems to be challenged now by the web and new media. I like that challenge, since the web is more similar to the media that gave birth to western democracy in colonial America, and thus is more suited to it.

Your thoughts ?

I rarely listen to TV news now and when I listen to radio news, or read a print newspaper, I always yearn for the comments section. On the web, I typically flip to the comments at the end - and I tend to discount sources that don't allow comments.

Truth be told, I always enjoyed reading letters to the editor and IMHO, the greatest sin of The Economist was when they reduced their letters page from two to one page. I stopped subscribing shortly afterwards.

----

Mark Thoma is a leftist and a Statist so it is understandable that he is unhappy with the current situation of the MSM in America - and he seeks a State solution.

IMV, the "problem" is much vaster than Koppel or Thoma seem to realize, or you suggest in your OP, Michael.

Has Koppel or Thoma or you read one of these free Metro newspapers now available in large cities around the world? They're not newspapers in any MSM traditional sense. I don't know what they are exactly. Weird.

IOW, people pick and choose the information that is useful to them. Well, duh. If I'm planning to buy a car, then I am interested in car features - but otherwise, I ignore car advertisements. If I have a particular medical problem, then I will read about that. If I'm planning a trip to Somalia (!), then Somalia might be interesting...

My understanding is that there was once a multiplicity of news sources, contradictory and contentious. For example, there would be Labour-oriented papers; there would be those with an Establishment tendency, and others with an anti-government slant. Openly capitalist and openly socialist newspapers.

About 30 years ago, there were newspapers, radio, TV and word of mouth. I suppose there was also graffiti and I recall crazy people talking in the street. (As a tourist, I went to Hyde Park Corner in London.)

Nowadays, if someone talks to themselves in the street, people assume they are using a bluetooth cell phone. And we can speak "truth to power" through Internet forums and so on.

Word of mouth is much vaster, and people's interests are shown for what they truly are. Of the various threads I started on this forum, one of the most popular concerns sales taxes on used cars.

Edited November 16, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

And that explains why your arguments are so light on facts, and so high on emotion. The truth has very little appeal to you. For you, everything is about the way that people feel.

[August1991]

And that explains why your arguments are so light on facts, and so high on emotion. The truth has very little appeal to you. For you, everything is about the way that people feel.

Smallc, to whom are you addressing that comment?

[Smallc]

You.

[August1991]

You.

Me?

You post:

And that explains why your arguments are so light on facts, and so high on emotion. The truth has very little appeal to you. For you, everything is about the way that people feel.

Light on facts? I try to post links to statements. I use statistics to support my claims. I try to use clear logic in my arguments.

High on emotion? Is passion a pejorative?

The way people feel? Well, any political discussion - particularly in a democracy - should include how "people feel".

----

MH started (another) good thread about how the Internet has changed the MSM. smallc, what's your point?

[Smallc]

My point is that you admit to skipping over actual stories and giving more weight to the comments. That explains many of your arguments.

[Michael Hardner]

People seek out the information that is useful to them.

So what does that say about MLW posters ? Far reaching policy matters and global trends that we talk about here - are they more useful to us than others ?

No, it's simply a certain kind of infotainment for those of us interested in such things.

The thing is, there is an invisible hand of usefulness to society that works to make things better when we discuss things here.

[Smallc]

An equivalency argument doesn't work in this case. It's nonsense to put very little weight on the facts and almost all the weigh on emotion and then try to have a reasonable argument.

[Michael Hardner]

An equivalency argument doesn't work in this case. It's nonsense to put very little weight on the facts and almost all the weigh on emotion and then try to have a reasonable argument.

Smallc, to whom are you addressing that comment?

[Smallc]

Smallc, to whom are you addressing that comment?

Maybe I misinterpreted your comment....

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe I misinterpreted your comment....

I was saying that MLW posters seek out information because they like it, not because it's particularly useful, and that such people can be leveraged as watchdogs by government, on government. They call it crowdsourcing, and the government could use people like us in many ways, if they cared to.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Shwa]

Television News has many qualities that play into the democratic system itself:

1) Brevity and personality-based information. Information is prevsented by a speaker, and the more interesting the speaker the more interesting the personality.

Naked news! However, does the more interesting personality make the news more interesting? I am not so sure.

2) Television News is expensive to produce and distribute. Unlike a leaflet, or a web page - it costs money to produce news, and there is pressure to make it more entertaining, and thus more profitable. Also, only moneyed interests can afford to sponsor news - given the expense, and risk of loss.

And yet we are seeing more and more news programs. Arguably, we can even hook in "reality" television as the bastard child of a news oriented society. I mean, why do people want the news in the first place?

3) The changing public attitude towards government involvement. People are less inclined to support government control of the media.

To a degree. But by and large, the government sets the agenda and access to the news people are most interested in. Contrast the news reporting from Vietnam in the late 60's to the "embedded media" in the last Gulf War.

4) The advent of cable, and the web. These trends have opened up the infrastructure to more points of view, and therefore more disagreement and more fighting - in accordance with the points above.

I think there is also the aspect of passive and active interaction with the news too. With television and radio (and I listen to 680 AM in Toronto often), mostly passive; flip on CablePulse and let Lindsay tell you what you need to know. With reddit or Digg, newspapers much more active active. You want the news, you have to go and get it and read it. Some news, the very specialty stuff you might have to hunt it down.

As an information system, television cable news seems to be challenged now by the web and new media. I like that challenge, since the web is more similar to the media that gave birth to western democracy in colonial America, and thus is more suited to it.

An interesting and well known thought, but are people more suited to the web and willing to be active enough to bother? Especially with news sources that are a little more prone to drop out of sight after a few years. Besides, most television news can also be found on the web and any long term investment to bring the news to the web is going to cost money and bring us advertising.

[Shwa]

An equivalency argument doesn't work in this case. It's nonsense to put very little weight on the facts and almost all the weigh on emotion and then try to have a reasonable argument.

This is a very interesting comment.

Is there a presupposition that an emotive response to something is automatically disinclined toward fact or that emotional weight cannot contain, or arrive at, fact?

This sort of sentiment reminds me of 'Voltaire's Bastards : The Dictatorship of Reason in the West'

Should we attempt to use sensible words to deal with these problems, they will be caught up immediately in the structures of the official arguments which accompany the official modern ideologies — arguments as sterile as the ideologies are irrelevant. Our society contains no method of serious self-criticism for the simple reason that it is now a self-justifying system which generates its own logic.

[Michael Hardner]

And yet we are seeing more and more news programs. Arguably, we can even hook in "reality" television as the bastard child of a news oriented society. I mean, why do people want the news in the first place?

Different people want news for different reasons, so if there are enough channels, you can provide a different type of news show for each reason.

An interesting and well known thought, but are people more suited to the web and willing to be active enough to bother?

You don't need a lot of people to be interested, just the right people. People who are interested in the issues than the news readers.

Especially with news sources that are a little more prone to drop out of sight after a few years. Besides, most television news can also be found on the web and any long term investment to bring the news to the web is going to cost money and bring us advertising.

There may be advertising coming to the web ?!? Say it isn't so.

[Shwa]

Different people want news for different reasons, so if there are enough channels, you can provide a different type of news show for each reason.

Yes, but I was hoping to get you waxing on some meta-reason as to why people want news. Is it an inherent social or psychological response? What is the provenance of wanting to know the news about one thing or another?

You don't need a lot of people to be interested, just the right people. People who are interested in the issues than the news readers.

Well, the web ain't free so there has to be a critical number to be worthwhile for the upkeep of such sites. I often wonder..., well not really "often... but will the Internet Archive be littered with millions of lonely, abandoned blogs in 10 years? Or is Twitter the future of news?

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, but I was hoping to get you waxing on some meta-reason as to why people want news. Is it an inherent social or psychological response? What is the provenance of wanting to know the news about one thing or another?

People want news for many reasons: to feel safer, to feel that they belong, to feel smart.

Add yours here.

Well, the web ain't free so there has to be a critical number to be worthwhile for the upkeep of such sites. I often wonder..., well not really "often... but will the Internet Archive be littered with millions of lonely, abandoned blogs in 10 years? Or is Twitter the future of news?

Ads on the internet ? Gasp !

[Michael Hardner]

More on news you can choose...

As a news consumer, what happens if I want a story that tells me that Obama's trip to India cost $200 Million per day ?

Simple. The news industry will produce news that makes that claim.

New York Times

Rush Limbaugh talking about Obama’s trip: “In two days from now, he’ll be in India at $200 million a day.” Then Glenn Beck, on his radio show, saying: “Have you ever seen the president, ever seen the president go over for a vacation where you needed 34 warships, $2 billion — $2 billion, 34 warships. We are sending — he’s traveling with 3,000 people.” In Beck’s rendition, the president’s official state visit to India became “a vacation” accompanied by one-tenth of the U.S. Navy. Ditto the conservative radio talk-show host Michael Savage. He said, “$200 million? $200 million each day on security and other aspects of this incredible royalist visit; 3,000 people, including Secret Service agents.”

Limbaugh, Beck, and Savage are popular and they got that way by giving people the news that the public wants to hear. Since we can't making lying illegal (that would be impractical) what are we to do with these people ?

How about we just ridicule them as the court jesters they are, and scoff whenever anybody tries to use them as a source ?

Nobody is 100% accurate, and nobody is 100% bias-free but I would even trust The Star over these loonies...

[bush_cheney2004]

....Limbaugh, Beck, and Savage are popular and they got that way by giving people the news that the public wants to hear. Since we can't making lying illegal (that would be impractical) what are we to do with these people ?

How about apologizing for infringing on their constitutional right to free speech?

How about we just ridicule them as the court jesters they are, and scoff whenever anybody tries to use them as a source ?

But you have already failed in that goal...citing them from Canada (outside their target market).

Nobody is 100% accurate, and nobody is 100% bias-free but I would even trust The Star over these loonies...

...then just change the channel.

[Michael Hardner]

How about apologizing for infringing on their constitutional right to free speech?

Nobody has done that from what I can see.

But you have already failed in that goal...citing them from Canada (outside their target market).

We are all connected... the memes that travel through Canada travel through the US as well.

...then just change the channel.

I have another option - to make fun of them and show them as ridiculous. In fact, that's a responsibility of citizens, I would think: to demand good and complete information.