I was watching a TV news piece the other day, and the (typically baritone and serious-sounding) anchor informed us proudly that this was a story that "you'll only see . . . on NewsChannel 3."
Of course, I was watching it on YouTube. Not only did I not know where "NewsChannel 3" was, hell, I didn't even know what time zone they might be in. Nor did I care a whit.
And that's a problem that I see with Big Media: they're wedded to "the scoop" or the "big get." And aside from a very few people that I like to see doing interviews--Jon Stewart (when he's on his game), Rachel Maddow--I simply don't care who has the "get," or "the scoop," or "broke the story", or got "the exclusive". Heck, the word "exclusive is used so promiscuously now, I remember seeing the same guy giving "an exclusive" about his new tell-all book on three different networks. That's only "exclusive" if by "exclusive" you mean "no one is talking to this guy on any other channel at the particular moment". I don't give a rip about "exclusive". And I don't think anyone does, honestly.
It's time news organizations realized that, in an era with news aggregators, YouTube, RSS feeds, and other news-gathering tools, the old rules of "scooping" simply don't apply (if indeed they ever did outside the minds of reporters). When I follow a link from Twitter, I don't care when it was posted, and by who, and whether or not it was "exclusive". I do care if the link was tweeted by someone I trust, and the source is one in whose veracity I have faith. But "a scoop"? Not so much.
I don't care who has a particular story "first," by days, hours, or minutes. I care about the information, and I care about whether the story is accurate, but as to whether the story came from Salon of the New York Times or "NewsChannel 3"? Nope, don't care in the least. But it sure seems like the Times, the Post, the networks, Fox, and places like "NewsChannel 3" do care.
And that's the thing; if those outlets are spending their effort going for the wrong goal--the "scoop"--then they're not providing the public with what it wants. And they're not going to get an audience that is after facts that are accurate.
In this turbo-charged, highly-connected, text messaging and web-based culture, do we want stuff fast? Sure we do. But does anyone really care where the facts come from, and who gets them "first"? No one that I know.
Get it right, MSM--because if you get it wrong, it won't matter if you're "first;" people will stop listening to you, reading you, or paying attention to you.
That's what I think, anyway.
YOU ARE READING
Technobabble
Non-fictieDuring the filming of "Star Trek: The Next Generation", there would frequently come times when the story called for the characters (and in the early days, it was often that bane of Trekkies everywhere, Wesley Crusher, the Platonic Ideal of Dork) to...
