Good news: More reporters overtly embracing agenda journalism
posted at 10:27 am on March 6, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
They’re from the media and they’re here to help.
The “social journalism” that made Oprah Winfrey an international fairy godmother is the new rage in network and cable news, and it’s expanding to other media.
Increasingly, journalists and talk-show hosts want to “own” a niche issue or problem, find ways to solve it and be associated with making this world a better place, as Winfrey has done with obesity, literacy and, most recently, education by founding a girls school in South Africa.
Experts say the competitive landscape, the need to be different and to keep eyeballs returning, is driving this trend, along with a genuine desire from some anchors and reporters to do good…
In a journalistic sense, Woodruff and the Post “own” these stories, which cut through a crowded media marketplace because “people are hungry to be surprised by the content,” says Samir Husni, a University of Mississippi journalism professor. “The key is to get people addicted to your content. If you can’t surprise them, you can’t get them addicted.”
Lots of examples at the link beginning with Bob Woodruff’s series on brain injuries caused by roadside bombs in Iraq and ending with Keith Olbermann’s special comments — a well-nigh perfect microcosm of how this trend is going to “progress” over time. Surprising that they didn’t mention Anderson Cooper’s and Shepard Smith’s reports during Katrina, though. Their theatrical displays of righteous emotion are the ne plus ultra of this phenomenon, the first goal of which is to put the reporter front and center as an exemplar of indignant virtue. Call it the Geraldo-fication of TV journalism.
We can’t complain too much. We’ve always said we wanted them to admit their biases, and now they’re doing it; it’s just that they’re claiming to be biased towards “good” instead of left or right. And hey: every reporter off busying himself with exposing the evils of trans fats is one less available to expose the SWIFT program. Small favors, etc.
Update: Which is not to say agenda journalism is always a bad thing. Not at all.
Update: “The new advocacy journalists: Directed, Pure, and Unafraid, according to themselves.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Doesn’t O’Reilly do the same thing with his crusade for Jessica’s Law?
Skywise on March 6, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Whew.
Now Greg Mitchell can go back and re-edit all of those old columns.
Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Absolutely; he’s mentioned in the piece. Hence my reference to “good” instead of “left or right.”
Allahpundit on March 6, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Ahh… sorry, like a good slashdotter I didn’t RTFA… :)
Skywise on March 6, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Difference is, O’reilly doesn’t try to hide that he has an opinion and agenda.
amerpundit on March 6, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Wait. The media wasn’t embracing an agenda in the past? Could’ve fooled me.
lorien1973 on March 6, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Anyways, the big story of the day is:
Global warming killing the hooker business :(
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=39945&in_page_id=2
lorien1973 on March 6, 2007 at 10:52 AM
I see Woodruff as different from Oprah, O’Reilly etc in that he is in a unique position to report on brain injuries suffered in war and the recovery process. (Much as I dislike O’Reilly and Oprah, I’m pretty sure he’s not a pedophile nor is she illiterate!)
Regardless, he’s performing a much needed service by throwing light on this issue.
honora on March 6, 2007 at 10:55 AM
It’s refreshing to see them finally admitting it, but one of my biggest issues with the piece is that it blurs the line between straight reporting and opinion reporting. Bill O’Reilly is not a ‘reporter’ – he’s an opinionated talk show host so he’s supposed to have an agenda. On the other hand, Ann Curry isn’t.
That said, these people are confirming in their own way what the right has said about the media all along. Instead of reporting objectively, they try to determine from the outset of a story which ’side’ is ‘good’ and then shape their stories around making the other side of the story ‘bad.’ This isn’t such an issue when you’re talking about a story on a child molester because everyone wants to see him/her locked up, but it becomes a big issue when we’re talking about stories on things like stem cell research and the war in Iraq, where the reporter’s ’side’ comes through in some cases very clearly. I think in those cases reporters need to make even more of an effort to report ‘from the middle’ but these days, that’s just asking too much. Reporters don’t get into the news business simply to report the news anymore. They want to shape it – and in some cases, create news. And that’s a problem.
SisterToldjah on March 6, 2007 at 10:57 AM
Agreed. That’s why I place him on the opposite end of the spectrum from Olbermann. He actually is performing a valuable service (as are the people linked in my update).
Allahpundit on March 6, 2007 at 10:59 AM
This is a good thing indeed as it relates to politics. I would rather a reporter (and network) embrace their bias. Average citizens will then be more aware of the slant from which a story is based.
natesnake on March 6, 2007 at 10:59 AM
What about Greta on FoxNews? Her endless coverage of the missing high school student long ago crossed the line from “doing good” to weird-cult-like-following of a story.
That horse has been beaten into a fine red paste.
natesnake on March 6, 2007 at 11:03 AM
You mean Natalee Holloway? Because that was the fault of Boosh.
Savage on March 6, 2007 at 11:10 AM
LAT link is registration-based. No go on that one.
spmat on March 6, 2007 at 11:14 AM
They are all getting their ‘Right Wing’ props by bashing Ann Coulter.
DoctorDentons on March 6, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Promoting Olbermann is Olbermann’s agenda. Say what you want for O’Reilly, Oprah et al., they do provide some public service, massive egos notwithstanding. Be it left or right, it makes me rather uncomfortable when alleged journalists make themselves the story.
I don’t think Van Susteren is necessarily promoting herself; she just has to know when to let go.
This just in: Deepak and Satish Kalpoe both confess to being the father of Anna Nicole’s baby.
JammieWearingFool on March 6, 2007 at 11:17 AM
How long till we see CNN reporter’s pieces in DNC or democratic party propaganda ?
Opps wait too late to ask that question.
William Amos on March 6, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Hearing this shocked me almost as much as Britney Spear’s failure to win ‘Mother of the Year’.
thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Are you bequeathing upon him absolute moral authority? Just because this reporter was hit by a bomb or whatever in Iraq, doesn’t really make him expert on IEDs, the Iraq conflict, hospital care or anything else. I’m not sure why you agree with this. If you want to give him a victim status and let him tell his story; that’s fine. But it doesn’t translate into an expert status.
The same thing with the 9/11 widows. Just because their family members were killed in the 9/11 attacks; they are not experts on terrorism, buildings, international policy or anything else.
This trend is not good. Reporters should report facts. If they are advocates; lets drop the news label all together and just call it the 6:30 advocacy cast.
It kills me when reporters start stories like:
Bob Johns has trouble finding health insurance….
Then continues as if its a major problem across the country; but pointing to Bob Johns as the focal point of the problem.
Emotional manipulation is all this is. As you said, the road to hell is paved with this.
lorien1973 on March 6, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Leave it to Allah to find the dark cloud in the silver lining.
It’s still a positive step in the right direction. Five years ago, could you imagine this piece being published, even in a throwaway rag like USA Today?
Kadnine on March 6, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Problem is that they DO NOT admit their agenda in the articles themselves… they expect the “Public” to divine this…
Every article written by one of these so called “Jounalists” should START with a disclaimer.
This, at its very base, is propoganda… not news…
Romeo13 on March 6, 2007 at 12:33 PM
People have a choice, to watch or not to watch It all boils down to what or how I want to be entertained for a few moments in time. I do realize that a majority of people are like sheep and follow the shepard. The MSM has been the big shepard for years and only until the blogs and cable sites started taking away thier sheep did they start to proclaim there new approaches. You can see through most of the BS years ago if you wanted to delve into thier constant drivel. Just as reading or responding to a blog, we are spending our time to our choice or detrement(sp) It is all up to us individually to make that choice.
bones47 on March 6, 2007 at 1:18 PM
There are: journalists (few left), pontificators and Olberkinder. The former should never be confused with the latter.
Admitted advocacy, fine. Admitted political bias? Not yet, but one can always hope…on the other hand we’re not stupid and can figure them out. I’d just like for them to be more honest, less hypocritical about it.
Entelechy on March 6, 2007 at 2:52 PM
O’Reily is not a journalist, and he’s said that himself. He’s an opinionated commentator, like Oprah. Has she ever said she is a journalist?
BTW, Journal = Diary
I say non-bias be hangged. No reporter has ever been, nor is it possible for ANYONE to be, without bias or preconceptions; at least for the most part.
Just like with congress and campaine finance, drop all the rules and bylaws. Let there be transparency.
- The Cat
MirCat on March 6, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Hey, at least now we know what William Arkin really thinks.
I’m sure his views on the military NEVER colored his analysis. Huh uh, no sir, no chance of that, just us objective journalists here.
TallDave on March 6, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Comment pages: