Passion for newspapers and TV
Lenslinger marvels in the comments here about the passion, shall we say, unleashed among readers about layoffs. I am blown away by the visceral reaction of your audience at large. Newspapers may indeed be on the ropes, but the level of outrage, hurt and innuendo expressed by an extremely attentive readership still packs one hell of a punch.
I dare say if we downsized our broadcast staff, the viewer reaction wouldn't be anywhere near as explosive. Unless, of course, we pre-empted American Idol. Then they'd burn the building down. Metaphorically speaking, of course...
I speculated that TV watchers have a similar amount of passion -- normally directed at the sexy on-air talent -- but it is based on their affection for the personalities. The passion directed at us is generally negative. (You don't realize how lovable I am.) Much of it is because we take editorial stands; we print more stories, which equates to more potential to irritate people; and we are physically non-perishable so that you can't miss "a viewing" if you're not home at 6.
Other reasons? Am I missing the boat?
Lenslinger comes back: Come to think of it, there's no mystery why papers are hated and stations are loved. You take stands on the editorial page, we show video of dogs in funny hats. You slather your reports in indelible ink, we're half-watched through a curtain of kids and housepets. You make readers turn pages to find out more, we lull 'em to sleep with something frothy, then pitch it to a Seinfeld re-run.
I think he was speaking tongue-in-cheek, because I know he feels well-deserved pride in what he does. (Plus, we publish photos of dogs in funny hats, and lots of people read the paper through a curtain of kids, housepets and with the TV on.)
That people are passionate about the local paper is good. The emotional connection is vital. Does it matter if the passion is positive or negative? Would we like to be beloved? I suppose it would make me feel warm inside, but I doubt we would still be doing our job. Speaking with fondness about the paper is sort of like feeling affection for Microsoft: doesn't happen much. I do know that people like getting their photos published, though.
Comments (9)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I think you left something out. Newspapers (well, the N&R, anyway) are more transparent. You engage the community and don't simply report to -- or at -- it. More folks can name the Editor than the Station Manager.
The medium IS the message. We touch, fold and fondle the paper. We sit and do other stuff while we watch TV.
The paper is palpable while the TV is distant. We focus while we read in a way we do not while we watch.
Stewart is right in that TV news is more ephemeral than print journalism and as long as it doesn't interfere with Idol, then it can serve as background noise until something grabs our attention. Reading is more engaging because we make our own choices based on interest whereas watching is almost third-party behavior and no one asks us what we want to see during the next 3 minutes.
Posted on June 12, 2007 10:06 AM
Now God help me.
Posted on June 12, 2007 10:22 AM
I do know that people like getting their photos published, though.* JR
Really? Most folks don't like their mug shot on the front page after a recent arrest for being a person of interest in a suspected crime.
Now God help me.* DMJ
More like may the Force be with Sue on the Op-Ed page about JR being the Darth Vader of Greensboro.
Frankly! JR was simply following orders from the Corporate Death Star as the messager. Watching the so-called Blogging community of Greensboro blast JR for being the messager certainly shows that they really don't understand why business must produce a consisted reasonable profit in order expand with new products to the consumers in the 21 century information age without losing it's first goal of the 1 st amendment to the community.
Posted on June 12, 2007 10:50 AM
CBS is losing more watchers each day. Daily newspapers are doing the same, Why? I believe that Dan Rather tried to influence a presidential election. He just didn't report the news, he had to be part of the news. I don't know about national papers, but I believe that the N&R has done the same thing with their reporting. Instead of reconizing the problem, CBS hired Katie Couric and then Rick Kaplan. Two of the most liberal people in television. Their ratings are still falling badly. They didn't learn a damn thing.
I hope that the N&R learns that many, many of the loyal readers are pretty well fed up with slanted and biased reporting. You can cast me off John, like you did the other day by trying to make me out an ogre. But I'm not the one losing customers. You are.
Posted on June 12, 2007 7:32 PM
No offense, Wayne, but I hardly cast you as an ogre. You believe things that you read about us elsewhere to be gospel. I only ask that you bring the skepticism you apply to us to those other sources. That's not unreasonable.
Posted on June 12, 2007 9:07 PM
No, I don't believe every thing I read elsewhere to be a gospel. I hardly trust the Rhino for accuracy. But I do trust Jerry Bledsoe. I've known him over twenty-five years. I trust him to be fair and absolutely not biased and honest. You seem to imply that a story has two sides. There is my problem with you. Write the truth and be ethical. Little by little Jerry has taken your Wray story apart and and even Keith Holiday admits the whole affair is not about race. Look back where this story began, and look now and it doesn't even resemble what your reporters wrote. They had to add their own slant and beliefs and
look at the grief this has caused you.
I am sorry that you had such a bad week and I certainly would not want to do what you had to do. That had to be hell. I am also sorry that I added to your pain with my critizism I think you are a good man and have compassion. I've admired many of your papers stories. You broke the Homestead affair. Must have been hard to take on the PAC and Michael King. I remember many other stories which I aslo admired. My problem is with slanted and biased reporting and I don't need John Hammer to point it out. I thinkmost readers can figure things out for themselves.
Posted on June 13, 2007 11:57 AM
Actually, I don't think Jerry's done any such thing with our reporting. And if you think he's treating the newspaper fairly on the Wray story and others, then you and I have different definitions of bias and fairness.
I do agree with that readers can figure it out for themselves.
Posted on June 13, 2007 12:07 PM
" and if you think he's treating the newspaper fairly on the Wray story and others, then you and I have different definitions on bias and fairness. "
Since your stories reeked of racism by Chief Wray,
How do you validate Mayor Holiday's statements that race was not an issue in dismissing Chief Wray?
Why did your paper go underground when Bledsoe got involved? Why no defense to his stories?
I can't make you see your biases nor can I give Stevie Wonder eyes. Isn't it strange that so many people disagree with you?
Posted on June 13, 2007 12:36 PM
Well, of course, the stories reeked of no such thing. The police officers association began talking about race back at the beginning. We reported that. We reported the chief's response. We couldn't ignore it.
I would never try to validate the mayor's statements on anything.
We didn't go underground -- do we really have to keep plowing this ground? Why would you think we have to defend ourselves to Bledsoe? He had a story and he is going to tell it, regardless of what we do or say. (Don't you wonder why Chief Wray didn't go through and fire all the miscreants that Jerry's written about?)
I have no evidence that "so many people disagree" with me. Even so, I can't please everyone. It is what it is.
Posted on June 13, 2007 1:55 PM