Where Do You Get Your News From?

I don’t like sounding like the old radio guy who is getting territorial over an increasing-divided audience.  I actually do believe in the power of online news sources and think there’s actually a place for them.  But what has continually been thrown into question is who will “police” those sources?  Will they be held up to the same standards that traditional media is held up to?

By no means am I even remotely alluding to traditional media being foolproof.  I don’t think the audience would be this divided if I didn’t think that somewhere along the line, we messed up.  Rightly or wrongly, potential audiences are calling our intentions into question.  Whether it’s being “in cahoots” with political parties, police departments, or anyone else, some people have grown disenfranchised with the status quo and are looking elsewhere for their information.  And that’s their prerogative, but I would hope that they would heed some caution before doing so.

Recently, I went on a bit of a rant on Facebook:

“To my Medicine Hat friends,

In the last little while, I’ve seen a few posts shared from “Community TV” and I just wanted to offer my two cents.  Please, please, please be careful sharing what is being produced.  Some of it has been walking a fine line around slander, while a recent post inadvertently interfered with police investigations.  Frankly, it lacks in professionalism on many fronts and I would hate to see one of you tied up in what could one day be legal issues for him.  I know this can sometimes sound like “the old radio guy” taking a crap on an online outlet, but I actually have some legit concerns about what he posts and what I’ve seen shared.  It’s one thing to be doing this as Joe Schmo on the street.  It’s another for someone to masquerade this as “journalism.”  It’s not being held up to the same standards as traditional outlets and I hope everyone thinks about that before sharing what’s been produced.  Thanks.”

This was in reaction to a post I ended up commenting on that particular page, where I outlined my concerns a little more concisely surrounding the police investigation.  The creator posted a raw video of an interview with the alleged child luring victim’s father, which apparently contained some “hold-back information” (information police don’t want out in the public eye for investigative reasons).  The police ended up contacting the creator, who ended up editing the video, but then made some comments about why, but not totally understanding all of the ins and outs.  My comment got a response, to which I responded and it went back-and-forth a couple more times before I realized my time would be better spent slamming my head into a concrete wall.  I simply didn’t understand why someone would try to chase after a story without fully understanding how the legal system works.  (As an aside, I realize that I’m giving this particular example exactly what he wants and that’s exposure.  But I needed a particular example to point out how stark the contrast between styles can be.)

Qualifications aside, I hope that potential audiences are looking at professionalism and tact when it comes to the news media they are consuming.  It might seem kind of nitpicky, but there’s something to be said about conducting yourself in a respectful manner.  That comes from education and training and an understanding of the business.  Simple things like getting all sides of a story, understanding the subject matter you’re talking about and overall decorum (such as doing things legally).  There are other things I’ve seen out there that make me cringe (with more than just the above example).  Things like telling the person you’re interviewing that you’re recording the conversation for public consumption (aka “on the record” vs. “off the record”) or broadcasting screen grabs of text messages (still a grey area but I’ve always assumed texts are “off the record” unless told otherwise).  Then there are the issues around publication bans in court that are, for the most part, abided by.  But I’ve seen a few examples where young people think they can say anything and everything because they’re not held to the same standards and expectations as traditional media.  One friend encapsulated it in one perfect word: ethics.  You can usually tell how seriously outlets take that word by the way they frame their stories.  Did they refer to themselves (ie the story is more about them than it is about the story they’re supposedly covering)?  That should tell you a lot about what’s most important to them, especially if you notice it more than once.

I’ve been really interested in looking at the comments to some of these pages as well.  They usually go along the lines of “thanks for telling it like it is” or “you’re the only one telling the truth.”  You know how it goes: the anti-traditional media sentiments.  The question really becomes: is it really the truth?  How can it be the truth if they’ve only gone after one interview or angle to the story?  Reminds me of the old saying about how there’s always two sides to a story and the truth is almost always somewhere in the middle.

Can traditional media do a better job of protecting and standing up for its reputation?  Absolutely and that could include a number of things.  I’d love to see the day when we stop seeing political endorsements.  I’d love to see the day that we stop talking about “viral videos” and spend more time on stories that actually have an effect on people.  I’d love to see the day where we see fewer stories about weather and more “dig deep” stories on politics, education and health.

On the flipside, online news outlets need to do a better job of creating a strong and positive reputation.  Get all sides to a story.  Present yourself in a professional manner.  Show that you care about ethics, the legal system, and processes involving government.  I actually believe that in the not-too-distant future, you’re going to see more online news sources dedicated to what I call “hyper-local”, with a focus on a particular “beat”, which might have a smaller overall reach but a much more engaged audience.  But that audience won’t be served well if that news source is constantly stepping all over rules, the law or professionalism.

Both sides need to understand these points and more.  Why?  Because both sides are already being lumped in as one-and-the-same “the media”, and one misstep by any of the outlets will have ramifications for the whole lot.  This is especially true now that traditional and new media are essentially in competition.  By no means am I saying “don’t have fun” or “don’t dig for stories” or “don’t piss anyone off.”  What am I saying?  Outlets, both traditional and new, have some work to do to gain the trust of the consumer.  At the same time, consumers should carry some responsibility, in holding BOTH traditional and new news media to high standards. 

At the end of the day, we live in a world where someone with a cellphone and a YouTube channel can call themselves a “journalist.”  These very same people have Facebook and Twitter followings that rival or even surpass traditional outlets, which I suppose is a compliment for their ability to self-promote.  But I also find this interesting on a personal level because this is who I’m now competing with.  I spent two years in school and the last 10+ years in radio building my reputation as a journalist.  And yet, who do you think will have their work dismissed first?

All I ask: think about it.