It is that time of year again, when any COM student with friends in other colleges can see one of the glowing benefits to the ‘College of Optional Math’ (COM). As Sargent doctor wannabes and CAS students schlep around books to study for final exams, you will find that COM students are usually carrying little more than a smile, or the occasional tripod. I can only speak for journalism, because that is all I know, but exam week justifies to me all the nonsense projects and video packages that I produce all semester.
This year, however, a week of yoga and multiple “oh that sucks that you have to study all weekend” to those less fortunate was not in the cards. I am now at the mercy of exam week, and let me tell you, I am cursing myself for not doing the proper pre-registration research to find out which classes had serious finals. Now to some, this may not be such a catastrophe. However, once Christmas music hits the radio, I mentally check out. As soon as I hear those god-awful sleigh bells jingling, the only choice I have is to drown my sorrows in the commercialized chaos Christmas has become and find solace that the semester is about to end – talk to me come the New Year.
So while I may be getting the short end of the syllabus this year, all hope is not lost. In my political science concentration, I have found much success in turning 20-plus page final papers into video projects. I can work on my shooting and editing, and let’s be honest: when someone offers you a choice between a 20-page word document and a video, you cut your loses and start shooting cut aways.
My particular class is focused on electoral politics: the way people vote, and why they vote that way. If there is one thing that has been proven by every study we’ve ever looked at, it is that the American voting public is, for lack of better word, ignorant. They vote against their best interests, and no one knows real policy issues. Within a matter of minutes however, the class debate goes from a list of things the public doesn’t know to an all-out attack on the media. As the only journalist in the class I find myself constantly defending my future profession. While it is very easy to scapegoat such a massive machine as the media, what about voters’ responsibilities to be informed? While it is clear that in present electoral politics the media has a role, does that role come with new responsibilities to educate and keep the citizenry informed? And with that question, my video project was born.
In the past week I have interviewed Boston Globe, State House New Service, New England Cable News and NBC reporters. I have spoken to BU professors such as Chris Daly, who had really interesting insight as he covered former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis’ presidential run in 1988. Add in news directors, Washington Post interns – if I know them and they can speak to the subject, they’ve spoken to my camera.
Media opponents in my class have argued that news has become inundated by entertainment and superfluous stories. That viewers are not getting the news they want, but the news that media is simply shoving down their throats. They believe that journalists wake up in the morning and say, “Hey, you know how I’d really like to dumb down the American public? Let’s put Anna Nicole Smith on the A block, or front page, today.” Angered, and blameful, some say that we in the media are not doing our jobs. That brings up the very question of my project: what is our job?
After countless interviews, it would seem as if those in the media all are on the same page. To those who say we choose stories like Anna Nicole Smith? Simply not so. “Info-tainment” news has become the standard based on studies, statistics, and ratings. So in fact, it could be argued that you, the public, choose stories like Anna Nicole Smith. Journalists agree that our job is to report accurate, fair and true information – but other than that, we cover a mix of things to keep people watching, and to tell them what they need to know. As one reporter told me, “The onus falls on the individual to get whatever information they desire.” We can’t make someone looking for People magazine turn on CNN – but with no viewers, there’s no show. We can’t teach them anything if they’re not watching, and so the struggle begins. But really, with so many outlets to educate oneself, there is truly no excuse, or scapegoat, for ignorance.
So, how did my video project turn out? See for yourself below.
As much as my poli-sci constituents may not like to hear this, maybe Diane Sawyer said it best: “You can’t be picky about your news. News is whatever people are talking about at their dining room table.” What do you think? While I don’t buy the media is the root of all evil bit, I’m still unsure of where our responsibilities lie. Comment back, I’d love to hear more thoughts.
1 comment
Comments feed for this article
December 17, 2008 at 12:14 pm
RT
This is preposterous. The function of the news media is not to attract viewers for their advertisers, that’s the function of Law & Order. Catering to the lowest common denominator is always always always going to net more viewers – does that mean that MSNBC ought to dedicate hours of programming to showing footage of Miami Beach during spring break?
These people are supposed to be journalists, not television pimps. They are smart enough to know that what they are saying is bogus: with enough marketing, you can find an audience for anything. The job of the media is to educate us, but not everyone is smart enough to know that they need to be educated. Blaming the public is nothing but a cover for their shameful incompetence (with all-too-few exceptions in the case of PBS and Knight Ridder/McClatchy) in covering so much of what matters, in the elections and especially the run-up to the Iraq War. Your responsibility is to communicate what’s important. If you can do that in an interesting way, that’s great, but if you can’t, that doesn’t give you license to replace it with a story about Sarah Palin’s clothes. Should we stop teaching students about the Constitution because the signing of it wasn’t sexy or dramatic enough?
And, good luck finding anything close to substance on the 24-hour channels. They have long been content to let two opposing sides argue about what color the sky is and then tell the viewer that there is not enough time in the segment to settle the question. That we continue to have this debate about some nebulous responsibility on the part of the citizen makes me wonder if the old news media is even trying to endure. They certainly haven’t offered a good reason for why they should in years.