Grad class in Journalism theory and practice. We read, analyze, discuss, and test our knowledge of current events and the historical, legal, and ongoing problems of journalism as a democratic institution and necessity.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
What do you think of "the iron core" of news?
Alex Jones's first chapter defines "news" clearly. Does it match your own definition? Does it make sense? How does this stack up with the public's idea of news? How does this stack up against what "the media" provides us?
LMLF said, I agree with his definition. It makes sense because news just seems to imply that it is something we should know about. The iron core is something we should know about. I think Jones feels the same way I do. That the public may think of news in this same way but chooses and prefers to read what the media provides, which is lighter, or sensationalized. The media feeds the public's desire or need to escape from the harshness of reality.
Oops, I had a minor issue with posting. Here's my real response ~
One of the parts of this chapter that I found most helpful was the percentage breakdown of what comprises a newspaper. Upon hearing that about half of it is devoted to advertising, it became pretty understandable to me why people are more likely to read news stories online rather than purchasing a paper. Admittedly, I will pick up a newspaper to read every once in a while, but I prefer to read articles on the Internet because it is easier to pick and choose what I would like to read, and in some cases, it is easier to get through. Above all, it is usually free to access articles online, and this is not the case with newspapers. It is generally pretty cheap to buy a paper daily, but with the advent of online news, it is of no surprise to me that newspaper readership has fallen into such a sharp decline throughout the last decade or so.
If newspapers become obsolete, I suppose journalists will continue to write articles that will instead be posted online via news websites. Unfortunately, though, I suspect that these sites would end up either being covered in advertisements or charging readers to view articles. Both of these options are reminiscent of the current issues people have with papers and would thus defeat the purpose of us only having paperless news.
At least for now, we can trust that we will continue to get our fill of the news through our televisions. In the event that newspapers cease to exist, this is probably where more people will turn to keep up to speed on current events. Also, breaking news (including internationally) can be just as easily transmitted online, which would in turn help us find out about recent news, too.
I do think, though, that we'll be losing a staple of society if newspapers disappear.
I have never consciously formulated a definition of “news”; however, I intuitively know news has more substance then, for example, who are the newest members of Dancing with the Stars are or the length of Lindsay Lohan’s jail stay. In that light, I found Jones’ definition to be on point. News is information that matters to people’s lives and livelihood.
I think the public appreciates—maybe a bit too much—the sensationalism and entertainment that is currently packaged as news. In fact I was surprised to read that these types of stories have historically been a part of most newspapers, even in the days of the penny press. So this appreciation of sensationalism and entertainment is definitely at odds with Jones’ definition of iron core news.
While I rarely look at the news or read the paper (though that will change since I’m taking this class, I think with local news shows, the focus is on ratings. I come to this opinion just by the ‘stories’ that are used as commercial promos to encourage people to watch the six o’clock broadcast. These stories lend towards entertaining more so than informing. I do, however, think that CNN and ABC’s World News contain more of the iron core news that Jones’s talks about.
Here's the response I sent to Dr. Foran a few days ago:
I have to agree with Jones about the sad state of news today. Even just minimal research or recalling memories from when I was younger offers a look at the differences between news ten or fifteen years ago and the news of today. Investigative reporting is what gets us the "good" news, the stuff that we should know about and probably need to know about. This kind of reporting is what gets us the information we normally would never even know about. The fact that this type of reporting is being phased out due to economic restraints and replaced with mediocre reporting about subjects such as Paris HIlton's drug arrests and whether or not Brett Favre might retire is troubling to say the least. While it's been clearly proven over the last ten years or so that these kinds of "news" stories are what generate such high ratings and/or readership, it's hard to imagine what would happen if "core news" was lost completely. Would we know anything important at all? Perhaps, but would we ever have all the details? Would they be correct?
Jones raises the issue of the eroding state of leadership and morale within journalism. Those raised after the beginning of the downfall of investigative reporting and core news seem to be of the mindset that "news" is comprised of what brings in the ratings, readership, and subscriptions. While ratings and readership are what counts today, it's hard to imagine the world without the "core news" that has sustained it for so long.
To think about: Who will pay the journalists if newspapers die? Newspaper websites? Where will they get their money if nobody will buy their information? TV has been hurting for ad money as well. Currently, many of their news announcers are not reporters, but readers of news someone else gathers. Who will pay the gatherers? Once we decided news should be free, journalists were in trouble. Yet that is what we've decided.
Jone’s definition of news relates closely to mine. International, national, and local news should consist of politics, business, medical, science, and law issues. Not so sure about sports; I consider it entertainment and treat it as such. I would not agree that commentary and editorial news lie outside iron core news for it helps to hear other‘s opinions. Diverse opinions help prevent me from becoming set in my ways. However, I do believe that all opinions should stick to the facts and hold those in power accountable without mudslinging. But before listening to the opinions of others, it is best to read a bipartisan account first.
The public, for the most part, wants sensational and celebrity news. Fire, abduction, drowning, disappearance, murder, mayhem, suicide, vehicular accident, or other human interest stories plaque the news on television and in papers. Important to the police and the people involved, but really none of the public’s beeswax. Not many focus on a solution to crime for gone would be the sensational news. As for celebrity news, who cares what so and so wore at the Oscars or that so and so is in drug rehab or that so and so got a sex change. Get a life already. As Jones states on page 14, “The iron core style of news may have been the ostensible heart of newspapers, but the reality was that both advertising and lighter, racier content outpaces serious news at the start.”
The media provides what the public desires: sensationalism. Also, most media mongrels have their eye on the green. For them, iron core news costs money with no return on their investment. The fluffy, no brain, and a two-year old could understand news draws crowds and increases ratings not to mention revenues. “Serious news, which had been the sheltered child, is increasingly being cast into a cruel world to sink or swim on its own” (17). I hope a rescue boat comes soon, because it would be a shame to lose iron core news. Almost like losing a chunk of democracy.
Just a test--using a pseudo-name. You can do it editing your profile.
ReplyDeleteLMLF said,
ReplyDeleteI agree with his definition. It makes sense because news just seems to imply that it is something we should know about. The iron core is something we should know about. I think Jones feels the same way I do. That the public may think of news in this same way but chooses and prefers to read what the media provides, which is lighter, or sensationalized. The media feeds the public's desire or need to escape from the harshness of reality.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOops, I had a minor issue with posting. Here's my real response ~
ReplyDeleteOne of the parts of this chapter that I found most helpful was the percentage breakdown of what comprises a newspaper. Upon hearing that about half of it is devoted to advertising, it became pretty understandable to me why people are more likely to read news stories online rather than purchasing a paper. Admittedly, I will pick up a newspaper to read every once in a while, but I prefer to read articles on the Internet because it is easier to pick and choose what I would like to read, and in some cases, it is easier to get through. Above all, it is usually free to access articles online, and this is not the case with newspapers. It is generally pretty cheap to buy a paper daily, but with the advent of online news, it is of no surprise to me that newspaper readership has fallen into such a sharp decline throughout the last decade or so.
The trick of course, is--if newspapers disappear (meaning there are no more paid news-gatherers) how does the internet get its news?
ReplyDeleteIf newspapers become obsolete, I suppose journalists will continue to write articles that will instead be posted online via news websites. Unfortunately, though, I suspect that these sites would end up either being covered in advertisements or charging readers to view articles. Both of these options are reminiscent of the current issues people have with papers and would thus defeat the purpose of us only having paperless news.
ReplyDeleteAt least for now, we can trust that we will continue to get our fill of the news through our televisions. In the event that newspapers cease to exist, this is probably where more people will turn to keep up to speed on current events. Also, breaking news (including internationally) can be just as easily transmitted online, which would in turn help us find out about recent news, too.
I do think, though, that we'll be losing a staple of society if newspapers disappear.
I have never consciously formulated a definition of “news”; however, I intuitively know news has more substance then, for example, who are the newest members of Dancing with the Stars are or the length of Lindsay Lohan’s jail stay. In that light, I found Jones’ definition to be on point. News is information that matters to people’s lives and livelihood.
ReplyDeleteI think the public appreciates—maybe a bit too much—the sensationalism and entertainment that is currently packaged as news. In fact I was surprised to read that these types of stories have historically been a part of most newspapers, even in the days of the penny press. So this appreciation of sensationalism and entertainment is definitely at odds with Jones’ definition of iron core news.
While I rarely look at the news or read the paper (though that will change since I’m taking this class, I think with local news shows, the focus is on ratings. I come to this opinion just by the ‘stories’ that are used as commercial promos to encourage people to watch the six o’clock broadcast. These stories lend towards entertaining more so than informing. I do, however, think that CNN and ABC’s World News contain more of the iron core news that Jones’s talks about.
Here's the response I sent to Dr. Foran a few days ago:
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Jones about the sad state of news today. Even just minimal research or recalling memories from when I was younger offers a look at the differences between news ten or fifteen years ago and the news of today. Investigative reporting is what gets us the "good" news, the stuff that we should know about and probably need to know about. This kind of reporting is what gets us the information we normally would never even know about. The fact that this type of reporting is being phased out due to economic restraints and replaced with mediocre reporting about subjects such as Paris HIlton's drug arrests and whether or not Brett Favre might retire is troubling to say the least. While it's been clearly proven over the last ten years or so that these kinds of "news" stories are what generate such high ratings and/or readership, it's hard to imagine what would happen if "core news" was lost completely. Would we know anything important at all? Perhaps, but would we ever have all the details? Would they be correct?
Jones raises the issue of the eroding state of leadership and morale within journalism. Those raised after the beginning of the downfall of investigative reporting and core news seem to be of the mindset that "news" is comprised of what brings in the ratings, readership, and subscriptions. While ratings and readership are what counts today, it's hard to imagine the world without the "core news" that has sustained it for so long.
To think about: Who will pay the journalists if newspapers die? Newspaper websites? Where will they get their money if nobody will buy their information? TV has been hurting for ad money as well. Currently, many of their news announcers are not reporters, but readers of news someone else gathers. Who will pay the gatherers? Once we decided news should be free, journalists were in trouble. Yet that is what we've decided.
ReplyDeleteJone’s definition of news relates closely to mine. International, national, and local news should consist of politics, business, medical, science, and law issues. Not so sure about sports; I consider it entertainment and treat it as such. I would not agree that commentary and editorial news lie outside iron core news for it helps to hear other‘s opinions. Diverse opinions help prevent me from becoming set in my ways. However, I do believe that all opinions should stick to the facts and hold those in power accountable without mudslinging. But before listening to the opinions of others, it is best to read a bipartisan account first.
ReplyDeleteThe public, for the most part, wants sensational and celebrity news. Fire, abduction, drowning, disappearance, murder, mayhem, suicide, vehicular accident, or other human interest stories plaque the news on television and in papers. Important to the police and the people involved, but really none of the public’s beeswax. Not many focus on a solution to crime for gone would be the sensational news. As for celebrity news, who cares what so and so wore at the Oscars or that so and so is in drug rehab or that so and so got a sex change. Get a life already. As Jones states on page 14, “The iron core style of news may have been the ostensible heart of newspapers, but the reality was that both advertising and lighter, racier content outpaces serious news at the start.”
The media provides what the public desires: sensationalism. Also, most media mongrels have their eye on the green. For them, iron core news costs money with no return on their investment. The fluffy, no brain, and a two-year old could understand news draws crowds and increases ratings not to mention revenues. “Serious news, which had been the sheltered child, is increasingly being cast into a cruel world to sink or swim on its own” (17). I hope a rescue boat comes soon, because it would be a shame to lose iron core news. Almost like losing a chunk of democracy.