Journalism layoffs shift power to public relations professionals

Noam Chomsky has proposed a “propaganda model” to describe the function of the mass media. Chomsky (1988) described five filters that drive this propaganda model: concentrated ownership, advertising as the primary revenue source, reliance on public relations bureaucracies, “flak” as a means of disciplining media, and “anticommunism” as a control mechanism. This essay focuses on the influence of public relations bureaucracies and argues that large-scale layoffs in journalism since 2001 have dramatically increased the power of these information bureaucracies to shape news coverage.

According to Forbes (2009), more than 10,000 newspaper journalists have lost work since 2001, which equates to the loss of one in six newspaper journalists nationwide. These losses were far greater than in other job sectors. Editor & Publisher (2009) reported that journalism jobs disappeared at a rate three times higher than the overall loss of jobs during the past year.

Job concerns have also distracted reporters from focusing on quality coverage. A survey by The Pew Research Center for People & the Press (2008) found that journalists were more than twice as concerned about their own industry’s financial problems (55%) as they were about the quality of their coverage (22%). Quality of coverage had been the top concern in both 2004 and 1999. Newsrooms not focused on quality and reduced in size by almost 20% lack the motivation and resources to combat the influence of public relations bureaucracies.

Resource-strapped newsrooms are also more likely to need these bureaucracies because these public relations experts lower the cost of news gathering. According to Chomsky, “the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access by their contributions to reducing the media’s cost of acquiring the raw materials of, and producing, news.” (1988, p. 22).

Groups like law enforcement, government agencies and large business organizations are well-funded and have large staffs; they understand the deadline requirements of the media and are willing to be accessible; and, they are seen as “objective experts” which protects the media from bias charges.

Chomsky argues these information bureaucracies shape the news. To test that claim, I performed an ethnographic analysis of a typical local TV newsroom “daybook” from a network-affiliate in the northwest. The daybook is the list of potential stories that news managers and reporters review in order to make daily story assignments. On the day in question, there were 47 possible stories listed. Of that total, 66% were press releases from organizations; another 13% were simply stories taken from other local media outlets; only 13% of the stories came from reporter ideas and just 9% came from average citizens not affiliated with any organization.

Since most assigned stories come from this initial pool of potential stories, the fact that two-thirds of the pool came from public relations staffs demonstrates the significant dependence of the media on these sources, and the role that public relations professionals play in shaping the news of the day.

Adding to this power shift is the trend for ex-journalists to become PR professionals. Schneiderman (2009), in an article entitled “change your career from media”, recommends public relations as the most natural replacement job for unemployed journalists. The article quotes career coach Jeff Aulenbach as saying: “Your skills as an effective writer and communicator are well suited for internal or external PR.”

In the new world of reduced staff in mainstream newsrooms across America, fewer reporters are working with less time to independently track down stories. In that model, skilled public relations professionals who understand the needs and limitations of the mainstream media have greater influence and are relied on to an even greater degree.

Not surprisingly, a study recently completed by the Pew Center (2009) found public perceptions of media accuracy to be at a two-decade low. Only 29% of Americans thought that news organizations generally got the facts straight, a 50% drop since 1985. Only 20% of respondents thought that news organizations were independent of powerful people and organizations, an all-time low score on that survey question.

Perhaps the hidden glimmer of hope in the Pew study is that those surveyed are more skeptical than ever of what they see and read in the news. In this era of sharply reduced newsroom staffs, consumers of news should heed the advice of Romano (1986, p. 78), who wrote: “what the press covers matters less in the end than how the public reads.”


References:

Fitzgerald, M. (2009). Journos losing jobs at three times rate of average workers. Editor & Publisher. Retrieved on September 25, 2009 from http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1004014096.

Herman, S. and Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon Books.

Romano, C. (1986). The grisly truth about bare facts. In R. K. Manhoff & M. Schudson (Eds.), Reading the News. New York: Pantheon Books.

Streib, L. (2009) Journalism Bust, J-School Boom. Forbes. Retrieved on September 25, 2009 from http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/06/journalism-media-jobs-business-media-jobs.html .

Schneiderman, M. (2009). Change your career from Media. New York Time Out. Retrieved on September 25, 2009 from http://newyork.timeout.com/articles/jobs/77242/change-your-career-from-media#ixzz0SNBxp3dD.

The Pew Research Center for People & the Press, (2008). Financial Woes Now Overshadow All Other Concerns for Journalists. (2008) Retrieved on September 25, 2009 from http://people-press.org/report/403/financial-woes-now-overshadow-all-other-concerns-for-journalists.

The Pew Research Center for People & the Press, (2009). Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low. Retrieved on September 25, 2009 from http://people-press.org/report/543/.

Anonymous news story comments: Dialogue or diatribe?

By Frank Mungeam

For decades, newspaper readers who wanted to comment on the news had one option: Write a letter to the editor and wait. These letters had to be signed and were always reviewed. With luck, the reader's comments might appear in the newspaper days after the story that evoked the response.

The internet has transformed that process, and now readers of almost every newspaper, from the New York Times to the Portland Oregonian, can comment on news stories online, anonymously and unedited, in real time.

Story commenting has become hugely popular. In a report about story commenting published in the Lawrence Kansas World, the newspaper notes that its online stories receive 20,000 comments per month. However, story comments can range anywhere from lively, thoughtful discussions of the issue of the day to racist, off-topic rants that critics argue reflect poorly on the newspaper as well as the anonymous author. As a result, opinions are sharply divided over whether this new technology has improved or harmed public discourse and news reporting.

The Poynter Institute reports that some newspapers have restricted or even turned off story comments because of uncivil online discourse. For example, the Star Tribune in Minneapolis has identified several categories of stories - crime stories, racially sensitive stories, and stories about gays, to name a few - where comments aren't permitted based on previous experiences with "flame" posters. The Grand Island Independent turned off reader comments entirely. The Boston Globe published an op-ed piece entitled: "Got a comment? Keep it to yourself.

These critics complain that anonymous commenting allows uninformed readers to degrade discourse and the news organization’s image. But to the extent that there are uninformed readers, technology is not to blame. Those readers were just as uninformed when reading the print edition of the newspaper. All technology did was enable them to make their views public.

Critics also complain that the anonymity of online story comments encourages uncivil discourse. To be sure, news story comments can degenerate into playground-like name-calling at times. However, anonymity enables readers to express opinions they might hesitate to honestly express if they were publicly identified. In its report on the commenting controversy, the Lawrence, Kansas World noted that some posters said they would fear retribution for speaking their minds if their name was publicized, and others noted concerns for their privacy in the online sphere. Ironically, journalists themselves have been willing to go to jail to protect the anonymity of sources who fear retribution for speaking their views publicly.

Thurlow et al (2008) note that it's too simplistic to blame technology for uncivil online discourse. Critics who wish to turn back technology and unplug public comments are guilty of technological determinism. In reality, people have behaved rudely to others long before the internet. What is racist graffiti if not anonymous hate speech in the pre-internet world? How many of us have known otherwise polite people who turn into road raging drivers when encased anonymously inside their cars during the rush hour commute?

Neil Postman (1998) argued that every new technology creates winners and losers. In the old days of newspapers, editors had all the power and readers had none. Editors decided what would be in the newspaper, and readers could only passively read it. The internet has transformed that power relationship. Online commenting technology has given readers a voice and shifted power out of the hands of editors. Postman’s theory of technology winners and losers may be the best explanation for why a survey by the Associated Press Managing Editors of newspaper editors and readers found that 64 percent of editors opposed anonymous comments, while the majority of readers favored them.

Rather than try to turn back technology, online editors should look for ways to utilize both technology and basic communication tools to encourage constructive dialogue and discourage uncivil speech. Kurt Greenbaum, Director of Social Media for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, recommends starting with clearly posted guidelines. Editors must then aggressively review and remove posts that violate those guidelines. Those are just common-sense communication principles applied to this new medium. Technology can also help. Greenbaum notes that web sites like Digg.com and slashdot.org have extra commenting features that enable readers to rank and sort comments, elevating "quality" comments.

The solution to managing comments on news stories is not unlike the problem of getting kids to play nice at the playground. The simple rule we all learned in school is that every playground has its rules and, as long as the kids obey the rules and play nice, they can stay and have fun with all the other kids. The internet is just a different playground.

References:

Bailey, D. (2009). Got a comment? Keep it to yourself. Boston Globe. Retrieved on September 12, 2009 from http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/15/got_a_comment_keep_it_to_yourself/

Fleming, K. (2008). Online Journalism Credibility. Associated Press Managing Editors. Retrieved on September 12, 2009, from http://www.apme.com/credibility/online/summary.shtml

Greenbaum, K. (2009). Seven news story comment guidelines worth looking at. Retrieved on September 12, 2009, from http://www.igreenbaum.com/2009/01/7-news-story-comment-guidelines-worth-looking-at/

Hittle, S. (2009). In the world of online comments, there are plenty of opinions, but few names. Lawrence Kansas World. Retrieved on September 12, 2009 from http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/jul/23/plenty-opinions-few-names/

Mitchell, B. (2009). Dialogue or diatribe? Poynter Institute. Retrieved on September 12, 2009 from http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=103&aid=123290

Postman, N. (1998). Five things we need to know about technological change. Denver, CO. Speech.

Thurlow, C., Lengel, L. & Tomic, A. (2008). Computer mediated communication: Social interaction and the Internet. London: Sage Publications LTD.