Consider this (press-release) story in Monday's Cap Times, "Fair trade shop offers new items."
Here is a portion:
Note the socially responsible nature of this particular company. Now think about if you are reporter in the newsroom and a marketer of another for-profit company calls you up about their new product. They want you to write about their new hat, retailing for $125 -- or at least reprint their press release too. And they are socially resp. too! They give $500,000 to United Way every year! What do you say? One of the disturbing trends I see in journalism is this conflation of capitalism and democracy, combined with the desire to fill the news pages or airtime with 'bulk'. What are the pros and cons of writing a story like this in this way? What other options did the reporter have if he wanted to showcase the social responsibility of this particular company? Is part of the responsibility of journalists to promote companies in this manner? But journalists are also the gatekeepers and have this option to write about some companies and not others, right? And consumerism is the business of America, which allows us to be a democracy (some might argue). Isn't it a business reporter's duty to write about such things? And then there is another consideration: Are we glad we know this information? Is it 'news we can use'?
(And we could have a whole other post about the use of press releases being passed off as news, especially a story that has zero original reporting. Here is the company's original press release. Is this journalism now?)
Here is a portion:
"MIDDLETON -- Fair Indigo, a fair trade apparel and accessories company with a store in the Hilldale Mall, has introduced two new products aimed at the socially conscious consumer.
Fair Trade Organic Cotton Denim for Fall 2007 is made in a fair trade factory in San Jose, Costa Rica using 100 percent organic cotton grown in the U.S. and woven in North Carolina. The collection features "sleek, slim-fit jeans, fitted hip-length jackets and long, easy skirts" for women, and jeans and a jean jacket in "classic, easy-fitting styles" for men. The jeans will sell for $69."
Note the socially responsible nature of this particular company. Now think about if you are reporter in the newsroom and a marketer of another for-profit company calls you up about their new product. They want you to write about their new hat, retailing for $125 -- or at least reprint their press release too. And they are socially resp. too! They give $500,000 to United Way every year! What do you say? One of the disturbing trends I see in journalism is this conflation of capitalism and democracy, combined with the desire to fill the news pages or airtime with 'bulk'. What are the pros and cons of writing a story like this in this way? What other options did the reporter have if he wanted to showcase the social responsibility of this particular company? Is part of the responsibility of journalists to promote companies in this manner? But journalists are also the gatekeepers and have this option to write about some companies and not others, right? And consumerism is the business of America, which allows us to be a democracy (some might argue). Isn't it a business reporter's duty to write about such things? And then there is another consideration: Are we glad we know this information? Is it 'news we can use'?
(And we could have a whole other post about the use of press releases being passed off as news, especially a story that has zero original reporting. Here is the company's original press release. Is this journalism now?)
17 comments:
Wow, I can't believe how much the Capitol Times seemed to have taken from the press release. That is so wrong. Don't they know most those quotes were likely fabricated and then approved? It's like cheating, only legally...
-Abby R
The Capital Times is far from the only offender. I'm stunned by how many business sections just reprint press releases like this without any context. It's as if uncritically promoting a local business is a public service. This company is a private, for-profit business.
When I was on the business desk in the newsroom, there was an incredible amount of pressure to fill the pages with news about local companies. And we had all these press releases... I could see how someone would be tempted. Alas, one co-worker was fired for reprinting press releases and putting her name on them, as if they were originally reported. So it is not as if this is a condoned practice.
Exactly. Consider this PRESS-RELEASE. This is not a news story. Stories re: fair trade, socially responsible companies, etc., are newsworthy. Definitely. Too often an entire paper or newcast is so depressing, all death and destruction...its nice to hear about people doing good things.
If the journalist did an actual story about how/why the business was started, the inspiration behind the venture, the obstacles they faced, etc., it would be much different. Or if this particular business was one of many being mentioned in a story about socially responsible businesses, it would be more reasonable. This just seems somewhat convenient and cheap. I mean, c'mon, they basically just cut and pasted from the actual press release!
That being said, the Capital Times is a business-its easy to sit back and criticize this type of content, but the fact is, they have to make money. It would be great if all the newspapers in the country didn't have to worry about profit, but...unfortunately, that's not the state of things right now. And, sadly, I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Why patronize a business that, with content like this, adds no value/provides no service?
I feel like it could have been a more newsworthy piece with just a few changes. The descriptions of the clothes, and especially the price of the jeans, make it seem like a total ad. On the other hand, doing a story about a new trend of socially responsible stores, or even just a short blurb about this one new socially responsible in the neighborhood, would be more newsworthy (provided the writer did his own research) and might actually be useful to the reader.
Doing it this way seems dishonest, and it reflects poorly on the cap times as a whole. Then again, if people are so used to these tricks as all that, they might not even notice. (Though, that still doesn't legitimize it.) I'd think it'd be better to have less content than this kind of content, personally.
-Bill
Articles like this used to really make me wonder, but, sadly, I'm so used to seeing them now that they're starting to seem almost normal. On the one hand, as a supporter of fair trade, I found it useful to know that I can buy fair trade clothes right here in Madison. But there are so many other interesting angles the reporter could have taken on this story instead of lifting language from the press release and making it sound like an ad. Obviously, they probably didn't have the time. But you wonder if they couldn't have taken the time to even make one quick phone call to come up with an original quote. - Niki D
I would like to comment on the last question posed by Sue, "are we glad for this information, can we use it?" For me I find the struggle between being a ground breaking journalists and just getting your work done an interesting one. I don't think anyone here supports supplanting one company's newsletter into a 'legitimate' news story. That being said, with so much content out there how should this article be judeged? What if at the end of the day we're just hitting our deadline? I would argue there would be readers happy to play the role of good sumaritan and buy these jeans. Does it really matter how objective the article is about jeans? Does an article like this one really ruin the credibility of the journalist? the newspaper? I bet you can gather from my tone, I would say no. And forever being the devil's advocate I can understand those who would argue that journalism ethics must be uncompromising. But do we journalism students really think great minds like Lippmann would have wanted his proposed elitist think tank to worry about the validity of a story about jeans? To those of you who believe things are written in a world of black and white, I will concede now that I am the type of person who is eroding journalistic standards as we know them. But I say to those who live with me in a world with shades of gray, shouldn't we save our energy for something more pertinent? Like gay sheep?
Kyle
This company claims to be doing "good." Whether they are or not is quite debatable. But fortunately for them there is no debate. They *say* they are "good." Newspapers and television (I saw something on WMTV) let them air their claims unchallenged, and so they must be "good" indeed, like they're some sort of charity. This little unchecked article tossed into the Cap Times is actually very valuable to the business, then. It's totally validating.
I understand deadline pressures and such. I also understand sophisticated media manipulation. It's really quite fascinating.
The press release doesn't seem to do the Fair Trade company justice. Another way of covering the two "socially responsible" companies would be to compare their socially responsible methods. Is donating money to the United Way the same as fair trade? Of course not. Fair trade probably has a much more dramatic impact, is an example of very responsible business, and takes much more discipline and conscience. Could this difference be emphasized in the reporting? Would this be too risky? ( questions come from a non-journalist- sorry if the answers are obvious.)Anyways I would be more pursuaded to buy the jeans by something like what I described than by the press release. Oops, I forgot- the piece is not an advertisement, it is SUPPOSED to be news, right?
Personally, this practice of running stories that are basically reprints of press releases doesn't particularly bother me. They are an easy way for newspapers to fill excess space with cheap content that is relevant to their readers while also helping local businesses inform readers of their products. Also, personally I don't read anything into it or commend the newspaper for featuring "socially responsible" companies in stories such as the Fair Indigo feature. There is no way of knowing the whether the paper is doing this as a socially responsible entity themselves or simply a cheap, easy way to fill space.
That said, I do have a problem if space fillers such as these continue to account for a great and greater portion of the paper at the expense of actual writer generated content. Papers already have advertisements in them, all the stories don't need to be them as well.
It is an advertisement, plain and simple. Then again, so is most of the coverage that comes out for most new products. The iPhone had the best advertising campaign before Apple even spent a dime. Bloggers and news outlets ran with it six months before it was released.
I admit there is a spot for new businesses and new products. However, the last two sentences prove it is nothing more then a press release. The article would have been better had the author talked to the owner about the store or the market for this type of product.
I don't feel this is really journalism. At least the writer could have used unique wording. The real thing that tickles me, however, is that this new line is being presented as a great way to help those in need, or to help sustain the environment, etc. If this were true journalism (or at least a little more like journalism, rather than bland marketing), then it would at least admit that this article is aimed towards a very specific audience. Rather than disguising itself as a news briefing, it might somehow admit that some of us, though meaning well to help others, might need something like a nice pair of jeans to get us to go out and help contribute to a cause and feel like we're doing good. If we need to spend money on ourselves to help others, then so be it.
I would have liked to see an article that would have grabbed a few shoppers in the store, and asked them what they thought about the products, and why they were buying them. It would still be advertising for the store, but at least it would have given some objectivity to the piece.
Rachel O.
While I can see why the content of this article may make the offense less reprehensible, I do not think there is ever an excuse for this sort of news-writing. News is a difficult business to be in, to be sure. Reporters face deadlines, editorial demands, shrinking budgets - true. But how can journalists expect the public to support the industry and continue reading and credit writers for producing truthful news when they themselves cannot even follow their own journalistic standards, when they pick and choose when to be professionally responsible? The content may not be the kind that wins Pulitzers, but it is news nonetheless. And all news should be given the same thoughtful, critical treatment by their relayers. Journalists have an overwhelming responsibility to their readers and to society. Is it a burden? Yes. Does it sometimes seem like more trouble than it's worth? Sure it does. But to present truthful news that examines all sides of the issue and involves more investigative work than simply rewriting a press release is their job. It's their social duty.
I would like to expand upon the comment concerning Lippmann's expert fact roto-rooting organization. One assumption that we are all making about this article is something along the lines of "well, at least they are a company that is trying to be socially responsible and change the status quo, and that is worthy of publicity." But what if this company is actually pandering to its own ideology by introducing this new line. What if industry experts are, as we speak, speculating that if this fair trade clothing line really takes off it will devastate clothing factories in 2nd and 3rd world countries that, while not paying what would be defined as a 'fair wage', still comprise an integral part of the local economy.
I'm not saying that this is the case, just speaking hypothetically, of course. My point, however, is that if a reporter constructs a story purely off of a press release (as we have ample reason to believe happened in this case), contrary realities such as the one I hypothesized above will never get explored. Maybe that is what Lippmann was getting at--that nearly every story, no matter how mundane, requires some element of delving for the unseen facts.
I agree with Rachel on the point that this could have been a fairly useful/interesting story had it been writen in a different tone that shed light on the company itself rather than the specific product and costs. Relating to Niki's point, I agree that stories like this are becoming popular and often browsed over. However, I believe that fair trade has become an important issue to many people lately, and the Capital Times could have transformed this piece into material that was actually meaningful to the public.
Touching on Sue's question, "are we glad for this information, can we use it?" I agree with Kyle in saying I'm sure there are people who would be interested in buying these jeans and appreciate the Cap Times printing information about it. Maybe it's just me, but I would like more information about the company itself, the process of production, and how they are really helping people and making a difference, but maybe I just like the humanistic side of the story. I don't think that this story ruins the credibility of journalists or the newspaper. I just think that given a little effort, this could have been an interesting story touching on the ethical side of an important issue that is reaching us locally. While journalism ethics are an important topic of discussion, it is not worthwhile to fret over the validity of this story.
-Natalie H.
Sue,
This excerpt is interesting because it highlights the "laziness" that seems to be creeping into newsrooms around america and because it raises a question of dependence society has on the media and the media has on society. For example, we cry out that this is not journalism, it is not informative, it does not enable to vote or speak better and that it is essentially a copy and pasted form of advertising. However, how else would we find out about this store or others like it? We depend on being told unless we seek out these retailers ourselves, otherwise we stick to Wal-Mart, JC Penney, Hollister. As was commented earlier, media depends on us for revenue, and must fill its pages to satisfy, so it is forced to fill space with cheap, seemingly uninformative material.
While personally I don't feel this is journalism, I don't think we should jump right away to the conclusion that this is bad. It could be BETTER, as someone earlier mentioned, if more depth had been put into investigating this store or a possible trend of these retailers. It's not a matter of easy revenue and economics, it is a matter of journalists wrapping their minds around the bigger issue
- Dana D.
Post a Comment