Friday, September 21, 2007
usa today
Twenty-five years ago, Gannett launched USAToday, which was widely derided by journalists for its fluffy bulk, its short articles, and its broadcast-like model. It lost a ton of money at first. Today, the paper holds the largest circulation in the nation, and it makes a tidy profit for the chain -- the main goal Al Neuharth sought to achieve. It still hasn't won a Pulitzer, but the paper now publishes some pretty good journalism (as contended in a recent New York Times piece). In addition, the chain is becoming a pioneer in the online world as well (according to a recent BusinessWeek magazine). Can we go back to the original call by the Hutchins Commission in appealing to the conglomerates to provide us with socially responsible journalism? Considering McChesney's and Bagdikian's recent writings, is USAToday, the Nation's Newspaper, still so bad for America? Or, is all of this just more window dressing by Gannett? Still another thought: maybe USAToday is merely representing a new cultural sensibility of America?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I think this is a really interesting discussion, and I’ve had a difficult time trying to respond to it. I disagree that USA Today is representing a new cultural sensibility. Rather, I think it could be constructing such a sensibility. I agree with Bagdikian’s claim that the media “manufacture a social and political world” (9) and wonder if USA Today views more well-written articles as a profitable new direction to take. If what McChesney says about the best journalism is true – that it is directed toward the business class (24) – perhaps, going off of a base of profits, USA Today sees the value in presenting more in-depth material. If more people see USA Today as containing well-written articles, After years of appealing to Americans using “fluffier,” more TV broadcast-like material, USA Today has the ability to expand their audience and content even further. However, just because some of their content may be applauded by The New York Times, doesn’t mean there is an entire shift of direction going on throughout the newspaper as a whole. – Elli
I don't think that USA Today is bad for America. As it said in the NYtimes article ("At 25, 'McPaper Is All Grown Up" Sept. 17, 2007), "The paper was built to capitalize on a then-novel idea — American society was becoming more mobile...."
In the sense that it is a convenient source of news the name "McPaper" seems fitting. I think that it definitely is a reflection of American society that a paper without a local community can be so successful. But I also think that many newspapers cater to a certain audience that is viewed as more intellectual. Maybe other newspapers should look to the "McPaper" and consider that good journalism can mean speaking to a more diverse audience just as much as including stories with depth.
Wow, there is a lot of interesting stuff here.
Is it a bad thing to publish a periodical that gives people the news in sound bites? In the age of 24-hour cable news, that just seems like savvy business. Isn't USA Today simply packaging printed news in the same way that we are used to getting it on television? Small chunks. Upbeat closing story.
I'm not surprised that the folks at Gannett have adopted the McPaper moniker. And, that has to be an insight into some of the success of the paper, particularly with its distribution scheme that relies so heavily on hotel business. USA Today has some of the advantages shared by franchise resturants like MacDonalds, or TGI Fridays, or even PF Changs--familiarity. The universal distribution of the paper eliminates the need for someone who works on the road to choose an unfamiliar local news source. The huge success of franchise resturants proves that people like predictability. Whether franchises are good or bad is a value judgement, but they certainly represent a successful business model.
What the paper is doing with its online content seems very interesting. Is this a way to capitalize on the popularity of blogs? Is it a way to police the raw data that would otherwise make its way onto the web in some way? The Pro-Am approach that is described in the Business Week piece seems to address several of the posts that we have had in the last few weeks. Citizen input, participation and policing meets professional journalists. Could be a big segment of the news world in years to come.
To take off on the Pro-Am phenomenon, at first, it made me kind of nervous to think of readers contributing so much to the stories (as in, will journalists soon be out of a job?). But reading about the Ft. Myers sewer- and water hookup example made me think that it could be a good thing. The story definitely touched a nerve, since the site was deluged with responses. Some of the readers came up with some good data (like the documents that implied there were bidding irregularities). Getting the readers involved like this had to feel very empowering for them. If readers can help spot and root out corruption, that is aiding democracy, no? So in that sense, getting maximum citizen input on a blog is being true to the spirit of journalism — and perhaps even more true than print journalism, since many more people participated. In addition, helping the homeowners to take things into their own hands allowed them to begin participating in a solution instead of feeling like helpless victims. This is a valuable service to provide. It seems that a paper that provides a cathartic experience like this might inspire great loyalty and even passion in the people who respond online. -- Niki
McChesney and Bagdikian would likely think that USA Today is still bad for America - if for no other reason than because it's owned by a big corporation. But I would disagree. Maybe I'm too quick to accept corporate ownership, but that is the current reality. Given that, I think that USA Today is a good example of journalism adapting to modern society. And if print journalism is going to be able to ward off the threat of so many other kinds of media (internet, podcasts, even TV and radio) then I believe it is going to have to make some formatting changes, like USA Today did.
I can see why the paper was highly criticized at first – most new things are, especially when it’s a new version of something that was well known and loved. But now, after 25 years of perfecting this format, I think that USA Today is more than just bright colors and “fluffy bulk.” It’s a modern formula for bringing news to the masses. Sure it isn’t the most substantial newspaper, filled with thought provoking insights from seasoned journalists, but that’s not the point of it anyway.
It is, of course, subject to the same scrutiny that any publication is as far as controlling content based on advertisers or personal biases – and I think here is where McChesney would have the most to say about it. But just because USA Today’s format looks more commercial, less ‘journalistic’ doesn’t mean that the writing is without integrity.
I really like this post. I think it delves right back into what we discussed during class today. There are so many points to expand on, I am going to try to center this post around one idea, society's collective values. I kind of feel everyone today in class was banging their heads on the idea of whether or not our current capitalist system (as exemplified by USA today) is sustainable and more importantly whether or not it's desirible. Personally, I would argue no. USA Today hasn't become the nation's most successful newspaper because of the objectivity of its content, rather the savy of its business model. You walk into a gas station chain, and there's USA Today. Travelers stay at a hotel chain, and there's USA Today outside their door every morning. Their distribution (not their content) has cultivated brand loyalty, and USA Today reaps the benefits. That being said, it's not USA Today's fault. That's the nature of the game, and more power to them. In one of the earlier posts the '24 hour news cycle' was mentioned. I think this is a major issue for our time. Too often, sports and hollywood are given headlines when more important (ie less entertaining) events are delegated to the back pages. I sincerely believe the values under which our capitalist democracy operate need to be re-evaluated. In turn, these values need to in turn be put in to action. While I am no expert on the content of the USA Today, I do find it encouraging that it is being argued that its content is becoming more legitimate. According to the ideals of the constitution, journalism is the watchdog of government. As McChesney echoes,"...social and political commentary and information is the direct responsibility of journalism." While agreeing with this, I would argue that under our current system it is we the public that must hold journalism to this vital responsbility.
Kyle
I think the piece by Amy Graham quoted in Christine Tatum's blog is relavant in this instance: "'Many, if not most, journalists are disinterested in or disdainful of the ad side of the business and so might wonder why I'll be covering it. I figure a paycheck can help anyone be a better journalist. How's that for relevance?'
You tell 'em, sister.
While I believe sponsorships and targeted ad sales can go too far, I also believe journalists need to study the business of our business and tech trends before they bash new approaches to ad placement. For some reason, people freak out about ads from a dry cleaner showing up online next to stories about clothing. Where were these same journalists when their newspaper released a special section -- or even a regularly themed section (such as, oh, say, technology) -- filled with ads that jived with the content? That has been going on for years ..."
The trend as of late has been for newspapers to hemorrage money. While I'm sure the American Citizenry would be a more well informed and civically responsible bunch if it read the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal (for the time being at least) cover-to-cover every day, the fact of the matter is that, well, they won't. Modern attention spans have gotten far to short for such a news media utopia to exist.
USA Today, while lacking in the depth department, still provides its readers with the gist of the news, and in a society where readership is plummeting, that is better than nothing. Good for them if they're able to turn a solid profit in the process. If more papers were doing that, staff wouldn't be getting cut, and the end result would be more depth, not less. Perhaps the way to achieve this is to grudgingly accept that there is now a spectrum present in the readers of print news that runs the gamut from crossword 'n tossers to wannabee McLaughlin group panelists, and try to cater to all of them. This might mean compromising on some issues of integrity like that cited by Tatum, but if in the end it prolongs the medium or even causes it to flourish, such compromises may be justifiable.
-Andrew Wachtel
It may be true that USA Today is insufficient in depth when compared to NYT or WSJ, but USA Today is still more decent than the tons of tabloids and tons of self-proclaimed online quasi-journalism efforts. And let's face it, people do like reading lighter articles, even junk. It would be a serious problem only if those were the only news available or at least way too dominant. When Mcchesney wrote about the problems of media ownership, he is not referring to the bigger size of the company per se, but the possibility of monopoly/oligoarchy of discourse. Also Bagdikian is not critizing the quality of news in terms of depth, but the strong commercial drive which serves only a certain class and their ideology. Neither theory would make USA Today a worse paper than the others, if alternatives are available.
Moreover, USA Today gained its popularity not because people became dumb, but because people wanted to read useful news with less effort. I'm not sure what academic data is out there, but it would be hasty to conclude that USA Today readers degradations of NYT reader. They may just as well be upgrades from tabloid readers. I think it is not a matter of lighter news vs in-depth news, but providing diverse light news outlets as well as in-depth news. For example, other kinds of lighter news, that provoke/motivate readers to read additional in-depth reports.
I don’t think USA Today is bad for America at all. In a society where people’s lives continue to grow more hectic, people want concise, fact driven news stories, even on those important issues that might benefit from a more thorough explanation and analysis. If such an option is not presented to them, those people who are unwilling or unable to invest time into reading the lengthy articles offered by traditional papers will become completely uninformed (if they solely consume print media) in current events. The USA Today gives this type of person the ability to stay informed.
That said, I think it is important to consider whether or not the increasing numbers of readers with a preference for the USA Today style or news is a natural occurrence or something that has been manufactured by USA Today as well as other members of the contemporary media. As Albert Camus stated in McChesney’s article, “No. This is not what the public wants. This is what the public has been taught to want … which isn’t the same thing.” While I partially agree with Camus, that media have taught people to only want facts and interesting little snipits of stories, I also think that the trend towards this type of journalism is a natural result of a new cultural sensibility as Sue questioned.
The section on “Mass Media for Profit” in Media/Society explains the purpose and motivation behind USA Today’s format and reporting style: Profit.
“Profit pressures have intensified in the 1990s as a result of increased competition in the overall media sector and the demand by corporate owners for a substantial return on their investments. The result is that newspaper editors, increasingly trained in the world of business instead of news reporting, focus more on marketing and packaging the news “ (63).
USA Today reflects the corporate model for covering the news. Following the cost cutting strategies from Media/Society, the paper has cut back on long-term investigative reporting to produce more stories, uses wire service reports and relies on a small number of elites as regular news sources (the businessmen and travelers many mentioned in above posts).
I don’t agree with this method of “broadcast like” news coverage. Using the definition of journalism we developed in class and last weeks readings, such as Siebert, Peterson and Schramm’s “six tasks of journalists”, the lack of investigation and in-depth reporting does not enable audiences to make educated decisions or have accurate discourse.
This is not just the direction of USA Today, but other major media have also picked up this style to make profit. CNN and 24 hours news channels offer a prime example, but even my local paper in Minnesota has one page dedicated to summarizing all of the “important” headlines of the day with short snapshots. If this reporting trend is an effect of corporate media ownership and conglomeration then I believe there’s a problem with the economics of the media industry and our societies tolerance of it.
As Time magazine said, "USA Today is like the airport Starbucks: a staple of life on the road....familiar, reassuring." With such a wide distribution and circulation, I think the paper has done well merging the fast, snippet-like internet and TV age with print. USA Today combines its text with lots of charts, graphics, and vibrant colors that appeals to todays visual audience. With the future of traditional print news in question, the fact that they are able to appeal to this type of audience as well as build a solid online presence is encouraging in my eyes. If you want investigative journalism or more fleshed-out stories, the option is still available in numerous other papers, especially the New York Times. So personally, I think USA Today has its place.
However, McChesney and Bagdikian would most likely disagree with me. They both believe that media has a significant amount of political and social power. By having short bites of information, and what may be considered more "fluffy" stories, they would say that USA Today is failing to deal with the social needs of the entire population. They would say that USA Today is part of a major conglomeration that, while maybe efficient and profitable, discourages certain types of content and leads to the commercialization of the media system (McChesney 28). With the Big Five, conglomerations are certainly a reality, however as mentioned in class, editors and journalists still have a fair amount of autonomy, and most are committed to social responsibility.
I really liked the discussion we had in class on Tuesday…
However, our conversation got me thinking more about economics than anything else. I tend to lean libertarian in a lot of my politics, and when it comes to the economy I believe in free trade. I believe in the benefits of globalization, I support agreements like NAFTA, I don’t have a problem with large corporations like Wal-Mart, Microsoft, etc… and I see outsourcing not as a problem but as an inevitability in a globalized world.
Despite this, I’ve always felt that there are two things that capitalism is inherently opposed to: The environment and a healthy media.
In business terms, large oil companies are great successes; they have lots of profit and their shareholders stay happy. They contribute to our national economy in a big way, they create jobs, etc… However, the environment gets wrecked as a side effect. And why should companies care about the environment? Their responsibility is to share holders—no one else.
And, as was mentioned both in class and in the Bagdikian article, conglomeration is usually fine in a capitalist economy—unless it’s the conglomeration of the very media industry which we all rely on for our socialization.
That being said, I think USA Today is a great example of a successful business model. They’ve found a way to become the most circulated newspaper in the country, and they’re finally seeing some profits. But does this mean that it’s actually good journalism? Not necessarily. I think that a newspaper that made its name by running fluff stories and short, easy to read articles all in pursuit of increased profits is only contributing to the dumbing down of America. And, considering some surveys have found that 20% of Americans can’t find the U.S. on a map, this is the last thing we need.
In my opinion, nothing is going to be done about media conglomeration in this country. Despite the hopes of McChesney, I doubt there is ever going to be a top-down, government financed solution. Therefore, it’s the responsibility of individuals to be aware of this conglomeration, and view everything with a critical eye. Now, more than ever, people need to be aware of the interrelatedness of the business side of the media. If the solution can’t be top-down, it’s going to have to be bottom-up.
Sorry for the long post.
While today’s public seems to have an increased appetite for “fluff” journalism, I would agree with those experts and previous posters who argue that the public’s shift has not been the cause but rather the effect of the very news they consume. People these days are largely impatient and want instant gratification. They are accustomed to finding what they want to know when they want to know it. And yet they are remarkably uninformed. Despite the fact that citizens have more information at their fingertips than ever before, they are less socially involved and have a diminished capacity for engaging in meaningful discourse and decision-making. News disseminated through publications like USAToday offer the public with what they want, but at a high social cost. What’s more is that this so-called public interest has been generated by the media themselves.
According to Bagdikian, the media are the primary social agents responsible for constructing our perceptions of reality, including our cultural and political values. He also says that major media like USAToday or its parent company, Gannett, propagate social norms and stereotypical structural models while ignoring the full range of considerations relevant to an issue. In general, the media has socialized the public in such a way that is most profitable and beneficial to the media’s business interests, manufacturing a public interest in reporting that is less relevant, explained with fewer contextual references and explored with diminished depth. What has emerged is a communications system that is not socially responsible. USAToday is only one of the newspapers that exemplify this system, but its popularity and success have made it a major player.
I apologize that I am late in adding my comments to this post, but after reading it a few days ago, I couldn't help but want to come back to it.
I agree with previous postings arguing that Bagdikan probably would not be USA Today's biggest cheerleader, but I also believe that he would not condemn the paper itself. Bagdikan's essay on conglomeration and its effects on today's society seem more aimed at the economic structure that CREATE situations where a newspaper has no choice but to print "what the people want" if they want to meet their profit margins.
USA Today is one player among many that is struggling to create democratic discourse within the confines of a profit-driven market structure. Bagdikan and McChesney's solution: never lose hope in the power of the people, whether that be America's voting population or the individual media workers. If we still believe in a true democracy and in the value of being a watchdog to our gov't and the corporate economy of America, then we can and should do it.
In some ways, I can see how USA Today is facilitating this. An online blog is one of the closest forms to creating a space for public discourses there is. And as Ryan said earlier, many people wouldn't consume any news if it wasn't presented in the way USA today presents it.
I wouldn't stretch as far as to say that our cultural sensibility in America has strayed so far as to wanting to be uninformed, but we want to be informed in a much more personal, direct way. Everything about our culture has become more fast-paced and innundated with information, not just the media. As a result, we want our information when we want it and only the most important facts. When we have time, if we do, we'll go to some of the other outlets that do give us a more in-depth look.
I think USA Today has its place in American Media to inform the greater public on a daily basis about the broader picture. However, I in no way think that this should be the only form of journalism available to the citizenry. Without the in-depth analysis, we can't have a democracy. But in order to have that, we have to find a better alternative to the free-market structure.
--Nicole F.
Post a Comment