
First you have to except the premise that they are a business and their first and foremost priority and ultimate goal is to make money. It’s just a product or a vehicle for them to get there, a means to an end. The news is there to pull in viewers, the viewers are there to pull in advertisers, the advertisers are there for the company [news agency] to put in money. If you accept this premise then it will all make sense why they will have to sell catchy headlines, fear, conflict, and drama. This is not a cynical or pessimistic view, it’s just a realistic and pragmatic view of how this business, in fact, any business operates. Getting people excited about what you are selling is just basic business and marketing 101. Therefore normally omit the details of the facts and report on the juicy bit without giving them proper context or the details in which in many cases totally change the facts, the events, change the meaning or the intention of the interview. Why? Because your customers, the consumers don’t like boring detailed reporting. We just want the short version and be emotionally jolted in someway, be it happy, sad, angry, disgusted, horrified, or inspired.
Are they wrong for just saying or giving the customers what they want? This turns into a never ending negative feedback loop. Are they just giving what we want? Or have they meticulously studied our psyche knows what gets us excited and design and tailor make it’s contents to capitalize on it?
When has the news agency ever corrected the reporting or retracted it? Very few! And even in the very few times that they do, it is never with the same fanfare as when they published or reported it. Why is that? It is because they are, unethical and don’t care about the truth? Maybe, and maybe not. Maybe it’s because it doesn’t serve their first goal. Time or space correcting and apologizing is time in space taken away from juicy content that pulls in advertising dollars. Or maybe it will make them lose their credibility?
Some news agencies are ethical and strive for the truth, and there are many don’t get me wrong. I believe the people on the ground busting their ass and putting their lives in harms way to get a story or the facts truly believe in the truth and want to report the facts to the audience. But in today’s world with all the mergers and acquisitions most news agencies whether print or TV have been taken over by conglomerates and in most cases the soul of the founder and the culture has been obliterated. What have a good work the reporter are doing on the ground when sent up through the corporate bureaucracy might be tossed out because it conflicts with their appetizers lawyer the real story has been manipulated to make it enticing for the audience which might be distorted from the actual facts.
I could be cynical and argue that even when they do try to report the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth it is for their own self interest and not yours. By reporting the truth they build a reputation and trust with the audience, and that reputation or in marketing terms is called Brand Value, which is the tool and the magnet to lure in customers, and therefore is self-serving. So you could say that you are collateral damage in reverse.
Comments