Another beautiful photo from our BF Ryan @ grandefullbody (click photo for link to his site)
A quick question for you guys before we get started today: what would make local media coverage better?
Now, I’m after specifics here, not just “…it could be more …good?” Because you people are better than that. Also because that gets us nowhere. I’m a big believer that you don’t get to criticize without offering a better suggestion – so speak up, silent majority. We’re not mind readers, for God’s sake. What would you like to see that isn’t available yet, or at least isn’t available EVERYWHERE yet?
Help us, Edmonton. Help us to help you. Please leave your responses in the comments, or let us know on twitter, under hashtag #makelocalmediabetter.
I’m guessing this isn’t the best forum to bemoan the lack of soup-related stories in our local news…
I think the local news should provide a lot more commentary than it currently does, and try to move away from the typical ‘fire/car crash/soup/stabbings/traffic delays/waterskiing squirrel’ model. I think the days of the so-called ‘impartial newsman’ steadfastly reporting the-facts-and-only-the-facts, leaving interpretation up to the viewer/reader, are long gone. I’d much rather see some passion in a news story than some NAIT grad putting on their best Newsie Voice and telling me that ‘A’ happened and then ‘B’ happened and I should be extremely concerned because ‘C’ will surely cause me to DIE!!!! If police are being charged with corruption, or hypocritcal politicians are caught flip flopping on major issues, I’d like to see some OUTRAGE. Call them out on their bullshit, for God’s sakes.
I realize that most news is about filling time and/or space, but I’d really like to see all the stories about accidents/fires/stabbings, etc. just go away. While they technically fit the dictionary definition of ‘news’, in the grand scheme of things, they’re irrelevant; they’re really just noise. While a business or a home burning down is undeniably tragic, all of the ‘LOCAL FIRE!’ stories tend to blend together, and have little impact on the community as a whole. How much viz of burning buildings do people really need to see? Focus on the ‘big issues’ and leave the little stuff alone.
I suppose I consider myself more of a global citizen than a local one. I’d much rather have an idea of what’s happening on a global scale, and understand the context in which things occur on a larger scale, than I would care to hear about how a ‘local fun run raises $7,000 for Disease X’
I totally agree. I think a lot of outlets are so driven to meet deadlines that it becomes a race to fill time and/or space, and they just will take whatever crossed their desks. That’s no judgement on the newsfolk; it’s the world they operate in.
And there’s also the problem of the original values of news (timeliness, proximity, conflict, etc.) having lost their relevance over the years. They aren’t just buzzwords you need to learn to get a diploma – they’re living, changing, evolving words that can have different relevance in every story. They really matter in peoples’ lives.
You make lots of great points!
When it comes to news, I think advertising (though virtually the only source of revenue for media) becomes a conflict of interest.
If, for example, oil company A is a huge client for a newspaper, buying up tons of ad space, I think it unlikely the paper would print a story against that company. I realize this is hypothetical but come on, it just makes sense.
Otherwise, I agree with Deja about the local news pieces. The water skiing squirrel and burned down buildings may technically be ‘news’ but COME ON. I do, however, appreciate local news that focuses on people and community in a positive way. Much like the stories here at theEdmontonian.
I believe that there are some journalists in this city, for whatever reason, aren’t asking tough enough queestions. Yeah they get both sides of the story. But the questions they ask seem pretty weak, therefore we get these weak soundbytes in these 1:30 stories. Please help the viewer/listener get to the heart of the matter by asking tougher questions.
Also, I know this may not be possible for some mediums and formats, but if you can create a compelling, informative, balanced, well-written (and for TV, visually appealing ie. GOOD video, relevant graphics w/o going overboard), then maybe you can afford to give it more than 1 minute and 30 seconds. 3 minutes could probably be enough for those kinds of stories. And if for whatever reason there’s even more to the story than 3 minutes could allow, create a “backgrounder” page on your website. Use the digital tools that are at your disposal to help the viewer or listern understand the story better.
And speaking of digital tools, stations should implement a certain level of interactivity and discussion into those newscasts. On TV anyway in this market, a lot of the news items are just a rehash of the 6pm news. Why not cut down some of the long form stories to a shorter length (or drop some altogether) and add a way for viewers to pipe in on the events of the day? CNN’s Rick Sanchez show is a great example of this.
Finally, to the new media folks discovering the power of social media – if you’re becoming a citizen journalist, excel in the “journalist” part. Ask questions, seek balance in the story, make your story compelling with visual aids. Don’t just present a side, back it up with only opinions, and call it news. Journalism is still journalism, no matter what the platform.
Ryan, sometimes the idea that a client would be upset is enough to dissuade people from exploring certain story ideas. I have worked with some great reporters who didn’t care what the sales department thought, but there can be pressure. It’s up to the reporters to ignore that.
MB, you are bang-on about TV, in my opinion. Radio and newspapers also have their time and space limits, but that’s a model that HAS to be broken, if only because the Internet has none of that. We can do a story here at the edmontonian that is 1,000 words, includes a 2 minute video and 3 10:00 minute audio interviews. Plus, we can link to so much information and backstories. I think it has to move in the direction of more, more, more. People demand it and it’s so easy. As you said it could be a web page of information or documents.
Also, in reply to multiple points, asking key questions and covering key (imporant, relevant) stories requires skills and time. Most reporters and newsrooms have plenty of the former but less and less of the latter thanks to a 24-hour news machine that must constantly be fed. It would mean dropping the minor stories or hiring staff, which are tough calls for newsroom higher-ups.
Thanks for the discussion! Don’t forget to keep it going with the world on Twitter with the hastag #makelocalmediabetter
As MB and Jeff have said there could be major improvements made to media’s online presence. I like that Jeff points out the edmontonian’s ability to use different media platforms to fully explore a story–this is a great way to get deeper into a topic than the soundbites that television news is currently relying on.
I would also like to reiterate the comments about investigative journalism. I’m getting tired of hearing the press release version of a story on the news. Comedy news shows are asking more probing questions than a lot of our “real” news programs and the audience is left to do their own research to find out more than the party/company line. I would really like to see that change. The over-reliance on news wire services could be part of this problem.
Wait, wait. I’ve got this one. You guys can all sit back down now.
*ahem*
I think the best way to make local media better would be to wage a propaganda campaign convincing people that local media is important to their lives, and that they should pay extra in order to recieve said local programming. Then, go crying to the government about how poor the local media outlets are, and how the industry can’t afford to keep up with the current minimum levels of local programming mandated by the CRTC. The CRTC are notorious for rolling over for big business, so it should be relatively easy to convince them to pass new regulations that essentially increase the amount of money the consumer (you!) pays for local programming AND cut the amount of local programming that they have to produce by, say, 50% or 60%.
Thank you, thank you. No need for applause.
…and it’s JetEngineJesus FTW.
WHAAAAAAAA?!?! THE CRTC IS CUTTING THE NUMBER OF HOURS OF LOCAL PROGRAMMING BROADCASTER HAVE TO PRODUCE?!?!
Who could have predicted such a thing? Only a true SUPER-GENIUS could have seen through CTV’s ‘Save Local Television’ campaign!!
http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/aldergrovestar/entertainment/50398432.html
I know this is maybe just a LITTLE self-serving, but if you’re pissed off about being manipulated by CTV’s propaganda machine, feel free to head on over to the Save Local TV Facebook group and voice your displeasure.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=94179959896