Farai Chideya I agree with what you say overall, Raju, but TV news divisions are not currently in the red. I think things really started to go bad in broadcast when acquiring companies began to expect entertainment-level profits from news.
Raju Narisetti Between YouTube, Now This News, HuffPostLive, and WSJLive, and you name it, technology has enabled a lot more replacements for big-media TV outlets. So I remain sanguine and hopeful, even if television news has to make entertainment-like profits.
Farai Chideya What Sandy news coverage stood out?
Latoya Peterson I scanned my social networks to figure out where people were and what was happening. Hours before I saw news coverage of how bad the flooding was, an acquaintance posted a picture of her abandoned apartment, with her toilet submerged. I watched friends in New York post pics on Instagram. And I waited for people to sign on to see if they were safe. I only read news reports about the aftermath—to get an idea of the broader scope, what happened in the Rockaways, what was going on with the trains. I loved the NYT [tick-tock on bringing the subways back into service]. But what stands out to me the most is that I looked to social networks for breaking news and major outlets for context.
Deanna Zandt I can’t help but bring in how powerless the Internet really was in the wake of Sandy. When I went out canvassing the first weekend after the storm, the number of people that we met who didn’t know there was an Occupy or other community relief center within walking distance of their houses was stunning (due to lack of power in general, let alone connectivity). . . and then I’d come home and find a bunch of my nerdfolk online setting up websites where people could “help” one another. It was incredibly frustrating.
I’d made fun of things like low-power FM for a lot of years, until that weekend. CB radios and more “old” tech could be employed in incredibly powerful ways.
Coverage of class and social mobility
Farai Chideya According to a study published in The Economist, “Parental income is a better predictor of a child’s future in America than in much of Europe, implying that social mobility is less powerful. Different groups of Americans have different levels of opportunity. Those born to the middle class have about an equal chance of moving up or down the income ladder, according to the Economic Mobility Project. But those born to black middle-class families are much more likely than their white counterparts to fall in rank. The children of the rich and poor, meanwhile, are less mobile than the middle class’s. More than 40 percent of those Americans born in the bottom quintile remain stuck there as adults.”
Vivek Wadhwa Sadly, social mobility is an issue in America and most places in the world. But for all of America’s flaws, it is the most open and inclusive society on this planet.
Groups that help each other can rise. It starts with Mom and Dad encouraging and motivating children, and with communities coming together—people who have achieved success helping others behind them.
Farai Chideya There is a collapsing of the American middle class—not across the board, and not unfixable, but hysteresis (long-term unemployment) changes families and communities, [and] has public-health effects, too.
Vivek Wadhwa Wait till you learn what lies ahead—in this decade. We’ve watched the emergence of exponential companies like Facebook and Google. Billions were impacted, but only a few became wealthy. Now multiply this by 1,000 and look beyond social media—in fields such as robotics, artificial intelligence, computing, synthetic biology, 3D printing, medicine, and nanomaterials. We are going to transform entire industries, such as manufacturing. And we have the chance to solve humanity’s grand challenges and eliminate poverty and hunger and create unlimited energy, improve health, and so on. We can figure out how to share this new prosperity, or we can create more Zuckerbergs. It is up to us. I am optimistic we will share.
No newsroom's coverage of the issues and concerns discussed here is good enough, but I'd put WNYC's up against anyone's with similar resources. People in New York and New Jersey who listened to us during Sandy - and people did, in enormous numbers, what with power out and the web and TV unavailable - heard stories about people of all colors and classes who were struggling, or helping one another, or organizing to demand government action.
Our staff covers topics like poverty and public housing on a regular basis, so that experience influenced our storm coverage - and continues to, because (not unlike in New Orleans post-Katrina) the reporting on a giant storm's aftermath, and the issues exposed, is a long-term commitment.
Maybe it's a public radio thing, but just about every one of our reporters seems to weigh issues of color and class in defining his or her beat coverage. A good example is "In Harm's Way," Kathleen Horan's reports on every child in New York City who's killed by gunfire. Talking the other day about why we're doing these stories, Kathleen and I agreed it's in part so that those in our audience who don't live amid poverty and violence are challenged to value an inner-city child's life on the same terms as their own children's.
I don't really think that mindset is so rare in the Mainstream Media that take such a beating in this roundtable. It helps to have a polyglot, diverse staff, of course - and as our newsroom grows (yes! It is!) we have to stay deeply committed to diversity. But isn't the most critical thing that we be curious and empathetic in our reporting and assigning and editing? We're all capable of that.
#1 Posted by Jim Schachter, CJR on Sat 2 Mar 2013 at 06:01 PM
Hey Jim:
It sounds as if you may have taken the article as an attack, which it wasn't. It's a brainstorm about the future with people who are all inventing the future, which is the kind of conversation I like to have. Public radio, for example, tracks well with income levels but less well across demographics less educated. That means there are racial and geographic schisms in listenership... and as any good reporter knows, the people who feel you inform them often can give new leads and new perspectives. Sometimes the manifestation of the diversity of a newsroom is cultural fluency and also some b.s. detection when it comes to self-appointed leaders of "minority" communities.
I'd love to hear more about what you read in the article that sparked your comment, as well as any thoughts on my words above.
Thanks for reading,
Farai
#2 Posted by Farai Chideya, CJR on Wed 6 Mar 2013 at 07:53 PM
The lede on this story is somewhat misleading and merits clarification.
The quote cited was followed by this sentence: "John Carroll, the editor of the Los Angeles Times, who edited this newspaper from 1979 to 1991, recently proposed a correction like this one during a speech on journalism ethics."
It became the set-up quote to a lengthy piece that examined the Lexington papers' coverage of the civil rights movement, or lack thereof. It was pulled out in larger type in the display and garnered much attention.
Tim Kelly
President & Publisher (retired)
Lexington Herald-Leader
#3 Posted by Timothy M. Kelly, CJR on Wed 3 Apr 2013 at 12:37 PM
Can't say enough good things about this intelligent, insightful discussion, which will hopefully spark many more in newsrooms (and exec suites) across the country. Kudos to CJR for making it cover story and then giving it so much space inside.
#4 Posted by Blue Heron, CJR on Mon 8 Apr 2013 at 02:57 PM
How much of a role do the politics and overall financial interests of the owners of the various national media outlets play in determining which news and other stories will receive coverage in the national media?
For example: If covering the news on a particular issue is likely to have an adverse impact on their overall financial holdings, will the owners of those media outlets forbid their media outlets to cover the news related to those stories in an effort to protect their financial interests?
#5 Posted by Ginny Webster, CJR on Sat 13 Apr 2013 at 02:28 PM