Quality Over Quantity

In a recent article from the Chicago Tribune, journalist Timothy J. McNulty draws attention to the coverage of presidential candidate Barack Obama over the past several years. Although coverage of political candidates is key when elections are approaching, Obama's coverage is said to have escalated even before he announced his intent of running for president.

In the last three years, he was at the center of 54 front-page articles in the Tribune. Obama was the main topic in an almost equal number of opinion pieces, editorials, op-eds and articles in the Sunday Perspective section. The number of mentions runs into the thousands, and Obama was at the center of nearly a dozen articles in Tribune features sections as well, from tips on giving up smoking to discussions of his spirituality and what books he reads.

Contrarily, Illinois very own U. S. Senator, Dick Durbin, has not been the main-subject of any front-page stories nor have his thoughts on smoking or spirituality been reported. Is this such a bad thing? Not necessarily, however, the quality of news reporting is very important. Many people support Obama and will likely continue to do so through the election of 2008, and it is the duty of the press to not only report stories about him, but report stories critically.

Continuation of the Slippery Slope

I am compelled to write a few quick thoughts with regard to an article found on Romenesko today. The overview states that Gail Shister, longtime television columnist of Inqwaster, has been asked to discontinue writing her popular column. She has been asked to "do more pop-culture television features" instead.

This article is a prime example of news media continuing down the road of reporting "soft news." Although this style may be utilitarian in nature, as it will make many readers feel good, it does not jive well with the role of media as a watchdog for the public. Outwardly happy, yet uninformed members of society unfortunately cannot have a significant impact on what tomorrow will bring. In turn, people of today's media must strive to hold on to what is left of the "hard news" reported in current media outlets.

Story of the Week

As I spent my spring break in Las Vegas, NM working for Habitat for Humanity, I was completely cut off from media consumption for approximately nine days. So truthfully, I had no idea what Dave Marcus was referring to when he talked about the Walter Reed stories that have been all over the news lately. In turn, I sought out an article that could sum up everything nicely, and this was the best I could find.

After reading about the coverage, I can't help but think how many other stories the public is displeased with how they are reported. The article states, "nearly one-quarter (24%) say this story received too little coverage from the news media, [and] only 4% say it has received too much coverage." This concept just seems absurd to me!

When the news media's first obligation is to report the truth about current happenings, people in the media should be doing a much better job at fully covering the "story of the week." It is their ethical duty to fulfill the wants/needs of their readers.

Presidential Coverage

In a society that greatly depends on governmental institutions, coverage of presidential elections is quite important to keep citizens informed. However, in recent years, coverage of these elections has begun earlier and earlier.

Although a recent article from the Denver Post outwardly states that coverage of Newt Gingrich is in no way related to the 2008 election and should not be seen as an endorsement, I question the motives. And when James Dobson's ethical standards are question, what is the world coming to?

Ethical values of individuals, and especially news radio hosts must remain in tact during such important political races. People must not allow the sway of current political culture effect their personal value system, otherwise we will be headed down a road of destruction.

BostonNOW...hopefully never

As I was engaging in my daily media consumption, I ran across a blog discussing an alternative newspaper for the Boston area entitled BostonNOW. This paper's aim is to capture the uniqueness and true personality of the people who make Boston so appealing. In an attempt to do so, the paper will feature BostonNOW staffers work alongside of ordinary citizens work.

Although this idea has good intentions of delivering news that people want, I fear that publications of this nature will only continue the downward spiral of credibility in current media. In efforts to better the news, the news only gets worse.

If other individuals located in major urban areas of the nation decide to follow in these footsteps, what will be left of the "news" world? Sure, people will be entertained by non-traditional news outlets, but will they really gain anything significant? I believe it is the duty of all individuals to partake in consumption of traditional news media and limit consumption of non-traditional outlets such as the upcoming BostonNOW.


Disclaimer: BostonNOW is not to be confused with Boston Standard's website http://www.bostonnow.co.uk/ or Boston's chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) (http://www.bostonnow.org/)