TONY BURMAN : 2006 'state of the news media' of interest to all March 20, 2006 | More from Tony Burman
Tony Burman is Editor in Chief of CBC News – which includes news, current affairs and Newsworld. He is CBC's chief journalist, in charge of editorial content on radio, television and the internet. With more than 30 years' experience, he has produced many award-winning news and documentary programs for both CBC-TV and Radio. He has covered stories in more than 30 countries, including the Ethiopian Famine of 1984, the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe and the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa.
As charming as they are, on their good days, CBC journalists can be a tough crowd. So to get their attention in pep talks about "the future state of the media," I used to resort to a bit of hyperbole.
"The ground is moving beneath our feet," I would say somberly, looking downward.
"In the next five years, there likely will be more changes in the way that news is consumed and produced than in the past 50 years."
But I got it wrong. Hey, no one's perfect. It's actually taken less than five years for these changes to occur. The "future" is with us here and now, staring us right in the face.
That's the overwhelming impression one gets from the latest Annual Report on American Journalism: The State of the News Media 2006. It's the third such report, written by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a research organization affiliated with Columbia University.
One of the body's key initiatives is the Committee of Concerned Journalists — chaired by Bill Kovach, a very respected journalist and former New York Times bureau chief. He was a major consultant on this year's report.
I was part of a symposium a couple of years ago at the University of British Columbia's school of journalism and Mr. Kovach was a featured speaker. He gave a revealing and passionate account of how many U.S. journalism leaders are working hard to regain the public's trust. It was quite stirring.
This year's State of the News Media annual report helps explain why.
Examining the major trends in American news media in recent years, its authors "see a seismic transformation in what and how people learn about the world around them.
"Power is moving away from journalists as gatekeepers over what the public knows. Citizens are assuming a more active role as assemblers, editors and even creators of their own news. Audiences are moving from old media such as television or newsprint to new media online. Journalists need to redefine their role and identify which of their core values they want to fight to preserve — something they have only begun to consider."
This year's report is a superb and exhaustive research work — replete with insights and analysis about every aspect of the American news media. I believe it also has considerable relevance to Canada.
I actually don't take this last point for granted. In reality, there are many differences between Canadian and American news media, and in the way that people in both countries view and use their media.
These differences are often lost in the general discourse about media in Canada, particularly in the superficial way that Canadian newspapers — compared to their British or American counterparts — critique other media such as television. If I got paid every time someone wrongly compared CNN's approach and practices with those of the CBC or other Canadian networks, the CBC would not need a parliamentary subsidy.
But a considerable part of this 700-page report focuses on how the media industry is evolving, and how that is having a direct impact on what is seen, heard and read by citizens.
These systemic trends "will probably make it easier for power to move in the dark," the report concludes. And I think these changes ignore borders and are affecting Canadians as well.
The authors see "six new emerging trends" that deserve attention:
1. The new paradox of journalism is more outlets covering fewer stories. Although the number of places delivering news is increasing, the audience for each tends to shrink and the number of journalists is reduced. The report says "we tend to see more accounts of the same handful of stories each day," often covered in the same way by over-stretched reporters.
2. At many old-media companies, though not all, the decades-long battle at the top between idealists and accountants is now over. The report concludes that "the idealists have lost." It quotes the editor of one of the country's major papers as saying privately: "If you argue about public trust today, you will be dismissed as an obstructionist and a romantic." Cost-cutting and efficiencies are overwhelming the notions of public service.
3. The species of newspaper that may be the most threatened is the big city metro paper that came to dominate in the latter part of the 20th century. It was these "big-city metros that suffered the biggest circulation drops and imposed the largest cutbacks in staff," according to the report. What is at risk is the media's "watchdog" role over public officials. It is these newspapers, says the report, that "are the news organizations most likely to have the resources and aspirations to act as watchdogs over state, regional and urban institutions, to identify trends, and to define the larger public community square."
4. Traditional media do appear to be moving toward technological innovation — finally. The report says that mainstream news media organizations are finally realizing that there is revenue and audience potential in their online services. But then it asks the question: "Even if these legacy media do finally try to move online seriously, can they change their culture, or will they succumb to the natural tendency to favour their traditional platforms?"
5. The new challengers to the old media, the aggregators, are also playing with limited time. Companies like Google and Yahoo are "aggregating and selling ... the work of others — the very same old media they are taking revenue away from." The report says the business model must change, although no one knows how. Will content producers begin charging Google or Yahoo, or will the aggregators begin to produce their own news?
6. How long will it take online journalism to become a major economic engine, and will it ever be as big as print or television? The report describes these as the "central economic questions in journalism." It says the next battleground will be "producers of old media" challenging internet providers to begin compensating them for content, as happens now with cable TV.
What's valuable about this report, apart from the obvious wealth of data and information, is that it serves as a reality check about a very important part of our democracy. It challenges us — either as citizens or as journalists — to compare the picture it provides with what we see and experience ourselves.
Personally, I recognize a lot in this report and I think its analysis is quite rigorous. Many of the themes may not be entirely new, but it places a special spotlight on those crucial aspects that are in flux.
In Canada, and at the CBC in particular, many of us have been laser-focused, if not obsessed, with these issues for quite a while. Many recent changes in the way that CBC News operates, both on- and off-air, are a reflection of our analysis of the challenges ahead — for better or for worse! In recent weeks, as part of these columns, I have tried to deal with some of them, and this will continue in the weeks ahead.
The motivation is easy to identify. Even in our more self-absorbed delusional moments, one can't be a journalist in this 21st century without realizing that hard work is now needed to build, and perhaps rebuild, trust with the audience.
The latest reminder comes in this report, and the authors frame it in the most stark terms:
"The public apparently appreciates the idea that the press is aspiring to work in the public interest, trying to get it right, trying to be aggressive. People have serious doubts about whether journalists live up to those ideals, and they are disposed to think that money, rather than the public good, drives press behaviour."
Further reading (Annual Report on American Journalism: State of the News Media 2006)
I stopped watching TV news years ago, as it degraded under the control of the Business corporate elite. Most mainstream media has become a mouthpiece for the empire and those who try to resist are delt with by people like Mr Black, who claimed a paper does not need any reporters, just a salesman and editor to handle the pulp off the AP wire service.
If the government is Right wing the media becomes a parrot to the Cheny's, if it turns left the media takes on the role of "freedom fighters". The CBC is still worth listening to programs such as the "Current" are now pinicles in the desert.
March 22, 2006 | 17:08 EST
Barbara J Grant
Ottawa
I am most bothered by the tone in news today. It's mostly negative, poorly researched and written, too condensed at times.
As well it appears the person presenting the news on TV espically, is no longer passive. They have become the questioner of the news as well.
We Joe public no longer can trust most news presented in whatever form, and have to use all means to get to the truth. This used to be job of the collectors of news.
Some of today's journalist no longer seek out the truth, but, accept unsubstantiated sources or rumor, as the truth. Armchair journalism does not cut it.
As much as the CBC needs to improve beyond their bias, their programs on our Canadian history past and present are well researched, written, and presented. Bravo.
March 21, 2006 | 22:33 -1
Stephen Kent
Calgary, Alberta
Mr Burman, I believe your observations are correct. However, the whole discussion with regard to this report goes out the window for me based on the sole fact the news programs(even from the CBC, partially) require funding from privately owned business sector. Here is the point of departure, you need to deliver high ratings so that advertisers will pay top dollar for a precious 30 seconds, it is one reason that affects the ability of the media to cover relevant and meaningful news. People understand this. Not to mention the form of news presentation, where there is not enough room for depth and historical context often left behind for the sake of time and concision. Just some of the reasons for public distrust of media in general.
"If we don't know history, then we are ready meat for carnivorous politicians and the intellectuals and journalists who supply the carving knives." (Howard Zinn, historian)
I don't think being objective about how news is presented is necessarily a key to winning back public trust as John Demerais suggests. Objectivity is a rare bird. Keeping a cold distance only serves to justify people's distaste for news media. Rwanda or Darfur for example do not need level headed objective reporting, perhaps screaming at politicians from rooftops. People need to be informed so they can take appropriate action. The real problem as I see it, what isn't covered in everyday news and current affairs. That is no accident. Despite all of this, CBC is head and shoulders above most corporate institutions for it's effort to get news and information out into the world. A daunting task at best.
Neil Postman on George Orwell's '1984' vs Adlous Huxley's 'Brave New World', "...in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think." (Neil Postman, 'Amusing Ourselves to Death')
Stephen Kent
March 20, 2006 | 21:24 CST
robert roberts
winnipeg, MB
I appreciate news analysis programs. Journalists have access to imformation which offers a historic continuity of issues the world faces day by day.
The journalists with the CBC, tv and radio are in a position to put forward information and history of world affairs in such perspective as to offer a broader understanding of the issues.
March 20, 2006 | 18:54 CST
Paul Andrews
Rosetown, Saskatchewan
I have six years experience in radio newsrooms at four different stations in Saskatchewan and Alberta. I got out of the business a few years ago simply because of a lack of real opportunities. One suggestion that might bring back some credibility to the industry is for media outlet owners (the ones signing the paycheques) stop being so damn cheap! Look at the parking lot of any radio station. The Lincolns belong to the owner/managers, the Lexuses are for the salesmen and program managers, the Tauruses belong to the admin and support staff, and the beaters are for the on-air talent. I've noticed this everywhere. The only exception applies to the "icons" in the industry, the premier personalities the station includes in it's main advertising. The reason for this disparity is obvious; the lure of celebrity. Why should the station pay a reporter anything significant when there is a stack of resumes a foot high in the P.D.'s office of kids who will do the same job for nothing. The owners love this attitude because it saves them money that they can use tobuy their Lincolns. I was taking home 660$ every two weeks at my last job; news director of a radio station with a very high producing staff and fan mail arriving regularly. Add to this a PD who took every opportunity to look over my shoulder and tell me how crappy I was. One day I realized that this is as good as it gets. It just isn't worth it to continue this on the one in a billion chance that I might be the next David Letterman. To sum it up, if the PD's and owners loosened up the purse strings a bit, maybe it would attract a better class of reporter instead of the sleazy ones that have given the industry a bad rep. They turn sleazy because they are starving. They don't have to starve, it's a contrived situation promoted by the owners of the industry itself. Well, that's my rant, and I thank you for the opportunity.
March 20, 2006 | 18:52 EST
Sheila Richardson
Toronto
That the ground is shifting beneath our feet is a thought that makes me feel more wistful than sombre. If only life were such a moving sidewalk. Its a good day for me if by the end of it, I still know which way is up or down!
What we perceive of as the ground is getting more and more relative. And once we understand this, our increasingly topsy-turvy relationships with our world will make a lot more sense.
There is no more establishment. The old power centres are the new places that are constantly dialing for dollars. Teenagers sometimes become overnight millionaires. Its not a case of differing roles for journalists and citizens, but rather that there is now the emergence of the hybrid citizen journalist. Depending on your vantage point, this could describe a reporter who has become more than a talking head, or a couch potato now also armed with a wireless laptop.
I disagree, therefore, with all six trends as defined by the PEJ Report, because:
There is a vast increase in the total number of places delivering news, and audiences are often increasing.
The idealists have not lost. They are the only ones left standing who still have a loyal following.
Anything big has as much potential as a niche outfit to make money. Size doesnt matter. But brawn is no guarantee of brains. Big papers as a rule arent what saves the world.
If certain media are defining themselves as traditional, they are complicitly agreeing to be artifacts of the past. If youre looking at todays world with yesterdays eyes, youre going to have an adjustment problem until you recalibrate. Fortuanately, getting a makeover involves processes and skills which can be learned relatively easily once there is a commitment to change.
Since when is journalisms core business to make money? The next battleground will be a fight for respect in the marketplace, not for a channel or a territory.
But I am very impressed they found funding for a 700-page document.
March 20, 2006 | 15:11 MST
john demerais
medicine hat , ab.can.
the thing that bothers me is so many reporters and anchors on canadian television can't seem to tell the difference between actual news and opinion. the newspapers at least try to look like they're keeping it separate , though not always successfully.
what irritates me most is when you get a ten or twenty second soundbite and then a reporter or" expert " telling me what somebody just said . sometimes it is not quite the same thing.i think most people in canada are capable of understanding english or french if that is their usual language. keep the news as news and opinion as opinion and i think you'd be going a long way towards getting an audience back .it might also help in getting access to the politicians in this country.
Tony Burman is Editor in Chief of CBC News – which includes news, current affairs and Newsworld. He is CBC's chief journalist, in charge of editorial content on radio, television and the internet. With more than 30 years' experience, he has produced many award-winning news and documentary programs for both CBC-TV and Radio. He has covered stories in more than 30 countries, including the Ethiopian Famine of 1984, the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe and the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa.
