A Turd in the Punchbowl is News

Check any college journalism textbook for a list of what makes a story newsworthy and you’ll get something like this:

Timing – It’s got to be current. Who cares what happened last week or last year?

Significance or Impact – The more people it affects, the more it is news. A car crash that kills one is not as big a story as a bus crash that kills twenty.

Proximity – The closer it is, the more it’s newsworthy. An armed robbery on another continent is no big deal. One down the street is.

Prominence – Few people care if I break my leg. If George Clooney breaks his, a lot of people care.

Human Interest – If it’s funny or sad or offbeat, people want to know about it.

Here’s another concept that shapes the news that journalism texts don’t mention:
a turd in the punchbowl.

The Toyota recalls were the top news for weeks, until the political fight over health reform knocked them off the media front-page. A check with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website tells us that it wasn’t the largest recall in history. The problems they addressed haven’t played a role in the most deaths. And it’s not like sudden unintended acceleration (SUA) is a rare concern. The February 9 issue of Popular Mechanics reported that the NTSA got around 24,000 SUA complaints in the last decade, and looked into less that 50 because most are untraceable, unrepeatable, or end up being driver error. The number of complaints on Toyotas didn’t even go enough above the statistical average for the NTSC to notice them.

So why was the Toyota recall such a big news story? One reason is because Toyota was a punchbowl with a clean reputation for safety and reliability, and this problem was a big turd plunked in the middle of it.

I remember years ago when I was doing public relations and marketing for a small, private liberal arts college affiliated with a church. A couple of chemistry majors set up a lab in their dorm room and began making recreational drugs – and distributing them to friends and acquaintances. When a local high school kid took too much and needed attention, they were discovered and arrested. Every area television station had a camera crew on campus the next day. This was at the height of the meth lab and homemade drug era. Labs were discovered every week. Faculty and staff asked me why this one was getting so much attention. The answer was simple: a private, church affiliated school was a punchbowl, a perceived safe place. This story was a turd in that punchbowl.

The same thing goes for international news. Back when the Abu Ghraib prison story broke, political commentators who supported the war effort were lamenting the fact that the USA was being besmirched by all the reports. The other side was blowing up innocent people, torturing opponents in far worse ways, even beheading prisoners. Why, they asked, was Abu Ghraib such a big news story?

Because Al Qaida and the like blow up innocent people all the time, and then take credit for it. They torture people they have captured and announce it to the world. They not only behead people, they sometimes do it on camera. In essence, they proudly proclaim “We are a toilet.” A turd in a toilet is not news.

But the USA tells the world “We believe in rule of law and human rights.” “This is the way to be,” we say. “Come drink from our punchbowl and the world will be a better place.” So when the USA deposits a ripe one in the middle of its punchbowl, through torture or secret prisons or cozying up with human rights abusers, it’s news whether we like it or not.

The Roman Catholic Church has dropped a few big ones in recent years. And they haven’t learned the lesson that you have to thoroughly and publicly clean your punch bowl or the story will live on and on.

Can you think of other examples of “turd in the punchbowl” news?

Do you agree or disagree with my assessment of how this factor shapes coverage?

Let me know.



And on an unrelated note-

I often wonder if other people’s news media usage has changed as much as mine has in recent years. It looks like it has.

Here’s a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism posted March 1, 2010.

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/understanding_participatory_news_consumer

It appears that these days many people are getting their news for multiple sources.

“The overwhelming majority of Americans (92%) use multiple platforms to get news on a typical day, including national TV, local TV, the internet, local newspapers, radio, and national newspapers. Some 46% of Americans say they get news from four to six media platforms on a typical day. Just 7% get their news from a single media platform on a typical day.”
The study also shows that more people are active news sharers rather than just passive receivers.
“To a great extent, people’s experience of news, especially on the internet, is becoming a shared social experience as people swap links in emails, post news stories on their social networking site feeds, highlight news stories in their Tweets, and haggle over the meaning of events in discussion threads. For instance, more than 8 in 10 online news consumers get or share links in emails.”

Do you get your news from multiple sources?

Which ones? Why?

Do you share news links on Facebook or other social networking sites?

We've Been Framed

“A frame is the central organizing idea for making sense of relevant events and suggesting what is at issue. News and information has no intrinsic value unless embedded in a meaningful context that organizes and lends it coherence.”  
Scott London, How the Media Frames Political Issues - 2006
 
If you can get everyone to use your language in the discussion of an issue, you’re halfway to winning the argument. As a former advertising and public relations professional, I have always been interested in how language choice can frame issues and shape debate.
 
Simple word choice framing is nothing new; it’s been used throughout history. Samuel Adams and friends did a masterful job of framing when they spread the news about an incident in their hometown. Loyalists would have probably called it “The Boston Riot,” but the Sons of Liberty got their frame out first. The name “The Boston Massacre” stuck, and it became a rallying point for revolutionaries.
 
Today both political parties have full time professionals deciding what language should be used to frame every issue discussed on the media.

One current politician who understands framing is Arnold Schwarzenegger. Prof. George Lakoff, UC Berkley, analyzed the language of the 2003 California recall and the Schwarzenegger election. The “voter revolt” implied that there was something so heinous going on that a revolution was necessary.  Schwarzenegger's acceptance speech continued the theme. “When the people win, politics as usual loses.” 
 
Some framing struggles are obvious. The whole Anti-abortion: Pro-life / Pro abortion: Pro-Choice argument has been going on for years. Others can go almost unnoticed.
 
Here are some examples involving taxes:
 
Back when Republicans were for fiscal responsibility, they proposed caps on the growth of social spending. Democrats called it “budget cuts targeting the poor.” And they said it often enough that the media started referring to the proposals that way.
 
Are you for Tax Cuts or Tax Relief? Relief implies pain. Who can be against relief?
 
An Estate Tax sounds OK, but who would support a Death Tax?

When Steve Forbes ran for president in 1996 and 2000, his main issue was a proposal for simplification of the tax code with a flat tax. I had no idea how it would work, but I had an open mind. This was a wealthy guy who understood the complex tax system and its loopholes. I was looking forward to a good explanation of how the tax system might function if his ideas were implemented. After all, if corporations and the wealthiest Americans can afford to hire tax lawyers to work the system, there must be a lot of money involved. But I never got to see any projections of how a flat tax would affect the country. Forbes’ political opponents dismissed his proposal as a “Flat Tax Scheme.” Nobody trusts a scheme. When I heard news anchors adopt the term, I knew it was all over.
 
Framing is also evident in foreign affairs. Is that group a bunch of terrorists or are they Freedom Fighters? Is that struggle a civil war or an insurgency? Does that nation have a government, or is it under a regime?
 
It’s been fun watching the framing fights around the recent health care bill. It seems to me that the Republicans did a better job than the Democrats of staying on message. How many times did you hear some version of a “government take-over of health care” being “shoved down the throats” of the American people.
 
What other word choice framing have you spotted recently?

The Left Hand of the News

Following the news is like watching an illusionist. He comes on stage and immediately captures our attention with his impeccable formal dress and smooth, broad movements. He raises his right hand, pulls back his sleeve, and rotates his hand as he gracefully splays his fingers showing us that nothing is hidden and no strings are attached. His eyes and ours are locked on that right hand. He pauses for a moment as we hold our breath - and then, with a grand gesture he...

Well, he does something that looks interesting, but it doesn’t really matter. As he’s directing our attention to his right hand, the action that determines the outcome of his illusion is happening in his left hand.

The news can be the same way. The media tends to focus on the flourishes of the right hand. They’re easier to see and explain. They’re the showy stuff. But sometimes the important stuff is behind the scenes. Sometimes newsmakers are simply distracting us. Sometimes reporters don’t know what’s important. So sometimes we don’t get the important news.

Reporting on the left hand requires careful observation, time, understanding of context, and attention to detail. You might even have to report on something that nobody else is talking about.

Who are the gatekeepers who determine what will be shown in the right hand? What stories are they keeping in the left? What are the beliefs and biases of those reporting and editing the news? Who has access to them? Who occupies the “bully pulpits” that are always covered? Who owns the media and what does that mean to the news? How does technology shape the news we get? How do finances affect how news is covered?

Those are the kinds of questions I want to address in this blog. I will share my ideas about the media and the press. I’ll also share links to stories and research on media.

Let’s talk about-

Agenda Setting:

• What important or interesting news stories have not been covered or have been given short shrift? Why?
• What unimportant stories are consuming media time and attention? Why have editors chosen to focus on them?

Framing:

• What frames are newsmakers and agenda setters imposing on the news? Are those frames useful in helping you understand the news?

• What framing are media organizations or society as a whole imposing on the news?
• What frames do you think would be more useful?

Lack of Context:

• What news stories are being presented without the full story? What context are we not getting that is necessary to understand the story?

I will throw out observations and opinions to get things started.

Then I’d like to hear from you.

Let’s talk about the left hand of the news.