New Media: The 24/7 Age of Infotainment and the Compromise of the News Media

What is News? Everyday decisions are made on what stories to cover, how to approach news coverage and decide what stories are more newsworthy than others. The increase in tabloid journalism, the popularization of blogs and an increased demand to constantly be updated on the news has made it even harder to define the line between news and gossip. News is no longer something you read in the morning newspapers or catch on the 6pm nightly news. It is a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week stream of information. The ethical decision facing the news industry now is simply the question, "What is news?"

The constant coverage on the internet, radio and television, known as New Media, has led to the decline in Old Media, which includes television networks, newspapers and news-magazines (Berkowitz, 2007). This decline of Old Media and rise of New Media has created a stream of information and the demand to be constantly updated, which has led to a mix of facts with rumor. The New Media has also resulted in an increased interest in entertainment news and gossip. Some say we have forgotten what it means to be a journalist and that "the words "public service" do not even get lip service, much less "sacred trust." What content? Any content-anything that will keep the pipeline from running dry. Is it accurate? Maybe. Who's to say? News is what fills the pipeline (Bettag, 2006)."

News networks must now decide what is news and whether they should cover entertainment news and how much of it they should cover. Where should they draw the line between fact and gossip? Is it more important today to be first and wrong or second and right? Should they cover what they feel is legitimate news or give in to viewer demand for "fluff" news? In the age of infotainment, news organizations have slowly adapted to the new changes. There is, however, one problem. Journalist have decided to adapt and "set the old school aside to accommodate the new realities, but with the new realities there is no new ethic (Bettag, 2006)." The answers to the new ethical dilemmas have not caught up with the rapid evolution of the news. This is why in the day of the New Media we must ask ourselves, "What is news?"

News Now!

People constantly crave new information, which has made newspapers - which might have excellent content and reporting - a thing of the past. People no longer turn to newspapers to get stories when they can get information immediately online, even if the story isn't fully reported. News organizations need to deal with the ethical dilemma of what is more important: being first and wrong or second and right? It seems most of the emphasis is placed on being first, even if that means not having all the information before an article has hit the web. This is largely because people demand information immediately. In the 24/7 news feed, people care less about what is right and more about what is now. It is the idea that, "If you can cover it, you must. Be first, and don't worry what it is you are first with. News is anything you can cover live (Bettag, 2006)."

Many people have stopped reading newspapers because they feel it isn't "new" enough. One of the most well-respected papers, The Washington Post, has lost 14% of its circulation since 2000 and 50 other newspapers lost 3.2% of their daily circulation in the last year (Rattner, 2007). Today, half as many Americans read the newspapers than they did in the 1970's when 70% of 18 to 34-year-olds read the newspapers on a daily basis (Rattner, 2007).

Blogs and Internet Credibility

Many people have turned to newspaper websites for information. 58 million people clicked on a newspaper websites in 2006 (Rattner, 2007). Others get their news online through websites such as AOL and Yahoo, which mostly posts wire service stories and updates as opposed to investigative and well-reported pieces found in newspapers (Rattner, 2007). Legitimate sites can often get lost among the thousands of blogs and sites found on the web. News organizations face the issue of how to be competitive yet credible. Credibility is harder than ever to come by today. "The Internet explosion has left us with no shortage of data, but the Web as a source of "news" comes with a credibility problem. The Internet turns out to be a magnificent source of gossip, rumor, conspiracy theories, and fascinating urban myths (Bettag, 2006)." Anyone can create news and post news today. Many cities have blogs where citizens can post local news events and stories. Sites like Pleasantville.com and AmericanTowns.com post stories about Pleasantville, New York that involve anything from a lost dog to city council news (Tedeschi, 2007). The issue is distinguishing whether or not it really is news.

While blogs might not always be credible, they have occasionally been one of the first outlets to break news stories. Because they aren't as concerned with whether information is rumor or fact, they can write about nearly anything. One of the most significant cases of this can be seen in Matt Drudge's internet gossip column the Drudge Report, which was the first to announce the Clinton and Lewinsky sex scandal when he wrote how Newsweek magazine withheld the story. This was a breakthrough for internet gossip sites and blogs by making them appear as a source of real news. But as the Los Angeles Times wrote, "He (Drudge) appears to get as many things wrong as right, wouldn't dare let the facts interfere with a good rumor, nor recognize an ethical standard if he tripped on one (Rosenberg, 1998)."

This change in news delivery and the shift from newspapers to the internet has created a wave of facts mixed with gossip and rumor because of the demand for constant news updates and the pressure to be first. I believe there is a correlation between this trend and the increased interest in entertainment news.

Entertainment News Demand

While newspapers are continuing to drop in readership, weekly celebrity magazines are continuing to grow. Recent reports from the Audit Bureau of Circulations showed that Life & Style Weekly increased 25% to 750,000 and In Touch Weekly increased 8% to 1.27 million (Ives, 2007). This is on top of In Touch's massive 2005 jump, where the gossip magazine increased 49.7%, to 1.12 million copies. Us Weekly also had a big jump increasing 23.9% to 1.67 million (Farzad, 2005).

It is nothing news for the public to be fascinated in the lives of celebrities. This dates back to the days of Marilyn Monroe and Joe DiMaggio and the fascination with Grace Kelly. But it is no secret that new sites like the video site Youtube.com and the entertainment blog Perezhilton.com have turned gossip and amusement into news. They continue to push the envelope and challenge other outlets. At television networks, there is the ethical decision of how far to go when covering entertainment.

In entertainment television, people in the news department are often forced to determine between gossip and fact. Even after they have decided what is newsworthy and what is fact versus gossip, the next decision is whether it is ethical to report on a subject at all. Question that come up are: Is it too invasive? Is it a private matter? For example, many entertainment shows reported on Pam Anderson's miscarriage with Tommy Lee, but in most cases they wouldn't report on such a private matter. The decision was made after many other publications had already reported on the subject. Often, the decision becomes based on what other news outlets are doing and not on what a network feels is right. The paparazzi and entertainment outlets have become incredibly invasive in the private lives of celebrities and it has flooded into news outlets. The demand to stay competitive with blogs and publications that will run private photos and release personal information on celebrities has affected the content of the real news.

The Infiltration of Entertainment in News

Even legitimate news organizations constantly struggle with the decision over what to cover. When Britney Spears shaved her head, CNN, the leading sources of news, finally gave in and decided to cover the incident after realizing the entire American public was talking about the pop star's breakdown. However, it wasn't an easy decision. It is just one example of ethical dilemmas news organizations are facing. Is it ethical to cover stories like Spears while there is a war in Iraq and countless pressing issues facing our nation?

News networks are faced with the ethical question everyday of what to cover. Should news networks surrender to the public who demands entertainment news or should they take what they consider is the high road and only cover stories with value and impact? Often what we see is a combination of real news stories mixed with entertainment stories. Diane Sawyer questioned Brad Pitt about his marriage to Angelina Jolie on ABC's Primetime Live during an interview about his humanitarian work. Primetime also covered the Paula Abdul scandal over a rumored affair with American Idol contestant Corey Clark, while NBC's Dateline ran a 2-hour interview with the cast of friends (Berman, 2005).

Who's To Blame?

Networks have been criticized for encouraging an interest in entertainment news by showing it. While journalists have reluctantly started to adapt, they aren't necessarily happy about it. A 2005 poll of journalist by the Pew organization found that 53% of journalists felt that bottom-line pressures were hurting television news and a whopping 74% felt that news organizations are moving too far into entertainment (Bettag, 2006).

Some people say we shouldn't blame the news networks for the change in news coverage to more soft, entertainment and lifestyle pieces. They say journalists are simply covering what viewers say they are interested in (Rattner, 2007). Others blame the networks and have gone as far to write, "Calling Walter Cronkite-we need you!" and argue that "Because TV is a business where attracting young viewers is the primary focus, covering the news in a professional and dignified manner has taken a backseat to anything of a salacious nature (Berman, 2005)."

The Compromise

Dan Rather gained credibility by refusing to discus the Gary Condit scandal. He wouldn't compromise. While he upset some viewers who found the scandal fascinating, Rather made the ethical decision not to cover the story because he felt it was sensationalized and had no significance (Bettag, 2006). This is an exception to the rule.

Most news organization have accepted that viewers care about entertainment news and want the most updated news possible. They have tried to find a compromise of how to discuss entertainment news without turning into a gossip magazine show. Because everything has to have the "new" element, it becomes a problem when news organizations do not have enough time to reflect on whether or not they should report a story because they are so concerned with being first. Many news networks tease stories promising to give viewers "the latest information" and calling nearly any news that happened within the last hour "breaking news!" Stories constantly seem to be evolving, making viewers feel the necessity to be updated by the second, but often the facts of the story don't change - only the rumors. "And the more a rumor is repeated--whether in the monologues of late-night comedians or by media covering the story--the greater its acceptance as fact (Rosenberg, 1998)."

While the Old Media would make decisions on what was newsworthy through judgment calls in the newsroom, the New Media has shifted towards making decisions based on polls, focus groups and what stories have "buzz." These stories generally tend to be stories involving "health, consumer news, happy news (and) pet stories (Bettag, 2006)." There will always be the struggle between whether journalist should report on what they feel is newsworthy and what people want to know about. In the end, if people aren't interested, they won't be watching the news no matter how significant it is, which is why it is important to find a balance. There is no formula because every news story is different. I feel that news organizations should always strive for the "sacred trust" of the Old Media, while embracing the interests and demands of the New Media. While adapting to the 24/7 news feed, however, it should always be more important to be second and right than first and wrong. While we may never know exactly what news is, news isn't news if it isn't right.
Reference List

Berkowitz, Peter. (Feb/March 2007). New Media and Old. [Review of the book The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008]. Policy Review, Iss. 141; pg. 80, 9 pgs

Berman, Marc. (2005, June 20). Gossip Gone Wild. Media Week, Vol.15, Iss. 25; pg. 30, 1 pgs.

Bettag, Tom. (2006). Evolving Definitions of News. Nieman Reports, Vol.60, Iss. 4; pg. 37, 3 pgs

Farzad, Roben. (2005, Aug 16). To Market a Magazine, Fill It With Celebrity Gossip. New York Times, Pg. C.4

Ives, Nat. (2007, Feb 12). Going ga-ga over gossip: Celeb mags still soaring. Advertising Age, Vol.78, Iss. 7; pg. 4, 2 pgs

Rattner, Steven. (2007, Feb 15). Red All Over. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), pg. A. 19

Rosenberg, Howard. (1998, Jan 28). Straight From the Source's Mouth?. Los Angeles Times, Part-F, pg. 1

Tedeschi, Bob. (2007, Jan 14). Anytown, Online. New York Times, ph 14NJ.3.