Media: How to hurt the poor even more

I guess the pictures say the thousand words. Make that 500.

The other 500 then: There has been some debate, even a poll, where 70% of readers approved publishing a picture of a burning man. Every newspaper I saw in South Africa had the same set of images. There was a lot of ethical and moral grandstanding around this, but virtually no consideration of just the economic fallout that this brings about. Here are a few relevant quotes:

Traders said stark images of violence on the front pages of the Financial Times, Guardian and New York Times, prompted a kneejerk retreat in the rand yesterday.

“The photographs had a marked effect,” said Paul Kamp, a senior dealer with Standard Chartered in London. “The violence has been going on for a while, but when investors see these pictures on the front pages they wonder what’s going on — it’s not nice to see.” - Mariam Isa

Attard Montalto said a raft of key economic data due next week, combined with risk aversion and continued xenophobia, could conspire to drive the rand back above the R8/$ level in the near term. That level was last breached in late March, when the rand weakened to a five-year low of R8,25/$.

I don't know if I am stating the obvious saying this, but with oil at $130 and our currency at R8/$, petrol prices in the months ahead will go up by 10-30% and you can basically start writing off lower- middle class South Africa who will have to start getting rid of their houses and begin the nasty process of defaulting on cars, TV's and their furniture, because they simply can't afford to operate under these conditions. I'm guessing 25% of our economically relevant population, or 1/4th of our economy, at least. And it's not just us who are going to burn off a whole new set of economic losers; the scary thing is it is happening everywhere at the same time, creating a cascading effect.

I've raised the concern here that South Africa's currency took a battering as a result of the images appearing in overseas newspapers, and important economic players then changing their positions. In the months ahead we will learn that we need to find ways to really slow down local economic degradation (and it might mean keeping your job for a while longer too, so pay attention). We need to look at making investments into farming, managing the impact of higher costs as much as possible, and remain cognisant of ways to prop up and support our currency. Having said that, I predict stock markets around the world to start wobbling from this point forwards, so there isn't a terrible amount we can do.

The simple act of publishing photographs, while one might have one's own reasons, also has wider consequences, and when the Rand weakens, it makes the price of petrol in Dollars even worse, which means South Africans pay doubly for their troubles. Worth thinking about isn't it.

What is happening to journalism?

And what is happening to the media's sense of mission?

When doing statistical analysis to find out what is popular on our websites, the results are often disturbing. The 'tabloid' news beats hard news hands down, every time; good 'documentary type'/hardcore news simply cannot compete with infotainment styled gossip/scandal. Standards have changed (some would say dropped) because of the pressure of profits, but also the broadening, the flattening of content into a 24/7 stream of infotainment from myriad sources.

The question is, who now decides what is news? Are we still providing a public service, or are we simply pandering to a public hungry to hear about Britney, Paris and a snake-bitten golfer?

Entertain and Teach

When I was a teacher in South Korea an old fogey once said: "I am NOT an entertainer." This guy was a highly qualified educator, and there had been complaints that his textbook approach was 'too boring'. I understood his point, but I also felt that he was fundamentally misguided in his approach. If you can't hold people's interest, no matter how important the thing is you're communicating, well you've lost already.

But there is certainly a crisis going on, and we all know that the internet is distracting a lot of eyeballs (and revenue) away from traditional media, and newspapers in particular.

Here's the rub: original reporting is what distinguishes newspapers and good news from second hand, second rate media. Original reporting is hard work, it requires effort, and passion. It is knocking on doors, pushing, chest beating work. It is also, often, highly local. It is uncovering, unearthing, a skelton in a neighbours garden. It is up close and personal, and we discover important insights about what is really happening in our community - how things are being run, what decision makers are really doing (compared to what they are saying) and so on. Now, with advertising revenues for newspapers contracting, there is less money for newspapers to spend on reporters, less money dedicated to the task of doing valuable hard nosed reporting. Which means that essentially the likes of Google and Yahoo (Yahoo is the biggest online News site in the world, followed by MSNBC) who are critically dependent on newspapers for their content are also, in a sense, the most critical saboteurs of the revenue stream of newspapers.

Less is More, More or Less

More and more revenue is being diverted away from newspapers, even though newspapers remain the key conduit, the fountainhead, for news. Radio, TV, and online content all tap in to news printed every day.

As a result of the dearth of content providers, and the public's participation in providing content (citizen journalism), quality, consistency and reliability is an ongoing issue. Once again original reporting distinguishes. There are plenty of sites that simply regurgitate or recycle [this blog suffers the same tendency]. Thus newspapers are finding their ownership of the news quickly usurped, and then disseminated at a fantastic speed. As such competition is levelling the playing field, bringing Media Providers face to face with this vital question: 'Should we give the public what it wants or what it ought to want, or ought to know?' The question can be rephrased: Who decides what is news? The editor, or the public? Is it an either or?

What is certain is that newspapers have in the past and must continue to provide a public service. It can be a difficult situation where a company is essentially providing a public service, but must answer to shareholders in terms of the fundamentals of private enterprise (bottom line revenues). Selling news is still a business after all, isn't it? Or have things shifted to the extent that with the internet and other technologies, we all have the capacity to know everything. Do we really need a single resource? The answer is we do, but possibly less than we did before. How much less is the question.

It is easy for news providers to make the mistake of covering big international stories (as seen on CNN, Sky and BBC and mirrored elsewhere). Once again, what distinguishes a newspaper or indeed any media is its attention, its sensitivity, the quality of its local context. To the extent that it can address and reflect and provide vital insights into a local context, to this extent the Media (or medium) becomes, and can become, indispensable.

Online

Online news is a challenge simply because the online viewer (I dislike the term user) is engaged in an entirely different approach/mindset to a person holding a newspaper. This is simply because, armed with a mouse, a viewer is super-connected to limitless digitised networks. It is very easy to match thinking with information on the web. It is easier by far to draw information towards you, rather than to page through something tangible, but static.

Think for example of someone looking for a job, or a house, or a car online, as opposed to someone having to wave through endless mismatches set out in document form. The one is simply a far more efficienct option.

The way online viewers consume news is highly accelarated, highly efficient, and highly spontaneous. The methodology is sometimes called infosnacking, or infochunking. The word conjures up a new ethos immediately, not based on necessarily wanting formulaic news, but a more personalised, more interesting mix that is in parts informative, entertaining and interesting, but most of all convenient. It's exactly what the viewer wants, and it's interactive.

My aim as a writer is to simply write stories (both here and for mass media) that taste good and are good for you.

For further background read this excellent article:
Journalism without journalists