Kony 2012, audience reaction... "why journalists!?"

I had some time yesterday evening surfing the net after a powercut deemed me to wait until my battery of my computer was running out. So i started to browse a little bit the comments on the 1001 blogs dealing now with the Kony2012 campaign. And although it was not comprehensive, my search i had the subjective feeling found a lot of statements like following:

"I think the news media reacted so swiftly against KONY2012 because they know their time is up. If this guy succeeds, and he mostly has so far, what purpose will they serve in the future? They can't decide what we know and don't know anymore. We're deciding. This is their death knell." by starshine_3 on Gawker

What does such statements tell us journalists !? We do a shit job !!!

The people dont feel like they are informed anymore or at least they dont think they are better informed through the traditional journalist channels then they are by a activist video.

Of course you could say that such members of the audience are maybe ignorant, but what if they make up nowadays the majority of people consuming "news" or journalism work !?

The statements above has a lot of funny elements in it. Accusing the traditional media of gate keeping while they trust more a commercial outlet that oversimplifies to an extend where it is almost painful. But the point is not if the author makes a lot of sense, the point is, if the world of modern journalism kind of alienated its own audience. Can it be that we underfed our audience so much already with simplified information, eye candy and quick news fixes that they even bother anymore with the absolute minimum on journalist standards ( and by god, there are not many outlets out there who really even try to uphold that ).

Did we journalists on our own create a world where people just dont care anymore at all what the information is they consume, how well it is crafted or how good it is researched ?

In my eyes that is a very dangerous and fertile ground for misinformation, misguieded activism and maybe even military interventions backed by doubtful information ( Iraq 2003 anyone !? ).

I dont know if my theory holds, maybe i was just too fixated on the fact that people seem to even just question the pure existance of traditional media, not minding getting their infos from activism videos that dont even bother to cover up their agenda anymore. Maybe im wrong... but i think it should get all us journalists, editors, producers and news corp executives thinking.

Because it could mean that a whole industry is just going to vanish, cause of its own ignorance.

its what the audience wants ! ( ? )

Having conversations with fellow journalists today about the state of our profession and how information is presented, I very often come across the statement "well, its not so good, but that is what the audience wants."

Although i understand that Journalism became a business like everything else, it always bothers me if this words are raised. We Journalists, traditionally, are the eyes and ears of a society. The job was, to deliver information that many members of this society are not able to get themselves ( they have to work for a living ).

They rely on balanced information, proper research and trustworthy presentation of facts, so that they can make up their minds and if necessary act on their own.

So one question is "who knows actually what the audience wants" ?

Is it determined through polls, through hits on a website, through viewing figures...through the holy ghost !?!?! I always wonder how the media productioner always seem to know what their audience wants. Their rhetoric reminds at times of a Ad Agency executive trying to pitch a product to a market.

But what does a brain ( society ) do if its eyes and ears ( journalists ) are just reporting what they think the brain wants to hear ? I think such a creature in nature would be either dead soon or turn insane.

And even if some news come through that are not all on the "i want" agenda of the audience, then it gets wrapped up in a way that it can be easily consumed, watering down its effect of actually delivering reliable information.

The call goes out not only to the field journalists, who are actually most of the time concerned of delivering a balanced image but also the editors in their offices in the media capitals of the world.

Stop being salesman of news, stop being marketing specialists...start being journalists again. Please.

Kony2012, Invisible Children and the state of journalism

By now i guess every citizen on the planet who has access to the internet has heard of the Kony2012 video by the NGO Invisible Children. While there is plenty said about the video, its inaccurate information, its success and its producers, i want to bring to attention a little bit different element.

I always wonder why did the video got so popular. Just watching it should even give the uniformed but halfway decent intelligent person the idea that it is a little bit naive, not providing a whole bunch of information and somehow incomplete. So why should a person in the US, thousands of miles away from the issue the video is talking about, care.

I was thinking it might have more to do with the current state of journalism as many journalists like to admit. Sure, Invisible Children are not journalists, they are activists. So certain inaccuracies might be forgiven in the pursuit to get attention and raise funds ( if you give money to a organization that doesn't give you the correct information, well, i guess its your own fault ).

But why does such a simplistic, gung ho approach to a obviously not so simple issue attract so much attention ? Why does it seem that hordes of young and not so young people around the globe jump on this boat without asking where it is heading to or if its actually able to swim on the rocky sea of reality ?

With the decline of fact based journalism and the Hollywood version of reality that many news outlets sold in the last couple of years, i personally see one culprit in the modern news media. Simplifying issues, making it "sexy" and fast consumable, ripping it out of context for the fast "news-fix" has led to a very shallow perception of the world in the eye of the broader public. The constant serving of candies to the audience makes them refuse the vegetables, if the candies are just lying on the next table.

Of course Journalists had always to walk a thin line between entertainment, information and advocacy since the early days of the profession. Now with the internet and the "information at your fingertips"-world things seemed to be much easier. To get quality information seemed much easier. Getting information about almost everything seemed easier.

But just as Eli Pariser pointed out in his TED speech about the free flow of information in the web as its ability to widen some ones horizon, it became just a myth in the age of the personalized internet. He even compare the current state of what the internet ( or better the companies running for us the internet ) to the state of information flow in the 60ies.

And that is closely connected to the state of journalism in my opinion. Good, detailed and profound information research is substituted with rants of bloggers, action packed news videos that resemble more a video game then actually delivering information. People got used to it, that is how they consume and perceive the world around them. And therefore i think they are so attracted to videos like Kony2012... it makes you being part of something "real" but without all the bulk of detailed info. Kick ass slogans and sexy, groovy agendas rather then getting slowed down by the quack mire of the truth on the ground. The good people over here, the bad people over there. Simple and easy. You can have critical thoughts while sipping your latte in Starbucks listening to the latest "in" tunes on your ipod.

So, i personally doubt, that this campaign are going to change a lot. Sure, more people will give money, there will be a little bit more pressure on the US government ( which is really strange when thinking about it, why not putting pressure on the Museveni Government in Uganda ? ).

But truth is, the hunt for Joseph Kony is on since years and the results are limited. The LRA has been crippled quite a bit over the years being pushed in remote areas of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic. Some of their foreign donors which they operated for as a terror squad stopped backing them up in large scale.

That doesn't mean Joseph Kony and his goons are not a threat anymore. And every halfway decent human being wants to see him arrested or even killed. But truth is also, that the Ugandan military government under Yoweri Museveni kind of gets a lot of benefits out of the pure existence of Kony. Now being away from Ugandan soil since years, they have no interest in really catching him. The monetary and technical aid they receive from western countries is very valuable for them, even if the so newly built resources are used against its own people every time there is a demonstration for more political freedom or discontent with political decisions of the elites.

Back in the day, everyone was outraged when we heard that the CIA supported some oppressive government or some crazy political leader somewhere in the world to "protect the free world from communist aggression". Nowadays we don't need the CIA anymore, just a well placed marketing campaign with a sexy slogan, nice visuals and facebook.

CNN or how news get the hollywood touch

Its not necessarily news that US news stations like CNN threw away their reputation that they built up during the 90ies in the run up to the last Iraq War and converted to a hollywood approach to present news.

Watching a special on the embattled syrien city of Homs on CNN, which is currently attacked by government security forces who indiscriminately shelling civilian areas as well, the evidence of this development was stronger then ever. The viewer had the creeping suspicion that in the end it was not about the news at all. Barely any facts, but a lot of shaky handheld camera and "action based" shots. It resembled more a preview clip for the next dramatic reallife-docu-soap then a sober news report. Introduced was the whole thing by nice motion graphics with a dramatic soundtrack. 3D cgi letters, a dramatic cgi generated burning city landscape that resembled something out of a Pieter Brueghel painting.

I understand that it is hard to catch the attention of the viewers nowadays. And in the hard battle of the news business ( yes, its a BUSINESS after all ) leads sometimes to very contradicting and more or less funny situations in presenting the news. But this approach slowly crows to the point where it is highly questionable.

If news stations ( including magazines ) are only about to sell atmosphere, cutting down the news value of their reports to a minimum, why are they still call themselves news-channel ? Out of some hope that the name alone gives them more credibility over their entertainment competition ? Making their programs more dramatic, cause it is apparently real ?

I dont know, if this is the news business we want to have. So be it. But me as a journalist, i have a very stale taste in my mouth. Cause what we produce then is not news, its hysteria in every way imaginable, the guy that screams loud enough with the nicest effects and the most dramatic imagery will make the SELL. Background infos !? Ah, no one needs that, right ?!

"Twitter" or how rumors become "News"

I just read the BBC report from the visit of Paul Wood in the city of Homs ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16888777 ).

A couple of days earlier, there was a big report that Syrian security forces have attacked the town which is one of the many hotspots of the Syrian revolution with heavy weapons, killing countless civilians...the numbers mentioned by the press was as high as 300 in some reports.

Now, as dreadful, terrible and wrong this attacks are, the numbers were hard to verify. But many news services, newspapers etc. still used them. Of course they mentioned always "unconfirmed reports", but lets be honest...are those two words really stick with western media audiences the way they are intended to do !? I personally doubt that.

So, back to the trip of Paul Wood. He arrived in the town and observed that there were many killings, but he personally estimated the number closer to 60 people. That's actually quite a difference. In any other news report, a different of that size would really put the paper, service or journalist in big trouble. But here such news gets churned out as it would be nothing wrong with it. People spread it over Facebook, Twitter etc and boom...everyone believes it, its NEWS! So every media outlet has to report on it.

We all NOW that Twitter for example is not necessarily a good journalistic tool. It is prone to a lot of mistakes, wrong facts and agendas of people. But still, EVERYONE uses it.
Together with the pressure of being the first in the news media, cutting costs, lazy or immature journalists it becomes a real dangerous mix.

The fault lies not with Twitter, Facebook or any other social media tool. The fault lies with the people using it or better said, media producers who dont apply journalistic standards to the informatione they get out of it. If a thing is (re)tweeted on millsion times, doesnt make it true.

But as long as journalists are just told ( or believe ) in the quick fix they have to provide to the audience, the quality of the news media is going to deteriorate. Despite all the comfort of the web based information flow, its not a substitute to pack your back, get all your guts together and go there yourself...as long as you uphold journalistic standards to your own work of course.

from the AP study "a new model for news"

from AP's "an new Model for News" ( http://www.ap.org/newmodel.pdf )

Malaria and a new model for news

When i went this morning to the Africa section of the BBC website ( www.bbc.co.uk/africa )
my eyes fell on teh following piece : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16854026

It was talking about how the Malaria death toll is actually higher then suspected by the numbers provided by WHO for 2010, although after all the bells and whistles the numbers boil down to a longer statistical trend of falling numbers of cases.
Apart from the fact, that a statistic is a statistic and everyone has his own philosophy of trusting them.
Just a couple of weeks earlier we could read this piece:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16161907
In this article they talk about the WHO number for 2010 that the "new report" is disputing.

Now there is my problem. Sure, there is a new report that kind of found out new facts and now raises that issue. So far so good.
I personally have a issue with how the whole thing is presented to the masses. Journalism for me, was always about shedding light on issues that people are not necessarily experts in and to let them understand what's going on around them ( in the world ).

But in this case we have the classic modern way of presenting news. "Left", "Right", "Straight"..."oh no, it was actually Left with a slight turn to the Right"...that's "headline bombardment" and it wears the audience out in my opinion. Especially if its a case they might be interested in first, but with all the contradicting headlines, they get tired of it.
They get lost in a maze of information, counter information etc. In the end they wont even bother looking at it, expecting just another confusing story.

People nowadays have a almost infinite amount of sources they can go and "consume" news. That leads to a either bigger amount of news and reports. Together with the 24 hour news cycle
and the fast ever changing "canvas" of the internet, the amount of information a person gets flooded with is just insane.

Everyone just churns out news as there would be no tomorrow, not asking themselves the question of how or who is going to consume it. Its again about SELLING( PRODUCING ) news, rather then reporting. The put it all on the shoulder of the consumer, hoping that he will find his way through.
Now what happens is, that people might feel a little bit challenged. They turn to easier digest able things, that are less exhausting and everyone is having a big whine about why the "masses" seem to have a " i dont car about it anymore" attitude.

About 4 years ago the Associated Press ( AP ) has come up with a study about the US market, with the name "a new model for the news" ( http://www.ap.org/newmodel.pdf ) where they said that the new way of mass-headlines and ever changing news without delivering background information leads to news "fatigue" with the recipient.

Not much has changed so far. Neither in the heads of the editors nor in the heads of the journalists on the ground.