Media priorities
June 19, 2009
From around the world:-
1 Lead story at The Times Global news site is Iran
2 At Guardian MPs expenses issue followed by Iran
3 New York Times - Iran is top item in the New York Times Global edition on the web
4 The FT has Iran as the first of the day’s highlight items above the headlines
Then NZ:-
5 At Stuff – swine flu an article on Iran, which is out of date is the last item on the initial page in Opinion nothing elsewhere
6 NZ Herald leads with Xue trial jury decision awaited – Iran buried after Sport at tail end of headline coverage.
No doubt tonight’s broadcast media will exhibit a similar sense of prioities. No wonder so many now turn to the Internet for news.
Advertisement
6 Comments
Comments are closed.
As much as anything it is the prioritisation that I find so concerning. I accept that people will look at what they want to, but positioning does impact what is read.
In that respect I think the NZ media does a poor job.
@Adam Yes I agree. But as I say, the decisions are purely commercial. There are no other drivers at Fairfax or APN. And, I can speak from personal experience here, anyone inside those organisations who suggests otherwise is quickly purged.
Adam Smith ‘invented’ free markets. They don’t always deliver the best results.
Bill: While what you say is true, the inevitable result of such thinking mean that newspapers would do best if the consisted entirely of gossip and pornography. At which point the “newspaper” would cease to exist.
If newspapers wish to maintain their identity, then they need to produce news, not that which sells best.
I don’t disagree with what you say. But I think today’s newspaper corporations are driven by nothing other than short-sighted greed. Gone are the days of “informing and entertaining” as one British newspaper publisher once put it. The switch to the Internet with its instant feedback on what works (or sells as the accountants running newspaper corporations would say) has only quickened the pace.
To be honest, I’m afraid the world’s media hasn’t generated more The Economist-like publications that really do offer intelligent information and comment. But that would require investment and vision – not qualities that would get you anywhere in most newspaper corporations.
Sorry didn’t finish making my point. The sad commercial truth about online news is that when people can pick and choose, they pick the trash.
I don’t like this any more than you do. There is a place for informed intelligent reading. I get mine at The Economist and the Guardian – sometime at the Australian Financial Review and the National Business Review. Suff.co.nz and the Herald site are comics.
However, you could argue the local papers are more in touch with readers.
To be fair to the local papers, the editors have probably highlighted the stories that “sell” to their readers.
Look at Stuff’s Most Read list: Iran doesn’t rate a mention in the top 10. Mind you, most of the top ten items are trite.
But wait.. the NY Times top ten list:
1. Well: Is Your Ab Workout Hurting Your Back?
2. Slump Dashes Oregon Dreams of Californians
3. State of the Art: Apple Fills in Some Gaps With Latest iPhone
4. F.D.A. Warns Against Use of Popular Cold Remedy
5. Frugal Traveler: Travel Web Sites: A Click-On Showdown
6. Video Library Player: Core Values
7. So Many Flat-Panel TVs. Which Is Right for You?
8. Dress Codes: The All-American Back From Japan
9. Personal Health: An Emotional Hair Trigger, Often Misread
10. The Unfortunate Location