Coveragewatch

The opinions of the public and of advertisers aren't supposed to make any difference. For the most part, they don't on a daily basis. But there are times when reporters are taken to task because a high-profile reader / listener / advertiser complained. Sadly, I think how seriously a complaint is taken has to do with who the person complaining is.

I'd say what drives coverage more and more these days is the idea of "balance." Bosses want each story to include one person from each side of the issue. This can be frustrating -- for one, because there are rarely only two sides of an issue. But, unfortunately, things usually get boiled down to pro / con. There's not a lot of nuance.

Bosses like to say their coverage didn't show any bias -- thus, the push for "balance." However, in my opinion, the can often result in polarized coverage, or, worse, the spread of misinformation. Balance doesn't always lead to truth. Both sides could be lying. But there's more effort to show balance than to get to the truth, the answer, the who's right and who's wrong. I think this is the biggest change we've seen in the last 10 years. Less truth telling.

I've worked at the same place for quite a while. And I'd say the strength of the fire wall between the newsroom and sponsors has varied over time. Some managers have kept reporters completely removed from the money side, so as not to influence coverage in any way. Then there have been managers who acted almost as liaisons between sponsors and reporters, often providing reporters contact information for people they wanted to be interviewed for stories. From what I've found, news organizations like to talk a lot about not being affected by sponsors or funders. But they don't always practice what they preach. Some of this comes from the fact, these days, instead of newsrooms being run by journalists who have worked their way up in the journalism field, we're seeing managers come from a business background. Some don't even realize that what they are asking reporters to do goes against the standard rules of journalism. They were hired to make the organization profitable. So that's what they try to do. And that might mean bowing to businesses. I can’t say this is a positive change for the state of journalism. But I can say that, as a reporter, you need to learn how to navigate this new world. Figure out who in the organization believes most strongly in the idea of a strong firewall. Make sure to align yourself with that person. And don't assume that person is your news director.

Just take a look at Twin Cities Public Television and you'll see how money has changed journalism. They have a channel dedicated to programs paid for by businesses or organizations. It's moved beyond these being sponsors. Now they can pay the TPT to record their meetings and community forums and then get these things aired on channel 17. Yes, it's true that TPT does still air NOVA and Frontline and things. But, at the same time, they have become a production house for hire.