The Problem With Daily Newspapers
The London Independent's Johann Hari knocks dailies for reader ass-kissing:
...itís a misunderstanding of what a newspaper is to think that your job is simply to reflect the readersí prejudices. If the majority of readers think that asylum seekers eat swans or commit rape, the job of the newspaper is to report the facts even if ñ especially if - they contradict the readersí misconceptions. I think youíve got to take what you do as a journalist very seriously. You have always got to test that what you write is consistent with your principles and consistent with reality. Public opinion has to be formed on the basis of fact, and if the media tell people a pack of lies, as they do about asylum, itís very dangerous.
> ...consistent with your principles and
> consistent with reality.
Isn't the word "principles" a bit of a relief valve there? I'd be happy if newspapers were written completely without principle OTHER THAN A SPOTLESS CORRELATION TO REALITY.
Just tell us what's going on... We'll take care of the whole "principle" thang.
Cridland at October 14, 2004 9:17 AM
From reading his blog, I think he means not selling out. For example, in my case, when I was starting out, syndicators told me I could make a lot of money if I wrote a daily column that was very inoffensive (because dailies long for docile readers -- as opposed to engaged readers who might get their backs up about something they disagree with). In terms of how they relate to readers, the biggest difference between alt weeklies and dailies is probably how they see their hate mail. Alt weeklies say "bring it on!" Editors at dailies collapse in terror at one angry letter from an 80-year-old lady. So, they're published to be inoffensive to everyone -- and thus, uninteresting to anyone who won't be dead in five years...all the while, editors are whimpering that they can't get younger readers.
Amy Alkon at October 14, 2004 4:00 PM