| Could hard news alone keep media outlets from drowning? |
The caption above poses a very loaded question. Before we get into answering it I think it is important to understand the difference between hard news and soft news. According to Thomas Patterson's article "hard news refers to coverage of breaking events involving top leaders, major issues, or significant disruptions in the routines of daily life"(3). In contrast, soft news refers to "news that is typically more sensational, more personality-centered, less time- bound, more practical, and more incident-based than other news" (4).
Now lets look at this multi-faceted question, Could media outlets keep their heads above the water if they only reported on hard news? Or is it our desire to be entertained that determines what news outlets we follow? If so, what would be some possible consequences of that? At first thought I quickly came to the conclusion that they could survive, but then realized that the answer wouldn't be so simple.
Some news that we may discern as hard new is actually soft news. A good example of this would be the media coverage of the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy. While no one could argue that 9/11 media coverage in 2001 was hard news, the majority of 9/11 remembrance stories that I have read this week would be categorized as soft news. The front pages were filled with stories about recovering lost wedding photos from ground zero or stories of reunion between the survivors and their rescuer's. They were emotionally engaging, made me feel good, and at first, captured my attention over the hard news of the day.
Some news that we may discern as hard new is actually soft news. A good example of this would be the media coverage of the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy. While no one could argue that 9/11 media coverage in 2001 was hard news, the majority of 9/11 remembrance stories that I have read this week would be categorized as soft news. The front pages were filled with stories about recovering lost wedding photos from ground zero or stories of reunion between the survivors and their rescuer's. They were emotionally engaging, made me feel good, and at first, captured my attention over the hard news of the day.
As a political science major, and concerned citizen, I place greater value in in the hard news, However, upon critical review I do not feel as though media outlets could survive on it alone. If media outlets only reported on stories such as the crisis in the Ukraine, the fighting in the Middle East, or the spread of Ebola in Africa, the media would be associated strictly with doom and gloom. I believe there would be a drastic reduction in news consumers. It takes those sensational, personality-centered pieces like the ones about 9/11 remembrance to make us feel good and to give us that false illusion that world isn't such a turbulent place. By providing this the media outlets are able to entertain us, and in America, those that can entertain the masses are the ones that hold the power. In closing I ask you all, if soft news continues to take major precedence in this country, how long will our heads stay above water?
I think a media that can find a way to angle feature-style stories toward less superficial subjects and more publicly relevant subjects could find the best of both worlds. I think that's why so many people our age like NPR. Also, as Bennett kind of alludes to in the first few pages in Ch. 7, there might be room in a day and age where every subject is plastered on so many different outlets for specific outlets to gain steam by building a "fact-checking" theme. I think, with congress having such a low approval rating, that a major news outlet that already exists should adapt and implement a system like that
ReplyDelete