Example Analysis Paper 3
Tabloidization of the Media
What is the first thing that comes to mind about the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton? Is it his stance on education? Is it his foreign policy? Or, does it have something to do with a certain former Whitehouse intern, named Monica Lewinsky? Unfortunately, it probably has to do with Ms. Lewinsky, but why is this? Part of the answer may lie in a controversial media trend called Tabloidization. Tabloidization is a shift by the media “away from government and foreign affairs” (du Pont, p 2) to a more entertainment-style of journalism that focuses on “lifestyle, celebrity, entertainment and crime/scandal” (du Pont, p 2).
The fear behind this shift towards Tabloidization lies in its implications. Former governor of Delaware and former member of Congress Peter du Pont argues that the effect of this shift to a more entertainment based journalism style is that the important issues such as health care and education have been “given the back seat to entertainment.” He goes on to say that, “the nation is deprived of information vital to reaching sound policy judgments”, and concludes that, “our perception of society can vary greatly depending on the source of news” and that “bad information will inevitably lead to bad public policies.” The following example illustrates this point: Immediately following the 1996 presidential election, an investigation on the campaign financing of both parties was begun. The investigation found that many rules had been bent and that there were numerous occurrences of possible illegal activity. This, however, went basically unnoticed by the public because it occurred at the same time as the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which dominated the media coverage (“Washington’s Other Scandal”).
There are those that argue that Tabloidization has, in fact, not occurred and that the media is the same today as it was thirty years ago; but, here are some facts to support its existence: “In 1977 less than 1% of the stories covered in network news were about scandal; by 1987 they were 17%, and straight news declined from 51% in 1977 to 34% in 1997. During the same time period Time magazines’ stories about government declined from 15% to 4%, while entertainment stories rose from 8% to 15%”(du Pont, p 1)[1]. The magnitude of the shift may be arguable, but clearly a shift has been taking place in the manor in which the media presents the news. This leads to the following question: what then has caused or led the media to move in this direction?
To answer this question it is helpful to examine the theories that already exist on this subject. This, however, can become quite difficult, as there is a wide range of arguments out there. The three following arguments provide a sample of the possible causes of Tabloidization. The first states that the corporations that own the television stations are responsible. The next argues that competition between networks is responsible. The final one claims that politicians began the whole process.
The first argument states that the owners of the networks themselves are primarily to blame. I call this the “corporate ownership theory.” The television networks are owned by huge corporations such as General Electric, Time Warner, and Disney, and it is thought that the news journalists “follow orders” that are sent directly from these same corporate owners and “shape the news” accordingly. The result is a news media, which “manipulates information…to push the political agendas” of the corporations. The problem lies in the fact that the agendas of these corporations is based on marketing themselves and their products, or more simply put, on money. Covering up the news that may be detrimental to the economic health and/or reputation of the company has also become a part of this marketing. This is where Tabloidization comes into play. In order to push their own interests or to draw the attention away from the news that may prove to in fact “hurt” them, the corporations have created a news media that concentrates on attracting audiences through stories about “sex, scandal and Hollywood” (du Pont, p 1), in other words, stories about personal lives, which unfortunately do not offer any relevant information pertaining to the decisions to be made in the voting booth. This is the argument presented by Ken Sanes in his article “The News Media’s Effort to Hide from Significant Truth.”
One of the major weaknesses of Mr. Sanes argument is that he makes some very strong claims and accusations but offers no real evidence or support for these claims. For example, he claims that the television news is guilty of putting “endless efforts to shape its stories to conform to the demands of marketing” and that “everything is for sale, television news is now itself for sale” (Sanes, p 2). This may very well be true, but such a strong claim and vital part of the argument should offer some evidence to support its existence. Perhaps some statistics on the amounts of money involved or records of the transactions that have occurred between the companies would strengthen the relevance of the claims being made.
Another weakness of the argument that Mr. Sanes makes is the fact that he doesn’t offer any counterexamples to his position. That is, he presents his position on the argument quite clearly but fails to recognize any other possible sides to the argument that may be contradictory to his own. This seems a little like “stacking the deck.” Presenting the possible other sides to the argument (counterexamples) and then disproving or relating them to his own argument (return path) would strengthen his current position, in that it would give the reader a sense that there is not another side being hidden from them.
The third and final weakness of Ken Sanes argument lies in the assumptions that it makes. The article seems to be written under the assumption that the reader has prior knowledge on the subjects of corporations, politics, media and their interactions with each other. For example, Mr. Sanes states that “corporations, political groups and media” control the decision making of the public. This makes sense if the reader understands that the same corporations that own the television stations also own a variety of other products under different brand names as well as the fact that many wealthy individuals can be apart of more than one of these groups. Mr. Sanes also fails to mention one of the major underlying strengths of his argument, that Tabloidization is cheaper. By mentioning specific companies, GE for example, and some dollar figures, Mr. Sanes would give the readers of his article a better feeling for the point trying to be made.
Despite the three weaknesses above, there were also some strengths of Mr. Sanes argument that deserve some attention. For example, the whole argument is set up by an analogy between news journalists and the philosophies of Sigmund Freud and Gandhi. Mr. Sanes claims that the journalists, like Freud and Gandhi, must “stand outside the cycle…of physical violence, corruption, and manipulated information” (Sanes, p 2). This analogy not only sums up Mr. Sanes view on Tabloidization, but it also foreshadows his solution to it: a media that is not a part of the system (not bad authority figures either).
The second position, “the competition theory”, argues that: “corrosive competition leads to the Tabloidization of the news”(O’Neil, p 2); that is, the competition between the news stations to be the first to deliver a story to the public. The major fear of the media having this speed-based mentality is that it is at the cost of accuracy and that the attitude has become “never let the facts stand in the way of a good story” (Washington, p 1). This is the argument made by Peter Prichard in his speech “Journalism’s 3 Deadly sins”.
One of the major strengths of this argument lies in the counterexamples given in the article. For example, the author presents the argument that “Tabloidization of mainstream journalism is a good thing” (Washington, p 1), which is contrary to his own argument. This not only presents another side to the argument, but also shows that the author is attempting to address the arguments that the reader may have with his or her own argument. This shows that the author has made himself aware of other possibilities, and also adds credibility to the argument being made as it attempts to present what is out there.
One of the weaknesses of this argument is that Mr. Prichard makes two generalizations. The first generalization is on public opinion of the news. He states that, “the public would rather see the truth, than a half accurate story…rushed to the press” (O’Neill, p 2). This sounds good and ethical, but he is forgetting that part of news journalism is informing the public on what is known at the time. Much of the public would rather know part of the truth today than wait for the whole truth tomorrow. The point is that speed has also become very important to many people when it comes to the news, and everything else for that matter.
The other generalization that Mr. Prichard makes concerns the journalists themselves. He states “journalists are equivalent to pond scum” (O’Neill, p 1). Referring to journalists as “pond scum” is not only a hasty generalization, but could also be interpreted as a personal attack. In either case it is both fallacious and unnecessary, and only takes away from the authors argument. If he feels an insult is necessary, something a little more intelligently thought out and fitting would be more appropriate.
The third position, the “blame it on the politicians theory”, argues that it was the politicians themselves that have caused the shift towards Tabloidization. This argument contains two main parts, one being that events such as Vietnam and Watergate led to a general mistrust of politicians. To find out the “truth” journalists have moved toward a “more active reporting” style (Hallin, p 4). The second is that the journalists were simply “responding to election campaigns increasingly packaged for television” (Hallin, p 4). “As television journalists became increasingly wary of being manipulated, they responded by taking a more adversarial stance toward the candidates” (Hallin, p 5). This is the argument of Daniel C. Hallin in his article “Sound Bite News.”
Mr. Hallins’ argument is a very strong one, in that it has no major weaknesses. All examples are given sufficient evidence that fully support the claim being argued. For example, after claiming that the politicians began the “sound bites and packaging”, he presents specific examples, the Nixon campaigns of `68 and `72, which made extensive use of the “packaged for television.” Mr. Hallin also provides a quote from a CBS executive that provides evidence for his argument; Sig Mickelson stated that “television news had acquired…remarkable machinery and sophistication [but] the political managers seem to have learned more…and they have the momentum.” Providing full evidence for each claim made makes an argument, not only more believable, but also makes a much stronger argument in an academic sense.
The three positions described provide a range of the arguments that are addressed toward the question of what has caused Tabloidization. Although I believe that all three arguments offer very plausible answers to the question, I do not believe any of them, at least on their own, fully answer the question. Each of the three positions has something missing, each other. I believe that the true answer to the question is not in any one of the arguments alone, but rather in a complex process that has occurred over time involving many factors. That is, each of the positions is like a piece of the puzzle, for the picture to
look right all of the pieces must be found, as there are some missing, and put together.
First off, I feel that corporate ownership has played a role in the process of
Tabloidization. When it comes down to it the underlying goal of any corporation
is to make profits, period. That is the
nature of the business world. Marketing
has become a large part of both television and the news. One thing Mr. Sanes did not mention is the
fact that Tabloidization is much less expensive than more traditional
reporting. It is much cheaper to run a
news clip than to send a reporter to the scene. Also what underlies this argument was the deregulation of
television in the 1980’s. Robin
Anderson states:
Before deregulation, corporate speculators did not purchase stations solely for the purpose of commodity trading. After deregulation, however, speculators who had no interest or experience in the media bought and sold stations simply to make a profit. Corporate investors would often cut corners to make a profit [by] cutting news departments, and giving into advertiser demands (Anderson, p 19).
Deregulation is what allowed the corporations to purchase the T.V. networks in
the first place. This makes it a major
contributor to Tabloidization, even if it was an indirect one.
With regards to the competition argument, I also believe that this has also played a part in the process of Tabloidization. As the networks compete against each other for ratings, finding a faster and more cost-effective method for presenting stories becomes more and more essential. The 2000 presidential election is perfect example of this point. I would also assume that this aspect has become especially important in the past few years with the recent rise in news networks. For example, Fox and WB networks have added news to their programming.
In addition to the arguments presented earlier there are also some technology
factors that have played major roles in the process of Tabloidization that have
not been given mention to this point.
First off, the improvements made in cameras and editing technologies
made the “packaging” possible in the first place. Also the rise of the Internet has also created a new source of
competition for the news networks.
Instead of waiting for the evening news to come on, households with
Internet connections have instant access to information. This puts even more pressure on the networks
in the “speed wars.” A second
technology factor that has influenced the speed aspect is that thing you point
at the T.V. when you want to change the channel. Yes, the T.V. remote. The
invention of the remote control allowed viewers to instantly change the channel
without leaving the comfort of the couch.
T.V. networks now faced the challenge of keeping viewers attention at
all times, including commercials. Now
if the viewer became bored they could simply change the channel without even
getting up. As sad as this may seem,
the remote control changed the job of the T.V. programmers forever.
There seems to be and endless number of things that could arguably have been a part of the process of Tabloidization. There is, however, one more that I believe deserves mention, and that is our American culture. Speed has become a way of life for most Americans and it is reflected in much of what we do, including viewing television. Whether Tabloidization started this, or the other way around, is a question that we may never know the answer to. Finding the answer to it may be the key to finding the true answer to what caused Tabloidization. Whether we know where it came from or not, the fact that Tabloidization is here still remains, and it appears that it is here to stay.
Sources:
“Facts, Fallacies, and Fears of Tabloidization”. USA Today Magazine.
Linn Jr. Washington. November 1999.
“The News Media’s Effort to Hide Significant Truth”. Transparency Website.
Ken Sanes.
“The News: From Serious to Celebrity” Pete du Pont. April 2, 1998.
“Consumer Cultures and TV Programming”, Robin Anderson. 1995.
“Sound Bite News: Television Coverage of Elections,” Daniel C. Hallin.