Press 'Hits" and How (Paul Graham Believes) They Happen

He says it's a PR phenomenon.

I don't think he gives enough credit to enterprising reporters. But there's no doubt that journalists do run in packs, and that they (we) are prone to forgetting history.

Comments

[Al]

It's good that this stuff is coming out. It's better to know about these gory details.

I think this same phenomena explains conservatives' contention that the press is slanted to the left. I think the press gets a "press hit" from the left and, since the people who work in the mainstream media are mostly liberal, that they naturally run with these stories. In other words, they do believe the left's "press hits" and they don't believe the right's - and therefore, the left's viewpoint dominates the mainstream press. I'll define the mainstream press as the large newspapers, major news magazines, and major network news organizations - the ones who claim that they are objective. (I think it's more broadly accepted that just about everyone has biases and there is no such thing as an objective press.)

I also think the lazy reporter aspect is part of it. It's easier to run with something that you "believe" because you don't feel you have to do much work to check it out.

[Nick Lewis]

Dan, thanks so much for posting this link. The more I've been tracking that CNN primetime buzz marketing story, the more I've begun to respect the time and thought that was probably put into it[assuming it exists, but I'm almost certain it does].

However, I feel that is important for bloggers to be defensive against guerrilla tactics; I want to avoid a world where I constantly have to judge whether a person who leaves a comment is real or fake as soon as they mention a brand, a news network, ect...

[Anna]

Dan, did you see the expose of ghostwriting and other behind-the-scenes manipulation by pharmaceutical companies? "It is a bit like farming..."

Also, from Rhetorica back in January, simple op-ed-payola-prevention measures that the media could take, if they cared enough to do so, which apparently they don't.

[Alice Marshall]

I have two responses to Graham's post-

Paul Graham's Submarine
http://technoflak.blogspot.com/2005/04/paul-grahams-submarine.html

In Defense of the trade press
http://technoflak.blogspot.com/2005/04/in-defense-of-trade-press.html

[Winston]

With regards to Al's bizarre comment above - what mainstream press are you watching / reading ?

Have you noticed news outlets just broadcasting government produced "news" clips rather than their own reporting ? Fox News is basically a propaganda service as far as I can tell. Time Magazine has Ann Coulter on the front page for goodness sakes. In any western democracy these outlets would be considered extremely right wing - but they pass for normal in the mainstream press nowadays.

The "liberal press" is just a myth - it died long ago (if it ever existed).

[Alice Marshall]

Winston-
Do not feed the troll

[Dan Gillmor]

Alice, you may disagree with Al (I often do), but he's no troll.

[Alice Marshall]

I stand corrected.

[Christine Boese]

The PR thing has been a long-running phenomena, more a factor in newspapers in the late 80s perhaps, until many of those papers just disappeared in the environment of media deregulation. Now it is clearly a dominant factor in television as well, also poised on the brink of deregulation.

But to answer some of the criticism, which is well-deserved, I can tell you that the PR machine feeds a great gaping yaw: the news hole. So long as the press stays in reaction mode, then the main concern, beyond all others, will be to do whatever it takes to feed that space.

So what's the problem? Staff cutbacks, everywhere. Staff cut to the bone. Why? Because the great gaping yaw can be filled so easily with PR material, and corporate media empires with their first eye on shareholder returns understand a key element of the equation: viewers and readers cannot tell the difference, so there is no falloff in ratings/eyeballs/sales in keeping the staff trimmed to the bone.

No loss, and a net gain in salaries, physical plant, desks, chairs, flourescent lights, etc.

So long as there is no price to be paid, there will be no change. And so long as some people are willing to work on these crippled staffs, reacting to the day's wire copy and filling segments with PR hits, there won't be any improvement in the content either.

[Al]

Winston, in some ways I agree with you.
We are seeing the end of the "liberal press" as being dominant in that there is a lot more competition out there. When network news was big, people got most of their "news" from it. It's my contention that it had a liberal slant to it. We've also been conditioned to think that the NY Times is/was the "newspaper of record." That status is gone too.
As for my liberal claim, the "journalists" that I know seem to have this "save the world" attitude. It's not that they necessarily try to be liberal, it's that their point of reference is more on the left. The stats show many more left leaning people in the media than right leaning. From the outside, liberals see the stories as being neutral and the conservatives see a leftward slant. I don't think it's a conspiracy; it's just the way it is - a numbers game.
What's changing in the media world is the people in the business are discovering all of this.
Did you see one of the Terminator movies where, at the end, the liquid metal Terminator was morphing through the characters he impersonated while "dying" in the molten steel? I think journalism and many other industries are going through this phase of not knowing what they are. I think the difference here is that many of these troubled industries will survive - they will morph into something useful. Change isn't easy, but it will probably be good for most folks.

[Al]

Winston, here's an example of a biased media. The NY Sun is running a story that Ted Kennedy's brother-in-law is an informant for the FBI involving Hillary's campaign. Now, if DeLay's brother-in-law or say Santorum's brother-in-law was an informant, there would be special editions of the papers out and it would be the lead story on all of the news shows! Nary a peep out of the mainstream media over this!
http://www.nysun.com/article/12645

And Dan might have a post calling it something like "more of the same from a bunch of corrupt hypocrites."

[Ran Talbott]

"Time Magazine has Ann Coulter on the front page for goodness sakes."

My theory is that they wanted a spike in sales by appealing to a male demographic group that wouldn't ordinarily buy a "liberal rag" ;-)

[adamsj]

Yow, it's Chris Boese!

Listen, do you think some of the problem was that journalism departments took on PR as a variant of journalism, instead of letting it ooze on over to the marketing department, where it belongs?

I'll be back in F'ville any day now--we're moving out of Atlanta shortly. Did you ever get your copy of the program from Jim's service? If not, I'm pretty sure I still have a spare--and if not, I think I can promote you one out there.

[Ran Talbott]

"The stats show many more left leaning people in the media than right leaning. From the outside, liberals see the stories as being neutral and the conservatives see a leftward slant."

"The stats" also show that people who style themselves "conservatives" tend to be breathtakingly ignorant of current events and history, so their opinions of whether stories are "slanted" doesn't carry much weight.

btw, if the timestamps on Google News are to be trusted, there's a very good chance that the Sun got Reggie's identity from the New Orleans paper. Meanwhile, the NY Times has already posted a story from tomorrow's edition on its website. Guess the Times will ave to give up its membership in the MSM...

[Al]

Hi Ran, I just looked at the NY Times site...I didn't see it. It doesn't mean it's not there. I stand by what I said: "Now, if DeLay's brother-in-law or say Santorum's brother-in-law was an informant, there would be special editions of the papers out and it would be the lead story on all of the news shows! Nary a peep out of the mainstream media over this!"

Let's see how much press it gets. I'll bet that it's buried for awhile.

[Winston]

Al - if the press is so liberal then why did the Gannon / Guckert (/ Gosch ?) story die so quickly ? If Clinton was still president I suspect they'd be trying to impeach him now, with the media leading the witchhunt.

The movie "The Hunting of the President" is a good example of how much of a myth the "liberal" media is.

As for Tom DeLay, I think the fact that he hasn't resigned shows exactly how unwilling the media is to criticise senior right wing figures.

However, I do agree with you that mass forms of media are in decline (as evidenced by falling newspaper circulations) and that the objectivity of journalists (or their editors) in many organisations is doubted by more and more people (as Dan Graham's comments about not believing what he reads in the likes of Time and Newsweek show).

[Winston]

Oh, and Al, what is wrong with journalists wanting to "save the world" - if thats evidence of liberal bias I take it you think conservatives want to "destroy the world" ?

On the evidence in Iraq I suspect you may have a point...

[Big Gav]

I'm not sure this blog is the place for partisan arguments given that the original topic of Dan's post was manipulation of the media by PR organisations, rather than media bias - of either liberal or conservative persuasion (one thing I note as a non american is the odd lack of anything resembling a left wing in the mainstream of american media or politics - the word "liberal" used to denote a right, or at least centrist, style of politics, as evidenced by the fact that the right wing parties in Canada and Australia are still called the "Liberal" parties).

Still - I can't resist jumping in and saying that while many people are aware of the documentary "Outfoxed" which outlines the myriad, manifest failings of the Fox "News" network as an objective news organisation, there is also a great documentary called "Orwell Rolls In His Grave" by Robert Kane Pappas that examines the US media as a whole - and the conclusions it reaches are a bit chilling. I've blogged about this here previously - http://biggav.blogspot.com/2005/04/orwell-rolls-in-his-grave.html

Another documentary which explains how this situation has come about (although it doesn't discuss the media specifically) is Joel Bakan's "The Corporation" - worth a look if you haven't seen it - http://thecorporation.com/

Back to PR manipulation, I loved one of the stories Paul Graham linked to at the end of his essay ("A Sell Out's Tale") - and I couldn't help but notice that even though the author exposed the whole thing as a manipulation of the media, you probably couldn't help but come away from reading it having absorbed Volvo's key messages - they aren't old fashioned and boring any more, and the C70 convertible would be a cool thing to drive around in...

There was brief burst of interest in the science (art ?) of memetic engineering back in the mid-1990's - I wonder if a lot of these PR agencies are just journeyman memetic engineers (while the likes of Karl Rove and the Mellon-Scaife foundation, for example, are rather more sophisticated at it).

[Anna]

Ditto on A Sell-Out's Tale - that was great. My favorite part was his exchange with the other reporter who:
[start quote]

...asked me if I would be writing about Volvo. I said I would.

"What's your angle?"

"I think I'm going to be writing about press trips in general."

"An exposé?" she asked, sounding worried.

"Sort of, I guess."

"Don't ruin it for the rest of us," she said, without a trace of humor.

[Al]

A couple of points:

Winston, there is nothing wrong with the media being filled with "saving the world" types as long as most people understand it. The consequence of having so many people with this attitude entrusted to do journalism is/was (and it's getting to be more "was" as alternatives take over) simple bias. The bias is towards a perceived like-mindedness social justice. So some stories that should die or be minimized don't and other stories that should be reported aren't. Hillary is supposedly one of the good guys to them and, hence, that Reggie story is buried. Tom DeLay is supposednly a bad guy, so anything on him is bad and therefore receives high exposure. Bolton's nomination fits this template too. Just today the NYT is running a story about some emails involving him. The title is "e-Mail Exchanges Reveal More Bolton Battles". Buried in the story is this line "None of the dozens of messages reviewed by The New York Times were from Mr. Bolton." Then what the f is the story for?

So this bias isn't a conspiracy and it's not always deliberate. It's just the main stream press is filled with like-minded people and now their way of doing things is under attack. In many ways, I couldn't be happier.

[Chris Boese]

Hey there Mr Adams!

I couldn't get your email to work anywhere else, so I'm back posting here, although this may get lost in all the comments. I've tried to reach you from time to time, but you're a hard guy to get a hold of.

Yeah, I got a good copy of all the memorial stuff and more. Did you ever see the memorial blog site Jim's family had me build? It is now at http://damon.typepad.com/whitehead. You will probably recognize some names commenting in the guestbook. Some nice essays there too, and some of my pictures.

You're leaving Atlanta too? I'm only going for a semester, to Montana. When do you go? I hear Fayetteville is a big old city now, you know.

PR in marketing depts? Hmm. My thought it is that PR could find a home in communication departments, the old speech/com/rhetoric thing. Especially the study of rhetoric, of which I am very fond (the study of all available means of persuasion). I'll reserve judgment on journalism departments and how they make distinctions with PR until I get back from my adventure in MT. Here's something about it: http://www.umt.edu/journalism/news_pages/archives/April/April05/pollner.html

For what it is worth, I often felt I had more integrity as a journalist when I worked university PR for Mike Gauldin in Arkansas than I did at the many small newspapers where I worked. A lot depends on the leadership, and the owners.

Chris

[Ran Talbott]

"I just looked at the NY Times site...I didn't see it. It doesn't mean it's not there."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/23/nyregion/23hillary.html

[Ran Talbott]

"If Clinton was still president I suspect they'd be trying to impeach him now, with the media leading the witchhunt."

The media never led the witchhunt: they mostly just followed the trail of breadcrumbs left by "The Vast Right-Wing conspiracy" (tm). Once the circus started on Capitol Hill, they gave it the same treatment they give most such events: thick layers of speculation and second-guessing wrapped around a tiny kernel of facts. But the initial buzz came from much the same sort of PR effort we're talking about here.

"As for Tom DeLay, I think the fact that he hasn't resigned shows exactly how unwilling the media is to criticise senior right wing figures."

While we've seen the near-complete demise of the press conference as the American substitute for Question Period, I haven't noticed much reluctance when they're not face-to-face. Of course, the openly-partisan pundits have always spun things to favor their "side". And it's true that the Administration has had way too much success with waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 to mute criticism of bad _policies_. But criticism of _policymakers_ continues apace.

I think there are two simple reasons that DeLay is still in power:

1. Most Americans just aren't paying much attention to the details of what goes in Washington. If you ran a poll asking what the "K Street Project" is, you could probably get at least 80% of the population to pick an answer along the lines of "a new subway station" or "a museum complex". I doubt that even half of AARP members know about the machinations behind the Medicare drug benefit vote.

The Republicans believe, with some justification, that if their PR machine can keep the "partisan food fight" theme playing in the press, they can ride this out.

2. There's no "sex angle": the country largely ignored Whitewater, and all the other real and imagined "scandals" surrounding the Clintons, but I'll bet there was a statistically-significant drop in the number of girl babies named "Monica" that may still persist.

Unless DeLay is indicted in the TRMPAC case, it's probably going to take evidence of the proverbial "live man or dead woman" in his hotel bed on one of those questionable junkets to get him out.

[Al]

Thanks Ran, that was 20 hours ago. It would be nice if we could set our posts to be auto-updating, but as you know, they are not.

Also, it's in the "NY Region" section. Obviously, I stand by what I said: "Now, if DeLay's brother-in-law or say Santorum's brother-in-law was an informant, there would be special editions of the papers out and it would be the lead story on all of the news shows! Nary a peep out of the mainstream media over this!" In the NY Times case, it would be Page 1. At 9:05PM Central on Saturday, it doesn't look like it is.

[Big Gav]

Al, you've ignored Winston's question about is "doing good" a purely liberal value - but that doesn't surprise me for some reason.

I agree that the credibility of mainstream media being analysed more thoroughly is a good thing - as more people become aware the mass media is mostly just a mechanism for distributing information on behalf of large corporations and the people who back right wing think tanks they will start to filter which news sources they get their news from - which is why grassroots journalism is such an important new phenomenon - and why the advent of mediums like blogs and RSS aggregators is so good - people can easily assemble information from trusted sources and ignore the propaganda.

Of course, this doesn't mean the large news organisations should disappear (well, Fox should, but they aren't all like that) - they just need to strive to be more objective and more diligent so that people trust them again.

Scrutinising corrupt individuals like Tom DeLay more thoroughly would be a good start.