While the networks claim that this was an editorial rather than economics decision, it does come at a time when most news divisions are facing cutbacks in their overseas divisions.
According to the article, a story becomes a major event when a top anchor in the field covers it. In years past, all three networks broadcast the evening news from Middle East locations, particularly in 2006 when Israel invaded Lebanon.
News organizations cite an overwhelming number of competing stories right here in the United States, such as the Presidential inauguration and the unstable economy, as reasons for keeping top talent at home rather than sending them overseas. Network top brass claim that access restrictions to the conflict make coverage, "just not worth it," according to Paul Friedman of CBS News.
The article goes on to discuss that while the networks argue that foreign correspondents have been assigned to cover the conflict in the Middle East, CBS News recently laid off staff in foreign bureaus, including Tel Aviv. And ABC News has worked out an agreement with the BBC to have their reporters provide news coverage from Iraq, therefore cutting costs.
Call it what you will--editorial or economics--but the decision by the networks to keep the top anchors at home, thus reducing the stature of any Middle East story from major to minor, reflects a growing media trend that allows broadcast budgets to determine what is perceived as top news.
If a major story is defined by the network's chief representative traveling to the source of that story, then we can assume that the decision by network executives to limit this travel has an indirect effect on the perceived importance of the story.
Naturally, there are only so many resources and so much money to cover all the stories out there that seem worthy of being brought to life. But the worry is that given the costs of competing with other news outlets for viewers' attention, some significant stories may become "too expensive" to cover.
Given the ability of the medium to subtly influence the audience by placement and length of stories, I wonder if selection of future news broadcasts will be driven by professional journalistic considerations of significance or economic expediency. Will viewers see a reasonably accurate portrayal of what's happening in the world or the world according to the chief financial officer of the network?
What do you think about the decision of the networks to keep their top anchors out of the Middle East? Do you think the upcoming events in this country and the lack of access to the actual war sites are reasonable excuses for this decision? Or, do you see economics more severely influencing which stories will be covered and which will not?
Hi there Wendy...
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting because I never would of have thought that these broadcast stations are picking and choosing which story is "worth it"..that is jusy absurd to me. I mean of course stations do have to pick and choose at some point but, what if they are leaving out the ones that mean soemthinga nd make a differnce just to make the budget cut??? That is frightning!!
i think its a very interesting article, because it breaks the balance between what marketers and business people, to choose whats good or what just makes the cut, in order to make a quick buck. stations are nearly what the next millions will generate from, so the amount of budget in that field is some what limited, and sometimes the worst choice is enough to make the payments.
ReplyDeleteI would love to say that the news and media deals with stories exactly like in the movies but i would be lying to you if i did. When it comes to breaking news, the bigger the better. But bigger and better usually means more expensive. In a way i'm glad the media prioritizes stories but it shouldn't be according to a budget. Keeping our top reporters home could make the companies lives easier and wallets fatter but what if something catastrophic is happening and we don't have a clue because the networks chief financing officer doesn't approve? Americas extremely economic fragile state has got everyone spooked and clinging on to every penny so i am not suprised that budget cuts and drastic decisions are being made but there has to be a better solution. Why not send any good reporter instead of a high priced top reporter? It seems that the people who are making these drastic budget choices have lost site on not only what makes this world go round but the future of it and the people who live in it. The big stories should have top priority, not the budget.
ReplyDeleteIt is common that we send the top news anchors to cover top stories. But, in this case would it be safe to say that they are not there, because we are about to change President's? Could it be that there are so many american citizens who are being killed or being held prisoners in other Middle East countries? Maybe it's because of the economy and the networks don't have the money (which I doubt) to send reporters to Gaza. Of all the places they have sent reporter's to cover stories, I would think that they would have sent them there. This is serious and the best should be there reporting for the american people.
ReplyDelete