The excerpt from Upton Sinclair's "The Brass Check" focuses on the relationship between the press (specifically print) and its advertisers. Similarly, the excerpt from the Hutchins Committee looks at the relationship between consumers and creators of news. Additionally, the Hutchins Committee addresses the role of the government in news production.
Discuss what you think the news media's current relationships with advertisers and the government are like and how these current relationships have evolved or changed (or not) since "The Brass Check" (1919) and the Hutchins Committee responses (1947).
I think the relationship between current news media and advertisers is slightly different since Sinclair published “The Brass Check.” Sinclair describes the news as “bait” to bring the reader to the “hook” – the advertisement and the product or event it is promoting (352). I think this relationship has changed somewhat due to the fact that most people are getting their news online. In order to bring the reader to the hook/ad, online news outlets have to be valuable online news outlets, which means they deliver interesting news to consumers instantly. Online news outlets compete to see who deliver the most interesting news stories the fastest. In the competition for readers there is also a simultaneous competition for ad revenue – the more fast, interesting content, the more readers, the more clicks ads will receive. Advertisers, instead of censoring news media today, push them to be faster and more “interesting” and therefore potentially of a lower quality. The faster news is likely to contain factual errors or inaccuracies, as we saw most recently with the Boston Marathon bombings. The more “interesting” news may also be focused more on things like British royal babies and thigh gaps. So the dependence on advertisers for money may be driving down the quality of the news.
ReplyDeleteI could see, however, how advertisers today could censor the news, perhaps a little less directly than Sinclair observed. Online news outlets, in order to appeal to the widest audience possible and therefore generate the largest ad revenue possible, may stick to “safe” opinions and stories rather than risk offending readers. This can lead to a censorship of more controversial stories.
Similarly to the relationship between advertisers and the free press, I think the relationship between the government and the free press has not changed but has simply met similar challenges through a different medium – the internet. The internet has, in many ways, expanded on freedom of the press by enabling a greater variety of voices and viewpoints can be expressed and more information to be shared. But this has not been completely with federal restraint or attempts at restraint. While there seems to be no suppression of criticism of the government (if anything, online news outlets seem to thrive on scandalizing governmental officials), there seems to have been intense anxiety over the level and amount of information communicated via the internet and its implications for the nation’s security. We can see this with Wikileaks and with the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act…which you should read more about here: http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2013/04/18/cispa-passes-house
After reading your response it was interesting to see your point about the internet. As soon as I spotted the Internet on the page I realized that it had not even crossed my mind, although it is such an obvious evolution in news media. I agree that the internet has expanded the freedom of the press. From blogs, to ability for comment sections to be posted directly on the article, there are many different outlets for opinion. Our society today is greatly impacted by the speed and distance that news can be shared via the internet. I also think the internet has evolved the issues that Sinclair discusses about advertising. There is so much more advertising on every website that there is much more room for the dishonesty that Sinclair discusses.
DeleteI think that it is interesting that advertising has had such a long standing relationship with news and the press. Rosie, I agree with you in regards to the idea that advertisers push online news outlets to create news much faster in order to keep up with the demand of consumers. As you stated, this inevitably leads to errors in news reporting through factual errors. In terms of news censorship, I do think that advertisers, because they provide funding, do have an influence on what is reported and how it is reported. However, I am really unsure as to the extent. I do, however, still think that any negative news regarding a potential advertiser would be less likely to be covered by a news outlet even today because of the potential financial implications.
DeleteI agree with, Rosie, on your point about the the internet. The relationship online news has with consumers now is much different than before mainly due to the 24 hour news cycle. People now want their news available to them at all times and they expect a fair variety of news. As you've mentioned, this results in embarrassing mistakes for the news organizations. This past week provided a great example of when this happens with the Boston Marathon brothers, and the many reporting mistakes, with the one regarding his race being the most popular. While this convenience is welcomed by the general public, it could come at a cost for the news organization, because they will be seen as an unreliable news organization.
DeleteIn Upton Sinclair's "The Brass Check," he sheds some light on many different interesting topics of news. Many of these topics were not ones that I would have guessed were issues in the early 1900's and early days of news. He takes up an issue with press that misreports, distorts and suppresses news, and then discredits anyone who works against it (such as himself). He also takes the position that the system of advertising in press is a dishonest one. This was interesting to read because it was not an issue I had ever given any thought to. He pushes on to explain that newspapers are catering to the rich and "spurning the poor."
ReplyDeleteFast-forwarding to the Hutchins Committee some 40 years later and similar issues are being analyzed. This group of 12 came to the conclusion that freedom of the press was in danger. The issue was the lack of consideration for the general public's opinion. This is something that affects the press as well as the readers consuming the news, because the information they are receiving, this group proposed, is biased.
After some consideration, I feel that news media's current relationships with advertisers and the government have similar issues to the ones discussed by the Hutchins Committee and Sinclair. Big Business has a very definite role in the production of many news media outlets. However, this reminded me of my individual paper for News Analysis in which I am covering the Casey Anthony trial. This is interesting because in my discussion I talked about how the news and press is catering almost TOO MUCH to public opinion. For the Casey Anthony trial, it felt as though the news was working to make a more interesting story FOR the general public. This differs from the Hutchin's Committee in which they explain the little regard these big owners have for the public or its opinions. In this manner, I feel that news media's relationships have evolved. However, I believe that the evolution is due the a difference in what creates more readers. This has shifted to a more gossipy and tabloid-heavy news system in America today. Due to this, news has made adjustments in reporting styles and choice of reporting different stories.
Ryan, I really like your summary and analysis of this week's readings. I like that you addressed Sinclair's claims that advertising, in a sense, spoils the legitimacy and good-nature of the press. It is interesting that the Hutchins Committee, 40 years after Sinclair's work was published, decided to take him literally and hypothesize that the press was "in danger." I like how you mentioned this when you said that "the lack of consideration for the general public's opinion" was the main and underlying issue.
DeleteThe relationship between the news media and advertising is something that we explored in one of Dr. H's classes last semester, Media Ethics. General advertising is different from that of Public Relations or Marketing in the journalism world and I think you addressed this in the second half of your post. The news media is always going to spurn some people to find ultimate fault with everything it produces or intends to produce and some think this can be solved through advertising, but as pointed out, this is not always the case.
Great summary of each reading!
DeleteI actually agree with Sinclair when he writes that the system of advertising in press is a dishonest one. I am taking a advertising class this semester and therefore have though about it often. I didn't know that the press misreports, distorts and suppresses news, and then discredits anyone who works against it. That to me was interesting as well because I hadn't thought about that aspect before.
I really like how you tied your content analysis to the reading! I agree with you as a consumer of the Casey Anthony trial news and media, it really did feel as though the news was working to make a more interesting story for the general public. Big Business has a very definite role in the production of many news media outlets that can be seen in many examples, not just the reading we did. This evolution that you've identified is very much to gain a larger audience. The big owners will make more money if the public enjoys the content they put out. I'm annoyed that what makes me viewers is a more gossipy and tabloid-heavy news because I feel that it takes away from the true journalism.
Ryan, I really like how you connected the issue of public opinion in the media to the readings we did for this week. I agree that the media can in some instances cater too much to the public opinion, which can lead to the altering of stories and deviating from the facts of the case. This realtes to Rosie's post, and her idea that the internet has played a role in changing the relationship between advertising and the news. I see your Casey Anthony example as further evidence that news organizations will sometimes do whatever it take to get the most "clicks" on their website, which generates more advertising opportunities. In my opinion, advertising will always play a role in news because it is the main source of revenue
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBased on the reading of the excerpt of "The Brass Check" by Upton Sinclair, it is easy to say that there is a strong relationship between newspapers and advertisers. Advertisers depend on newspapers to publicize their ads on a mass scale. Newspapers depend on advertisers to generate revenue. As Sinclair said, "a newspaper is a device for submitting competitive advertising to the public, the reading-matter being bait to bring the public to the hook." I think that this symbiotic relationship is one that deters from the objective a newspaper should have because it makes earning money the top priority rather than staying true to the goals of journalism--writing to inform the public, without personal interest. If anything, this relationship between advertising and newspapers has grown stronger over the years as less and less people actually purchase newspapers. Advertisement is the biggest source of revenue for these struggling newspapers of today's generation. No wonder the quality and reputation of journalism in the world today is much less glorified than it had been in the past.
ReplyDeleteThe news media’s current relationship with advertisers is still a big part of how news is portrayed the newspapers. I think the way Upton Sinclair described the newspapers would basically let advertisements run the paper is staring to slowly come back especially now with the newspapers losing readers and starting to go under financially. I saw a little bit of this in my individual project, what happened was that the sports journalists wouldn’t mention or make a big fuss over an athlete’s scandal until the athlete came out with a press release so as not to hurt their connections to the sport.
ReplyDeleteIn think that newspapers are slanted still today only because they don’t always do their research they wait for something to come to them from or about the government though recently they being the New York Times has apologized about this lack of investigating. Think this has changed because now it seems like government is using freedom of press to protect itself, what came to mind for me was when Dr. Hettinga was talking about how you can fill out a form for information but what you get and how much you get is still determined by them. Comparing today’s newspapers and government with that of the article I would say yes on paper it would appear that the government has given freedom of press a little more power, but I don’t think it really adds up to much in reality
I forgot to add the relationship that both topics hold with newspapers. in my opinion I think they are very similar in the way that they can both control what they want to be released in the newspapers even though they use different means to do so.
DeleteI really liked the point Briana raised in her post regarding how some newspapers do not do a complete investigation of certain stories, and rely on other publications to do the dirty work. This idea reminds me of the type of journalism we have constantly been discussing in class, pack journalism. Since some of these scandals and stories can be a long and difficult process to discover, I agree with Briana by saying newspapers are slightly slanted and this type of journalism can serve as a cop out when writing these stories. Then when people like the New York Times are forced to apologize for the lack of investigation in their reports, this questions some away the validity that such a strong publication like the Times has.
DeleteAfter reading both the excerpt from Upton Sinclair's "The Brass Check" and the excerpt from the Hutchins Committee, I cannot help but feel that the relationships with advertisers as well as with the government has evolved especially in today’s world as we are living in the crucible of technological advancement. As Sinclair said, "a newspaper is a device for submitting competitive advertising to the public, the reading-matter being bait to bring the public to the hook." This quote is more applicable now than before especially as I mentioned in earlier blogs of how readers can now select and alter their news to their specific liking. I do not think that as Hutchins Committee tried to address, that the freedom of the press is being attacked however I think that public opinion and its value is being downplayed. The fact that readers can personalize what they read has altered public opinion of controversial issues and limits true discussion. Also newspaper publications are at risk of marginalizing their readers if they take it upon themselves to only report “public interest pieces or what they believe is of public interest. As I learned in American Government last semester, media (including newspapers) are highly responsible for forming public opinion as the majority of their stories regarding politics and government are released from the government, themselves. However, fluff pieces that tend to get more readers especially through online sites, highly alter public opinion’s value. I feel that this relationship has evolved for the worst in this case.
ReplyDeleteSydney, I agree that the government's role in journalism as evolved since the time of the Hutchins Commission, but not in the way that the commission may have anticipated. It is still true that the government should not impose upon journalistic content; however, journalistic content has become dependent upon the government, which is not always a safe dependency (Weapons of Mass Destruction anyone?). This is not avoidable since much of the goings on in the world will involve the government and media needs to get information from the government, but the relationship needs to become a little less comfortable. Whatever the government provides as fact should not just be taken at face value, which the media has the tendency to do. News cannot survive without the government, but accurate news cannot survive without journalistic integrity and a skepticism toward the government as a source.
DeleteAfter recently reading Herman & Chomsky's look at the news and advertising, it was both affirming and frightening to read Sinclair's "The Brass Check." An interview with Chomsky published in 2009 combs through this relationship and points out its many flaws. News stories must tiptoe around their framing of events or outrightly can a story based on who fills the ad space. This makes for a restrictive writing space where truth doesn't always get to the surface.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, the ad/news bond begins explaining many of its facets. The chase for breaking news is mostly driven by the need for shock value. The same shock that will lure one's eyes to as many ads as possible. Scare stories are meant to rattle one's attention to the page. News should always cover worldly revelation and devastation, but its framing always pays its dues to the ad space. It's a necessary evil with the business model of news.
The caveat to this relationship is the internet, which is changing the news, but also the consumer. With Facebook, Twitter, and any number of Blogs, the news consumer can shape their own news universe to their specific tastes. It can be as far right, left, or perceivably unshackled from ads as a consumer wants. This is no a bias or region locked affair. In fact, the internet opens the gate to other venders. In the past year, I've taken to Reuter's London-based news outlet due to their comfortable voices and fair depiction.
My third point is a little uneducated, but the internet's use of targeted ads could dilute some of this freedom in the future. While Sinclair's examples show a light tread on specific figures and companies, targeted ads are more broad in their sponsorship. Ad agencies, who dispense website advertising, may represent multiple companies in the globalization loop, and could degrade the voice of news farther. I'm not entirely sure how this works -- but it is a developing restriction.
Mass U.S. news outlets may not be any more free than they were a century ago, but the web does offer the consumer a chance at remedy. Plus, all pessimism aside, there is still plenty of good news to read today from major disposers.
Eli, I like your different take on the opinion of news and advertising. I am happy that someone looked that the situation optimistically and found pros to having personalized advertisements due to social networking sites. I think though the internet has allowed the quality of news to decrease, it allows more news to exist which in turn creates more need for advertising. Some information is bound to be polluted and filled with falsities, but that is casualty we have to face in a time when people rely so heavily on up to the minute news at all times of the day.
DeletePrior to reading Upton Sinclair’s “The Brass Check” I knew there was a strong relationship between the newspaper and their advertisers. Whenever there is funding, I feel as though the organization that is funding will have influence over what that organization is funding. Advertisements use newspaper to promote, while the newspaper relies heavily on advertisements for funding. It seems to be a two way street, but I believe advertisements have seemed to influence the paper as Sinclair mentions in the reading. Sinclair says uses the old adage “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” (pg 352) That quote supports his main argument of just how because newspaper relies on ads for funding, that reliance allows ads to influence the paper which Sinclair argues against.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the excerpt from the Hutchins Committee, the first thought that came to mind was the apology article from the New York Times, where they apologized for their wrong information regarding the weapons of mass destruction during the beginning stages of Iraq war. This article came to mind, because the paper relied heavily on information from the government without fact-checking or researching. I felt in the Hutchins Committee response reading, it talked a lot about the newspaper catering to the government, and I thought that was one of the most recent obvious instances of the newspaper doing that.
I agree, I had this same thought. Majority of online newspapers are free so I feel that much of the profit they receive is from advertisements, so they have to produce something interesting enough to draw an audience to their page. So in return advertisers are also relying on the papers, but this essentially places more pressure on the newspapers. I too also thought of the NY Times article in terms of government influence on the paper.
DeleteSince Sinclair wrote “The Brass Check” I think the news media relationship with advertisers has changed slightly today solely based on how technology has changed with how people get there news. When we think of newspapers today, lots of people believe they are going extinct, with how popular tablets, smartphones, and computers are these days. When people are on the internet getting their news, between pop-ups and ads in the margin, these advertisements can be seen, however they can be easily ignored since you don’t have to click on them. Also, with the technology today, some of the advertisements that do show up cater to what the audience has previously searched or may like. Back when Sinclair wrote “The Brass Check” the way in which companies used advertisements is different than how they are used today. By the reader today having the ability to “ignore” the advertisements that appear on their screen, this could not be done in the past. Companies would put their products all over the newspapers, both on the front pages and inside the papers so that readers had to see these products, which made them successful. Sure we have advertisements today on newspapers, but I don’t think they are as effective and obnoxious as they used to be when Sinclair wrote “The Brass Check. “ In terms of the news media’s relationship with the government, I think has pretty much stayed the same since the Hutchins Committee responses. The government influences the media, which causes the media to cater to what the government would want their audience to hear. This can be dangerous, because it could cause some skepticism in readers if they believe the news media is writing along the lines of what the government wants them to hear, and could take away some validity that the news publication has.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the newspapers relationship with advertisement has remained the same; however the relationship with government has slightly changed. I feel that advertisements run newspapers like Sinclair described. Since newspapers are going down and are now online and catering to the public a lot more in order to get people to view their page. Advertisers rely on the newspapers to get the audience they need onto the news page so their advertisements can be clicked in return. Since most online newspapers are free to access they have to get these advertisements clicked on as much as possible in order to gain a profit. So essentially the news does cater to the public a lot more now than what Hutchin's committees thought; however, they rely on the government itself a lot for information such as the example of the NY times.
ReplyDelete