Karr frenzy existed only in journalism’s fevered mind
This AP story by Adam Geller illustrates much that is wrong with journalism today. Consider the lead and two paragraphs from the middle of the story:
Just as before, law enforcement appeared overeager and bumbling. Just as before, a hyperactive press went into overdrive, eager to pronounce guilt. And just as before, a nation of voyeurs proved only too ready to play pundit.
…
Pressed, he would not, or could not, describe just what had happened. But there was enough about his persona – a creepy narrative that included Karr’s flight from child pornography charges in California — to whip the media and the public into a frenzy.
“Solved!,” The Daily News of New York proclaimed across its front page on the morning after Karr’s arrest. Its competitor, The New York Post, described Karr as a “pasty-faced, peripatetic kiddie-porn collector.”
Where was Geller when all of this hype was going on? Perhaps participating in it? And just where does he get the idea that the public was in a “frenzy” about anything at all regarding Karr? Did the AP poll its readers? Did any news organization poll its readers? Of course not.
The press assumes that anything that interests it also interests the public, or it assumes the worst about the audiences’ interests and delivers the lowest common denominator (without really know what that might be). There is, in fact, on a day-to-day basis, very little done to discover what it is readers and viewers–especially distinct discourse communities–want and/or need from journalism (a contributing problem: treating citizens as consumers). One bit of proof: The idea that a general public exists. The general public is a fiction driven by the myth of objectivity.
The reality: Ratings and circulations are so low as a percentage of the population that it is far more likely that the average Joe knew little and cared little about Karr. Do you suppose that may be true for other types of coverage?
A picture is worth 2,467 words (adjusted for inflation).
I base stories on what callers/readers/letter-writers have indicated is important to know about. . .elections, public money spending, criminal justice system.
I don’t get “hyped” about anything, though. . .we try so hard to let innocence remain until court-proven, but just mentioning something about someone tends to put the information out there in a strong enough way for some audience, who may not distinguish between speculation and fact.
Aren’t there a bunch of people out there who still (in polls) believe Iraq and Osama Bin Laden were connected?
Sven… hahaha! Good one!
Tracy… I was discussing an “innocent until proven guilty” moment with my students today re: a recent fraternity panty raid gone bad. And re: your last question– yes.
I need to get you linked. I’ll try to do that later this evening. Speaking of links…Sven…do you have a blog? Have I just been missing this?
My blog’s still in development. I’m still trying to figure out what my “value-add” is.
Sven… If only others had your sense of preparation
But, really, you come up some some great stuff. You ought to consider it.