Capitalism Corrupts Journalism...a little bit

You know that the times have seriously changed when a college newspaper editor is shaming one of the oldest newspapers in the country for the age-old crime of plagiarism. I must say that I am not surprised though even the Times has its occasional hiccup, but stealing from your competitors is a new low. How can you claim to deliver a better product (in this case being the most accurate and complete coverage of local and national news) and then steal the work of your "inferiors." It is indeed ironic.

As for the CJR comments criticizing the way the Courant chose to correct this mishap, I agree that simply rewriting the stolen material does not correct the central issue. The Courant did not have the permission of the Inquirer nor did it give credit to the original source of the information.

That said, Starkman seems to be overly concerned with the fact that the Courant was "treating competitors as though they were some kind of free Associated Press." My issue with what the Courant did is not about money; it is about ethics and social responsibility. This is the problem with the capitalist model of journalism. The idea that newspapers are competing not over the quality of their reporting but over how many subscribers and advertisers they have is problematic. The focus of editors has become pleasing and enticing the public instead of informing them. The CJR is right--newspapers don't deserve to make it if they continue to resort to gimmicks and consequently, lose sight of the aim of good journalism. But perhaps another reason newspapers are declining is because in their haste to grab the consumer, they forget to do their job. Produce a good paper and never mind that your sales are decreasing ever so slowly. Call me idealistic, naive even. But I would rather have a quality newspaper with 246 years of "integrity and credibility," than see one slowly waste away to become nothing more than a tabloid over the next 20 or 50 years.

Viral Culture, Viral Obsession

Okay so I was reading this book about the "viral culture" of the media. The author, Bill Wasik, argues that the new outlets of media-- blogs, online videos, e-mail, websites-- have all taken on a viral way of spreading information.

Nowadays news stories are reported sort of like hit-and-run car accidents. A story is reported, almost instantly there is a mass flood of attention and then it's gone. Like the Annie Le story, it was like we cared for five minutes and now.... Annie who? Even the most tragic stories are only given fifteen minutes of fame and then it's over. There are always exceptions though (i.e. O'Jay Simpson and Jon Benet). But besides those special stories that seem to mutate into objects of social obsession, I agree that the country goes through stages of ADD. Last year, the obsession was Obama-mania, then swine-flu, or the AIG bonuses. It is interesting to see how an event with moderate significance is reported over and over again until the public gets the hint that they should obsess about this as well. The problem then becomes who gets to decide what we obsess about. I will admit that I am a sucker for conspiracy theories and that I imagine someone like Rupert Murdoch is behind some mass plot to incite all liberals to madness. But that is so irrational, or is it?