News as a Business

"Make the story sizzle," said the editor.
"But what about the steak?" asked the reporter.

   Newspapers don't mold public opinion so much as they reflect it. For that reason, publishers are careful not to antagonize readers too much lest they lose subscribers and, in turn, lose advertising revenue. The same holds true for broadcast media, since both are, in essence, businesses, and their function is to make a profit for the owners.
   There is, of course, a wall between the newsroom and the advertising and circulation departments and little communication between reporters and sales agents. Nevertheless, the top editor does talk to the publisher, and both tend to be careful about dissing the advertisers. The best newspapers are big enough to withstand pressure from advertisers, but that pressure sometimes happens. But a newspaper fails in its mission if it caves in to advertiser demands and modifies its news coverage to mollify complainers. However, in doing so, the publication may lose the confidence of its readers, who then find their information elsewhere and the newspaper goes out of business. It is, after all, a profit-making enterprise.
   So there is sometimes a fine line to walk, as publishers try to satisfy advertisers and readers at the same time. One way to do that is to aim news coverage at a group of readers sympathetic to certain political beliefs that match those of advertisers. In turn, advertisers tune their pitches to harmonize with those beliefs.
   All of which raises this question: Are newspapers and broadcast media truly independent, or are they bound to one or another set of beliefs?
   The answer is yes, both of the above.
   A quality news operation can be very expensive, and its primary source of revenue is advertising. In television, it's the only source of revenue. In daily newspapers, there is a cover price, but that barely pays for the cost of the paper it's printed on.
   To attract readers or viewers -- and simultaneously advertisers -- a news operation typically focuses on the "hot story." For some, this descends into sensationalism as reporters, writers and news anchors work to make the story sizzle.
   As a result, this competition for "hot stories" brings less nutritional information to the public.
   Some have suggested that one answer would be a state-supported news media, removing the profit-maximizing hunger. The danger there, however, is that the government would thus control the flow of information. In other words, propaganda.
   But the culture within a nation must be considered. Britain has the BBC, and America has radio and TV operations that are largely listener-supported. The BBC is supported by license fees collected by the government, but the government generally has little influence on content or coverage. Perhaps that may be because it has not tried. That, however, is also a cultural issue.
   Information is imperative to a savvy electorate. But that doesn't mean the presentation is neutral. For every Fox News operation, which leans strongly to the right, there is an MSNBC. which leans heavily to the left. And CNN tries to stay to the middle.
   In effect, this gives American viewers a choice of where they get their news and opinions. Coupled with the wide range of newspapers and magazines, the availability of information can satisfy a news-hungry public.
   That is, of course, assuming that the consumers of the product -- readers and viewers -- line up at the smorgasbord and partake of the information offerings.
   However, that could also be a heroic assumption, since many would rather watch The Muppet Show.