Last weekend I had the opportunity to attend the John Locke Foundation’s Carolina Liberty Conference. One of the highlights of the weekend (which included taping an episode of the weekly show “The Debrief” in a hotel lobby) was hosted by Carolina Journal Editor-in-Chief Donna King, and featured news industry insiders. There was a media panel discussion to discuss the current situation. .
The panel also included prominent conservative media figures from North Carolina. AP Dillon, reporter for the North State Journal. Nick Craig, WAAV “Wilmington Morning News” radio host. and Mitch Kokai, senior political analyst at the John Locke Foundation, a colleague and veteran of radio, print and television news.
The panel always seemed to agree on what a huge revolution is afoot due to the power of the internet. Some of these changes were perceived by the committee to be very positive, while others were less favorable. I’ve made some of the same observations in my work in the media, and I find myself feeling the same way. However, there is no doubt that all participants gained a significant number of new ideas from their extensive experience participating in panel discussions.
Near the beginning, they discussed the “gatekeeping” function of traditional news media. Editors decide whether a story is important or trivial, fact or conspiracy. News consumers only see the finished product, the stories that have been selected to be of value to the eyes and ears.
The internet has defeated all of this. Today, social media largely determines whether a story is worthy of being talked about and consumed. When millions of people click and share something (even if it’s a passerby’s cell phone video), it becomes news. Newspaper editors may want to talk about other things, but it’s no longer their sole responsibility.
This democratization of story selection has highlighted another related issue: bias. Previously uncovered stories were often not published due to the biases of people in the news industry. This means that while news consumers are talking about what they consider to be “serious stories,” the mainstream media (a term now often used derisively for this very reason) is It becomes painfully obvious when we fight to ignore, ignore, and even suppress the topic.
One downside to the disappearance of traditional news is the growing hole in local and state coverage. Kokaj said he once went to see the newsroom at the state Capitol and found it crowded with people from all over the state. The space designated for the reporters’ desks has now been moved to a small room in the basement, but it’s still plenty of space for the few remaining reporters.
Local newspapers are also disappearing because their reach is much more limited and people are unwilling to pay for news, whether it’s in print or on paid websites. Consumers are also choosing to read less state and local content. Few people know who their mayor or state representative is, and even fewer know about the major current issues those officials are debating.
As subscriptions dry up, so do profits. And when the profits dry up, reporters on the ground get paid less and leave in search of greener pastures. Therefore, the story is not told. If you want to know what’s going on on the city council, you might need to follow her Facebook page, where she’s an avid activist, or log into the hyperlocal site Nextdoor. But how activists on the street frame this issue may not be entirely accurate or fair.
Panelists said this may actually be a good thing. If you have a clearly biased person from the right expressing their opinion, and another person doing the same from the left, both can make their pitch to the public in a transparent way. It used to be thought that there was a way to tell the story that was objective and correct, but in reality, the left is trying to figure out which issues are worth covering and which values to prioritize when discussing them. The news editorial department had decided.
The panel discussed how individual brands have become perhaps the most important factor as this disruption by the Internet has ushered in a kind of wild west when it comes to media, especially state and local reporting. Pete Culliner said he owns his brand because he moves between platforms from time to time and doesn’t want his former employer to have ownership of his work. This is not surprising. Because his fans are his fans, and he’s not necessarily a fan of iHeart Radio or anywhere else he hosted his show.
While this all-men, women, and children movement has many benefits, including low barriers to entry, authenticity, transparency of bias, and direct interaction with fans; A potential drawback, panelists said, is that there are so many news consumers. I’m just exhausted. There’s so much content out there that it’s hard to know who to listen to, who to believe, and whether it’s more information or just a distraction. .
There’s a lot to consider in all of this. But in an industry that has experienced turmoil, enterprising and smart media people like those on the panel will hopefully be able to weather the storm and come out on the other side with a model of success. . And perhaps soon thereafter, there will be another catalyst for dramatic change that people will have to respond to. The freedom of expression that we enjoy in this country will come at a small price.
david larson Opinion Editor of the John Locke Foundation’s Carolina Journal.
