Sounding off on weighing in

Every day, at least one of the news sources I follow on Facebook posts a link to a non-local story, accompanied by the invitation: WEIGH IN. Or SOUND OFF. Or the ever-popular: WHAT DO YOU THINK?

And I think: Go enterprise a real news story. The internet has enough rude, unmoderated comments.

The best reporting requires a little hustle on the part of reporters and editors. Ambition. Moxie. The best reporters do this, time and again. But in a Facebook world, it's not enough to report news.

TV news affiliates -- and some print-based media online -- now try to augment the good work of reporters and goose their Facebook traffic numbers by inviting followers to "sound off" or "weigh in." This is less vox populi than it is a blanket invitation to banter.

Media consultants tell TV and radio outlets they need to "engage" their audiences via social media. Thoughtful online discussions would be one way. But asking viewers to leave under-informed opinions on Facebook isn't engagement. This is simply filler. It upholds the tenets of news reporting not one iota. It neither informs nor enlightens. 

And the coarseness and veiled bigotry that often surfaces in viewers' comments -- often unmoderated -- cheapens the media outlet's brand. The comments at left came from a Facebook post about President Obama's taking part in a Memorial Day observance. Few of them reflect thoughtful discourse. More than a few are obnoxious. And there are far more repulsive comments to be found elsewhere on Facebook.

Should readers debate news stories in a public forum? Yes. Letters to the editor and public forums were the way it was done, 'til opinion sharing became the domain of Facebook. 

But "weighing in" doesn't deliver thoughtful dialogue. It often devolves into name-calling or worse. So asking viewers to weigh in reflects badly upon both the respondents, and the media outlets who resort to this form of engagement to boost their social media visibility.

We'd all be better served if they focused on reporting the news. 

. 

Popular posts from this blog

Questioning the New York (Times) Athletic Club

Image
The New York Times dropped the axe on its legendary sports department in early July. Sports reporting we read in the Times henceforth will originate with The Athletic, a younger (and perhaps more agile) sportswriting website purchased by the NYT Corp.  You'll find a good assessment of the move here .  As a Times subscriber, I have automatic access to any sports reporting it produces. I won't call it "free access," however, because my ever-increasing monthly rate for a three-day Times subscription surely will include a tithe to cover the Athletic.  But ditching the Times ' sports desk and dispersing its fine sports journalists and photographers to other NYT jobs? That's a loss. Here's why: Conflict of interest: The Athletic allows its staff to report on sports gambling, while some are paid contractors of the sportsbook companies. Is there a Pete Rose-style conflict here? I'd expect so. The Times allowed no double-dipping within its sports staff. The s
Read more

Readers get the (drive) shaft in motorsports coverage

Image
In mid-August, the U.S.'s premier auto racing sport will compete at a road racing course in Watkins Glen, NY. NASCAR's brutish Cup series cars will race in this rural community Aug. 20.  May 2023, Charlotte Motor Speedway. (c) DKassnoff, 2023. But, don't expect  The New York Times  to cover NASCAR before then. The newspaper's sports section -- now outsourced to The Athletic, its sportsbook subsidiary -- hasn't covered NASCAR since July 2. That's when NASCAR's drivers competed on the rain-soaked streets of Chicago. The Times provided no coverage of their July 30 race in Richmond, VA, or any NASCAR race since early July. The Times  has focused its motorsports coverage on Formula 1 racing. These are the expensive, open-wheeled, high performance racing teams once called Grand Prix. This class of racing is controlled by another media company: John Malone's Liberty Media, which purchased Formula 1 in 2017 and returned it to profitability. Visit the Times '
Read more

Your hand's already in my pocket

Image
I use an ad blocker, and probably you do, too. Every day, even on websites where I pay a monthly subscription fee, I see a pop-up that say: "We Notice You Are Using an Ad Blocker." And they ask me to turn it off. I don't. I'm already paying for that news website's reporting. Their hands are already in my pocket. And, truth is, I don't mind digital ads that are somewhat relevant to my tastes. Show me an ad for a guitar deal or Ford car parts, and I'll probably read it. Screen shot, unnamed Gannett publication, Sept. 2018 But I don't care about Patrick Swayze's secret son. Or what forgotten 1970s actress Loni Anderson looks like today. (I was more of a Howard Hesseman /Dr. Johnny Fever fan, anyway.) When newspapers relied on print ad revenue, I'd glance at those ads -- and sometimes, I'd bite -- because those ads were for local or regional merchants. They wanted to build a relationship with me.  They didn't try
Read more