What makes the news?
The question is as old as news itself and the answer(s) probably change with cultural trends. Today it's "lipstick on a pig". "ode to a certain plumber", "radical ties", and even a big wardrobe (this one malfunctioned way worse than that superbowl fiasco).
These items have been irritatingly dominating the airwaves over the past few months and it makes you wonder why. Who determines that any of these should be what we speak about? Why?
What's newsworthy?... the eight generally accepted factors that determine a story’s newsworthiness are:
IMPACT – the more consequential, the more newsworthy; shrug your shoulders and ask yourself "who cares?" about this news – the answer should be "a lot" of readers or viewers or listeners.
TIMELINESS – the more recent that something has occurred, or is about to occur, the more newsworthy; if it’s already been out there awhile it’s "old news."
PROMINENCE – well-known individuals or institutions are more newsworthy – and that could mean "well-known" in your local community or in your narrow corner of the blogosphere, depending on who your readers or listeners or followers are.
PROXIMITY – whether close geographically or "close to home" in a literal sense, i.e. close to readers’ values or concerns, greater proximity makes it more newsworthy.
THE BIZARRE – "Dog bites man?" So what?! Happens every day and what else would you expect Fido to do? But, "Man bites dog" or better yet, "Mike Tyson bites ear" (bizarre and a prominent individual involved) ... now there’s a story!
CONFLICT — controversy and open clashes are more newsworthy to most people than everybody getting along; unfortunate, but just the way we are.
CURRENCY (not the $$ kind) – when something just becomes so talked about and is obviously an idea whose time has come, it gets reported on.
HUMAN INTEREST – something (or someone) the reader or listner or viewer can identify with or be entertained by, is more newsworthy than not.
Despite what we learned in our journalism classes in college, however, none of these factors adequately address the aforementioned news items.
At the same time, Barack Obama has purchased 30 minutes of airtime on 5 networks (including FOX) and that "story" fits ALL the factors listed - and it fits them very well. Yet, the coverage of this is all but non-existent.
Sure, the media has reported this fact. But that's about all they did - in a sort of, "by the way" type manner. You'd think that a story like that would be all over the news - especially on the eve of its occurence.
Could it be that to cover it would, in a sense, create free publicity hence free commercials? Could it be that they don't want to "seem" biased against McCain (which would ironically be biased against Obama)? Could it be that the corporate heads are really not interested in anything that would even give the appearance of promoting Obama?
What's going on?