Leaving out information

So in doing this is it making news dumber? I ask this because this week information came out regarding antidepressants and whether they work. I think this particular information was from a medical journal but my point is a big news story came out of it. People on antidepressants were worried and doctors were even more worried. Most of the experts that spoke about it made it clear the study was on specific drugs with specific people, it wasn't a generalisation. However, the impression from the news stories made it seem like it related to everyone on antidepressants.

So where am I going with this?

Well, this was one journal, one piece of information and it really scared alot of people.
Freedom of Information can have this same effect. Someone asks for a piece of information, they receive it and before we know it a huge news story has erupted which may have only looked at the information provided, not the context etc.

Could we consider dumb news to not only be "not intellectual" news but also news that isn't really worthy of being news but something that has been built up to be something it's not? Surely that's just as dumb.

When I studied Psychology I discovered alot of medical studies have a very small sample size, like the contraversial MMR and autism study. That study caused huge ripples and made parents stop giving their kids vaccinations in some cases. The trouble is often the person writing the journalistic piece doesn't take into account the sample size and just sees the story. Granted that's what we're trained to do but it can be very risky, like the MMR controversy shows. Whoever wrote that autism and the MMR jab had a link was dumbing the news down. They'd missed out some key facts and I think that classes as dumbing down.

We, as journalists, have a responsibility to not leave out facts and figures. We have to research thoroughly otherwise we're just as guilty of dumbing down as some of these dumb news channels.

Celebrity gossip

Today's news feed (28/02/08) had this as the headline story for The Mail:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/dailymail/home/~3/242672328/showbiznews.html

Granted, it's The Mail but still there's no wonder audiences are weakening in areas of serious news when what the people quite often want is just a bit of celebrity gossip. So what if Jordan wasn't looking great at Peter's birthday bash? Is it really going to affect the world? Personally I don't think so but stories like this are an indication of how much people want to know things like this.
The best selling magazines are things like Heat and OK - why? Because people love celebrity news. They love to hear about their extravagant lifestyles etc and a lot of the people that want this stuff aren't really too bothered about a suicide bomb in Afghanistan. It's scary but true.

Citizen journalism

Something I thought that has become apparent from other group's blogs is the technological advances and their impact on dumbing down. All this citizen journalism means people are creating the news they want for themselves and probably hoping their friends will like it too. So people are still catering for an audience it's just that the audience, like we discussed, is fragmenting. So how do we stop that? If that's one of the causes of dumbing down do we need to make news sources less available? Would preventing people from getting their news from different places stop fragmentation or would it just make people switch off? And if we allow citizen journalism to continue and the technological advances that go alongside are we just letting our audiences get dumber or are we just giving them get what they want?

Audiences

I think one of the main points our presentation flagged up was whether dumbing is due to audiences or the provider or both. Personally I think it's a bit of both, it's a real case of cause and effect and I don't think you can pinpoint who started it but no-one seems to be doing anything to stop it.

Just another blip on my Rajar...

After having spent the day hammering out Fal FM stories - alongside my Blue comrades under the eye of Pirate's Tristan Hunkin - some would say I have spent the day dumbing-down-the-news. And that could be a fair judgement, when you consider that during each hourly critique session we were reminded of how to colloquialise our scripts. And then there was Rajar....
Snappy news is colloquial news, is memorable news, is Rajar-box-ticking news. And, as we know, Rajar-box-ticking news is profitable news.
In the end, most news is a commercial operation. At the least discreet end of the commercial news spectrum there are the FOXNews, Channel 4 and GCAP types - changing sets, headlines and Natasha Kaplinsky's jeans at a cracking pace. Perhaps in a more indirect - but possibly more concerning - way, there are increasing commercial interests at the Beeb. These range from the incessant cross-promotion between BBC Radio and Television (and also between BBC1 through BBC100) to BBC Worldwide's recent acquisitions (such as Lonely Planet Publications) and its 6 commercial arms (Global Channels, Global TV Sales, Content & Production, Magazines, Home Entertainment and Digital Media). In fact, in the year to end March 2007, BBC Worldwide generated profits of £111.1 million on sales of £810.4 million. For some further reading, see 'BBC Worldwide Acquires Lonely Planet', 1/10/07: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/worldwidestories/pressreleases/2007/10_october/lonely_planet.shtml
As we were reminded today, radio and broadcasting are all about delivering audiences - whether the newsroom is motivated by advertising dollars or Rajar figures. Writing new reports today - and managing to make "Cleaning the decks to make way for Camilla: Mohammad al-Fayad says this is how a Princess was murdered" - I quickly learned the virtues of flashy, punchy newswriting. It sticks in the mind, hits the audience between the eyes... and, best of all, it's a guilty pleasure to write.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I saw this pop up on our feeds from The Onion (see right). Citizen journalism and righteous Americans in fine form:

"When I saw that the only thing following Mr. Ledger's name was '4 April 1979,'
I knew it was my responsibility as a citizen and a member of the online
community to do something," Yardley said. "Somebody had to click on the page's
edit function, and, using the correct font and syntax, bring the acclaimed
actor's life to the solemn close it rightfully deserved."

To fully appreciate the scope of 'Mr Blake Yardley, 34,' 's internet legacy, indulge in the entire article at http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_man_honored_to_be_one_who?utm_source=onion_rss_daily

We r now stoopida thn amerycuns

I think this link tells you everything you need to know about why news is dumbing down.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328088,00.html