News judgments: Jackson or healthcare, or a little bit of both?

July 2, 12:41 PMTV News ExaminerIrv Kass

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the TV News Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

The future of journalism is a popular topic today, mostly among the biggest stakeholders, those who work for news organizations and their leadership. But the most important stakeholders are the public, on whom everything else depends. If consumers are not served well, they usually go elsewhere to get their news.

With that in mind, a look at three separate pieces of information offers some guidance.

First, a survey published on Wednesday by the Pew Research Center shows that coverage of Michael Jackson's death was too much for a majority of those surveyed.

Second, some media leaders, including the president of ABC News, say one answer to improving journalism is to provide unique coverage that viewers cannot get from other media outlets.

Third, ABC's own John Stossel offers a reaction--articulating his disappointment--to his own, apparently, unique coverage, about Canadian healthcare, being pulled in favor of more Michael Jackson followups, on 20/20, last week.

If we take the time to synthesize these three pieces of information, we may actually emerge with a bit of wisdom. As mentioned in this space a few days ago, wisdom is something too often in short supply.

As for ABC's decision to pull Stossel's piece, it happened last Friday. Jackson's death was still fresh news and, for many viewers, of overwhelming interest. So it's easy to understand why executives chose to pull Stossel's piece on the Canadian healthcare system; that doesn't mean it was a good decision. Most important, it is the kind of decision that is emblematic of the defensive, play it safe, approach to programming news. 20/20 still could have provided substantial and meaningful coverage of Jackson's death.

For producers, it's a question of balance. Was there room for other news that night? And would breaking away from Michael Jackson better serve viewers and hold their interest? Staying with Jackson was the conventional, safe, decision; that doesn't mean it was wrong. But when media enterprises are losing audience, losing money, and struggling to survive, offering an alternative approach might just serve all stakeholders better than more of the same.