Cross posted: Credibility & Eyeballs: What the Media Wants & One Way to Get ‘Em.
Spokane editor: Journos blast us, but readers praise probe Summary via Romenesko:
Spokesman-Review editor Steve Smith says his paper’s investigation of Spokane Mayor Jim West “has built trust in our readers and Spokane citizens. They know what we wrote is true. Feedback is running 10- maybe 15-1 in our favor.” He tells Leonard Witt: “I think our credibility with journalists is hurt. But I think this may be a sign of how disconnected some editors are from the sensibilities of citizens who want their newspapers to watchdog government and do it aggressively.”
Yup, absolutely. It doesn’t matter which politician or which party is in charge… citizens want the media to watchdog aggressively. They prefer Woodward & Bernstein-type journalism…than the talking points stenography of neutered journalists. Plus, in case anyone in the media has ever bothered to pay attention to this… people will watch/read if a newspaper or newscast breaks stories and dig deep into the government. Scandal gets eyeballs, and maybe it’d get something else the press say they want more of: credibility with the public. Politicians who are known as watchdogs are generally respected if not liked by both sides of the aisle. Local newscasts promote their investigative units, and so do national newscasts…but it’s all so “too afraid to come off as biased.” Sometimes the truth IS doesn’t go the way of a government official.
Media critics (esp. major media outlets) decried the undercover investigation that the Spokesman-Review conducted on Jim West. They pooh-pooh the false identities the newspaper’s PI set up. West was quite possibly a sex offender, and the newspaper wanted the case to be air-tight…especially considering the nature of the charge. So… not creating a false identity on the internet is worse than catching a sex offender red-handed? Boo-hoo to those media critics. Quit crying and start your own investigations. It seems as though the Spokesman-Review kept the investigation pretty clean and didn’t cross the line anywhere. Obviously, totally botched or biased investigations aren’t worth a lick, but solid investigations get you respect and are services to the public. You get some cred for protecting the public from corrupt government officials.
In other words, the media should quit the he said/she said bullshit, and just go for the facts. Journalism at this point has become reporting that one side says that 1+1 =2, and the other side says that 1+1=1. It’s stupid, uninformative, and lazy.
If I wanted stenographers, I’d just live-blog press conferences.
The media goes from reporting every lie about the Clintons (while rarely printing retractions) to avoiding anything that might offend the sensitive Bush admin.
