Editorial Edict or Evict?
The argument made by marketing directors to the editorial departments of television news programs, that editorials presented at the end of newscasts cost the programs both viewers and substantial revenues, in terms of sponsors and advertisers, is a particularly cogent one. Marketing directors base their assertions on statistics that viewers either switch stations or turn televisions off entirely, when end-program editorials are presented. They are very much convinced of their opinions, and make it clear that news programs and television stations are in the business not only of presenting news, but also of making money to stay on the air. After all, no program can afford to stay on the air without both a viewer base and committed, enthusiastic sponsors who are confident that their wares can be peddled, so to speak, to the former. News programs, and the news stations and networks to which they answer, can only charge top dollar to advertisers, if the latter feel that their products receive adequate exposure to a wide and informed audience willing to pay a fair price for their services and/or products. Although marketing directors do not usually come out and say this in no uncertain terms, they imply it, along with bottom lines. They usually keep their statements to a minimum and to the point, and oftentimes convince editorial departments already cautioned by management to keep editorials brief, easy to comprehend, interesting, informative, and, most importantly, entertaining, if that is possible, in order to retain viewers long enough to the view commercials and advertising spots of the program’s sponsors.
There are some flaws in the marketing directors’ logic, however. While their statistics may and often do demonstrate a loss in viewership during the editorial portion of news programs, that might be due to other contributing factors, which they fail to investigate sufficiently. The final portion of news programs, for example, usually herald the dinner time of most households, and coincide with mass migrations to the dinner table, at the expense of editorials that are many times lackluster in their breadth, scope, and subject matter. Furthermore, editorials are usually read or recited verbatim by newscasters who are dry in demeanor, perhaps not stylish in presentation, and who the viewers feel are not relevant to personal taste due to language, dress, mannerisms, culture, past points of view, or any number of critical, unconscious cues that make us love to love or love to hate someone, and, yet, for those reasons, keep us glued or unglued to the television screen.
Were that not enough, enter the playing field and the mindset of the viewing public of what is commonly known as “information fatigue syndrome.” In fact, the barrage of information to which we are constantly exposed carries a cost, both mentally and physically. The spotty memories, short attention spans, and drawn out, tired feelings to which many of us are subject are fertile terrain for the syndrome and its host of symptoms. The latter run the gamut from increased cardiovascular stress, due to a rise in blood pressure, weakened vision and the Japanese prediction of nearly universal nearsightedness in the future, confusion and frustration, impaired judgement, and decreased benevolence to others due to an environmental input glut.
What marketing directors fail to realize, even though they constantly research and statistically analyze viewer numbers, is that most people today get their news from news programs and the Internet, not from traditional news media sources such as newspapers and magazines. Were they to think about that for a moment, they would come to the conclusion that news programs have captive audiences, and that all that might be required to stop the hemorrhage of viewers at the end of news programs is a simple tweaking of formats, perhaps with the addition of those audiovisuals that we are all so very fond of. Also, a simplification of the form and content of the news would go far in the quest to ease information fatigue syndrome. After all, we have become a visual society that reads less, and both editorial departments and marketing directors need to come to terms with that. Both are in the business of informing the public and getting the news out. They just approach that end-result from a different perspective. Both need one another, like a right hand needs the left, and both cannot remain in business without financially solvent, viewer-friendly news enterprises based on mutually symbiotic and beneficial relationships.
Now, while all this is well and true, and while the moral high ground of editorial staffs often trumps the bread-and-butter of marketing departments, it must be reiterated that the news is a business in and of itself. Programs cannot survive, even with the best of intentions, if the revenues are just not there to buttress continued sustainability. Failed and failing newspapers throughout the country will attest to that fact, as every day we read or hear about decreased newspaper circulations, bankruptcies, and prestigious news and editorial staffs that have gone the way of the horse. If news programs are to fight the good fight, and if news journalists are to continue to present unbiased, informative news to a public starved to be informed but overloaded by the superfluous, then bottom lines need to be met, and that in itself is what marketing directors continue to insinuate, if not come right out and say. While we would all like to be moral and ethical in our choices, oftentimes that becomes the birthright of the rich. Without sufficient profit margins, marketing directors teach us, not only does capitalism on a wide scale suffer, but the right to inform becomes dangerously monopolized by the business “haves,” at the expense of easily manipulated news consumer bases of “have nots,” who have no real choice in their selection of news outlets or networks. End of case. End of unbiased journalism and consumer choice. End of this news story.
© 2010, Albert M. Balesh, M.D. All rights reserved.
posted by Dr. Al at
11/15/2010 05:46:00 AM
|
0 comments
