Debunking or confirming angry claims directed at Canadian MSM journalists
Top five list: What those on Twitter know or think they know about the news business
For every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. If object A exerts a force on object B, object B also exerts an equal and opposite force on object A.
Damn. Turns out Sir Isaac Newton was spot on. The Third Law applies to expression as well as other objects with mass.
From cellphone providers and airlines to major retailers and even food chains, I love reading customer comments on Twitter. It’s become a wild west for venting frustrations at empty claims and poor service. Sometimes there’s an outright and much deserved pile-on. At other times, it is what it is. At its best, Twitter (and other social media channels) gives a voice to those who have a very good point but feel absolutely ignored by companies or organizations. At its worst, this is a place for uninformed bullying that tests the limits of defamation law.
Enter the Canadian mainstream media (or MSM with a tip-of-the-hat to some whining politicians of 2018). Newspapers (digital or print), TV and radio, and those employed by those merging entities, can ill afford to ignore the bongo drums that spread anger faster than legacy news outlets. Journalists ignoring or dismissing the collective criticism do so at their own risk. It’s a simple fact - credibility must be earned and maintained. And that’s not happening. The speed of journalism downsizing can only be matched by the growth in corporate ‘wisdom’ that fails to keep the Lincoln Continental in its rightful lane.
Going digital should not mean neglecting quality or quantity when it comes to journalist content. Content is key - MSM needs to suck it up and give adequate staffing and resources in order to restore the reasons why a press existed. Reporters also need to break some bad habits like only sampling the opinions of a few in order to produce a story that somehow reflects the entire picture. Bring back mentorship, teaching, learning and best practices. It all needs to be fixed in order for journalism to survive. It’s also the best defense against swipes and contrary content on Twitter.
I offer this recap only as a high level overview. It’s this environment in which older news consumers have lost trust. The days of those in power fearing the media are gone. And the much sought-after newer generation of would-be news followers does not have the level of content that compels them to pay. Forget brand loyalty. The corporate model is broken.
1993 MSM
Customer: news audience
Product: news stories and content
Revenue generator: advertisers
2023 MSM
Customer: advertisers
Product: news audience
Revenue generator: (begging for advertisers and news audience)
People aren’t stupid - even the stupid ones. Twitter has given rise to those who find a collective dissatisfaction with the institutions they have relied on to provide news. There is anger in the loss. Some go so far as to scapegoat the media in a way that allows conspiracies to rise. All of which leads me share the five types of claims I see on Twitter.
Number One - MSM is biased
(True and False) To be clear, opinion writers, columnists and talk show hosts are paid to have their views known. An audience is drawn to hearing their opinion which may be based on what is reported by their own organizations or others. Journalists have a different role. Reporters should not be biased - they are journalists who journal their observations and also ask reasonable questions. They look to challenge a given message or spin. I would not be able to even guess how most reporters vote or what beliefs they hold. That said, I do know of a few who have fallen into a trap of giving their political opinions on social media - something that ultimately hurts credibility.
I have worked for two corporate media companies, three smaller broadcasters and freelanced for many others over a 35 year career. I have never been told what my opinion should be.
Full disclosure - at this point in my career, I am an opinion writer, communications professional and occasional talk show host with a background in journalism. As a radio host and editorialist, I do offer my opinions and beliefs. It’s what my audience expects. That also means I am also open to having people weigh-in on those beliefs, hopefully in a respectful manner.
Number Two - MSM has to follow what the government says
(False) Full stop. No. The government does not instruct reporters or tell them what they must say in Canada. No, editors and news directors are not told what stories to censor. Yes - reporters will lean into hard conversations that paint some leaders in a difficult light. They will also simply report what is said when doing so is the right approach. That’s their job. They should question what’s being said by both those in power and those in opposition. To draw conclusions based on what a reporter is asking is foolish at best.
No. Private news organizations do not get paid by the government. Yet this is a widely perpetuated claim on Twitter. That is not to say that corporations don’t receive various forms of tax breaks or incentives - this happens in many industries including telecommunications and the media. To draw any inference between that and editorial judgement is foolhardy. Even the CBC, which has a mandate inline with its government funding, maintains a form of editorial independence.
Number Three - MSM misses important stories
(True) Yep. A lot of them. But that’s nothing new. The only thing that is new - compared to 30 years ago - is an audience hears more about what’s happening from social media channels. What is important to you is defined through algorithms that end up in your focused feed. MSM is mainstream - that means the audience is wide and stories should be selected with that in mind. Health, heart and pocketbook are popular ways of defining what is important for news content offered by professionals. Also - impact, interest, location, newness, oddness and even fame. That means the media is not as fractured as most feeds. It also means it strives not to bore most of its followers.
But that is just for story selection. Let’s talk about freedom of information and institutional accountability. In Canada, many organizations including police agencies have reduced the amount of information shared with the public (through reporters). Only some stories about crimes (including homicides), accidents and public dangers are shared. This is a real problem and one that can’t be adequately countered in newsrooms with fewer resources. There is also very little public outrage over this situation. It’s a Canadian problem. Our courts are closed to cameras. Our emergency responders have switched to communications that are scrambled or can’t otherwise be monitored. Our Freedom of Information Act(s) favour ‘privacy’ over the public’s right to know. As such, we never learn about things that need to be changed in our society. Ten women in B.C. died of domestic violence in 2022 - most of those cases were not reported by police agencies or the coroner’s office. Not one of them mentioned domestic violence - something only discovered by some hard research b y those at Vancouver Rape Relief.
Police also refuse to let the public, via the media, know when they are searching for a dangerous suspect after a violent crime. That does not happen in the U.S.
The media is often not told of cases of corporate crime, sexual harassment or abuse, workplace safety violations, health violations or environmental damage…that is until a reporter may or may not stumble across it on court documents which could be sealed. It’s the Canadian society we now live in - one that is exploited by governments and agencies that know there aren’t enough reporters to hold everyone to account. It’s also a chicken-and-egg reality that hurts the utility of the mainstream media…not to mention its credibility.
Number Four - Reporters are told what to report
(Mostly False) As a reporter, I’ve never been told what I can’t report. As a managing editor or news director, I’ve never censored a reporter but I have guided them through best practices. I have told a general manager to ‘fuck off’ for trying to interfere with editorial decision making - no, I was not fired. Yes, I still received promotions.
Knowing what is a worthy or interesting story does take a strong conversation. Such conversations constantly happen in newsrooms. And yes, reporters are judgy when it comes to content. They should be. Stories are best when they have a ‘call to action’ and are interesting.
Most of the angry comments and social media engagement targeted at reporters falls under general repetition of a concept that journalists are puppets with strings being pulled. Quite frankly - there isn’t any money to be followed to make such assumptions. At most, reporters might be careful not to burn a source with a daft question. Politeness in questioning also goes a long way and shouldn’t be confused with a softball approach.
Still, there is a difference between earned media (news as reported by news staff) and paid media (funded by advertisers) and MSM plays in both fields. From some talk shows to national newspapers articles (digital or print), paid media has been growing and some content producers write stories that are inline with marketing campaigns. Chapters could be penned on the advantages and disadvantages of both. This is a growth area that often gets confused with true journalism and one can’t blame social media followers for not knowing the difference at times.
Number Five - Reporters over sensationalize everything
(Mostly False) If it bleeds it leads. It’s just click bait. We’ve all heard those topes. The idea is that some stories are sensationalized beyond the scope and context of reality. Of course, that’s not ideal. Yes, it does happen but I would suggest it doesn’t happen as often as you’d think.
In my experience, most headlines written in Canadian MSM in 2023 lack a grab and more often than not, seem mundane or boring. But then again, I am drawn to emotion in a story and used to take news release headlines (PR agencies, government or police) and toss them aside. Impact was what I wanted. Granted, that often took more time - something not widely available now.
Where I believe sensationalism is a problem is in the selection of stories offered by those who have hurt feelings, exaggerated experiences or no grasp of the concept correlation versus causation. This is where reporters must set the bar and differentiate themselves from those who spout of so-called facts or observations on Twitter.
There is a place for news and information on Twitter. There is also a place for a strong, trained and credible media. They can coexist and even be intertwined. What’s ultimately needed is an understanding of roles, lanes and purposes. That and a healthy dose of understanding.
Bruce Claggett is a 35 year veteran in the news media, having worked as a reporter, newscaster, producer/editor, senior editor, news director, journalism instructor and media consultant. He holds a BA (political science/geography) from UBC, B.Ed. (secondary education) from UBC and a Dipl. T. (broadcast journalism) from BCIT. He continues to work as a guest host on 980/CKNW, media trainer and communications advisor.
For daily updates on those stories making the news in and around Vancouver, you can subscribe to Vancouver Rundown on Substack: Vancouver Rundown