Network News - At What Cost?

Scott Pierce questions the practices of network TV news in obtaining rights to exclusive interviews.

In his article, he mentions recent bids for the Paris Hilton interview, where it was reported that ABC and NBC were both working on bids up to $1 million. The interview ultimately went to CNN. But the point is that networks were willing to pay for the interview.

Now NBC said that it's news division doesn't pay for interviews. But, Pierce points out there are other ways for NBC to arrange payment. For example, licensing the use of Hilton photos. Or have a different division of the company sign a deal of some sort with Hilton.

Another example Pierce uses is again NBC's Today show exclusive interview with Princes Harry and William by Matt Lauer. I saw some segments of that interview and it wasn't until I read Pierce's article that I learned that Lauer was hosting the benefit concert. Or that NBC paid $2.5 million to air the show.

I had already noticed that the Today show was moving further and further away from real news. But continued to watch it on occasion. This has now made me sceptical of the information I get when I do watch it.

What happened to the concept of full disclosure? What happened to not paying for interviews so that there was not question of conflict of interest or slant on the story?

The Importance of Words

I think this article by Michael Miner is a good example of how the choice of words by a journalist can have an impact on the reader's interpretation of the story.

In this case, numerous papers reported on a birth order IQ study conducted in Norway.

Miner writes:

Here's how the Tribune headlined its coverage of the same story: "Study finds
firstborn kids smarter." The Los Angeles Times story began, "Wading into an
age-old debate, researchers have found that firstborn children are smarter than
their siblings." Here's the Washington Post: "Researchers have debated for a
century whether, as IQ scores suggest, firstborn and only children are really
smarter than those who come along later, but a study from Norway now indicates
that what matters is not so much being born first as growing up the senior child
-- at least for boys." The St. Louis Post-Dispatch was at least aware that the
study had a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. It published a
properly cautious AP report under the headline "Firstborns are smarter -- or are
they?"

The New York times article written by Benedict Carey never mentions "smart" or "smarter". Carey talks about "higher IQ" and also mentions that there are qualities that younger siblings learn that can not be measured in standard IQ tests.

Miner does a good job pointing out the differences in the articles that were all written about the same study. This really brings into focus the challenges that a journalist has to face when reporting on facts. Choosing the right word matters!

Links for some of the articles referenced in Miner's story are:
LA Times article: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-firstborn22jun22,0,4178426.story?coll=la-home-center

Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101215.html

St Louis Post Dispatch: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/0FE4FAA08D769A6086257302001354E0?OpenDocument