By Harold
According to the program, P.J. O’Rourke has been labeled “the funniest writer in America” by both Time and The Wall Street Journal. His talk was titled “The Government vs. The Citizenry: Which is Worse?” which is definitely a set-up for some funny jokes.
So I was excited to hear him speak at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at UNC. But I wasn’t prepared when it turned into one of the most somber lectures I’ve heard in a long time (and unlike most people, I actually go to lectures, so that’s saying something).
Within the first 30 seconds, O’Rourke said he wasn’t going to address the title question, since we can look at both and decide for ourselves. Instead he was going to talk about the future of journalism: “It’s an exciting time, and I mean that in the worst way.”
He said that there were three reasons for communication — to inform, to educate, and to entertain. What, why, and Justin Beiber. But the Internet is best equipped to inform, since people can get information directly from the source as it happens, and to entertain, through sites like YouTube.
That means the only news of value that the media can deliver is to explain what’s happening. According to O’Rourke, that’s not what the media is doing. When Joe Wilson said “You lie,” everyone reported on what happened, but no one reported if Wilson was right. Another example he gave was the health care overhaul — everyone reported on the process, but no one explained what’s in the bill (though he conceded that even congressmen didn’t read all 1,900 pages).
I would love to think that focusing on education/explanation would make all the media organizations profitable again. But I’m not sure that’s realistic. I remember some long profiles by the New York Times on the details of health care, and to be honest, I couldn’t get through them — I switched to the stories where the parties were taking shots at each other.
Another example is the North Carolina Senate race. Like everyone, I get upset that there’s so much horse-race coverage — who’s polling better, who’s got a fundraising advantage. How is that helping the voters? But every week the UNC student newspaper, to its credit, takes an issue and gets each candidates side, and guess what? All three Democrats are basically the same. So what’s left is horse-race stuff and personality profiles. And that’s more interesting than reading about economic recovery plans, even though the economy is a more important issue.
This is a chicken-or-the-egg question — by focusing on entertainment and information, is the media just giving the public what it wants, or does the public learn to want it because that’s what the media is giving out? I agree with O’Rourke that focusing on education/explanation would mean the media is filling a niche that isn’t always covered by the Internet, but that means providing resources and expertise that local media outlets may not have, and I’m not sure the public would even be interested.
In any case, the citizenry is worse because we elect the government.
Laura
Harold
