‘Cheaper to cover Britney than the IPCC’
Considering the undressed lengths that Britney has been reaching for press coverage recently, this is not a surprising. But thanks to Alisa Miller, CEO of Public Radio International in the US, this fantastic Friday headline is now legitimately used.
In a five minute talk to the TED conference, Alisa neatly visualises the American mainstream news media coverage in February 2007. This was on the back of some research from the Pew Centre for Excellence in Journalism and their State of the News Media report. Take a look at these maps, the first by land mass.
This is the world by land mass:
And this is the map of American news coverage for February 2007, by country covered:
Seventy-nine percent of the news stories from American network media covered America. Take out the US, remaining 21% is Iraq, little else. Combined coverage of Russia, China, India: 1%. This was in the month that North Korea dismantled nuclear facilities. Indonesia suffered from mass floods. And the IPCC released its fourth assessment report.
The leading news story? The death of Anna Nicole Smith. This received ten times the coverage of IPCC report.
Why?
The American news networks have reduced their foreign bureaus by 50%. Apart from a handful of NBS bureaus in Delhi and other capitals, there are no longer American network news bureaus in Africa, India or South America. As Miller makes the point, coverage of stars such as Smith and Spears is cheaper.
Meeting the audience needs?
Of course, Britney wants the press coverage and the audience want to know about Britney. But the audience also wants to know about the IPCC, to a measured degree, and the IPCC wants the coverage. As Miller is keen to point out, in the past 20 years, the numbers of Americans who follow world news grew from 37% to 52%.
I don’t think this is any surprise to those who follow the American news media. But the images are stark, and are a useful reflection of why critics of mainstream media need to continue to hold them to account for relevance to their audience and society beyond what is cheap and easy to cover. This includes the investment in coverage of science and environmental issues.
What about the internet? New media, new democracy, surely?
Well, not according to Miller. In the Pew Centre’s analysis of the 14,000 stories that appeared on the homepage of Google News in February 2007, only 24 news events were covered. In echoes of the conclusion from Nick Davies’ anaylsis of UK media coverage being little more than rewritten AP news releases (see Flat Earth News), these 24 news events could find their way back to AP and Reuters. News as recycled media reaches a new low.
What can we do?
Maintain critical pressure on mainstream news outlets to report directly from sources, such as the IPCC. Continue to provide audience to alternative media such as Real Climate and their assessment of the IPCC, IndyMedia, and ensure that you, I have a diverse range of media sources when developing our understanding of the news agenda.
Watch the video
