So far, we have looked at the current media landscape.
We have explored the web of ownership that might lead to conflicts of interest and pressures to suppress, distort, exaggerate, or promote news.
We have distinguished between first-tier and second-tier news media outlets—a somewhat artificial designation that exists in the eye of the beholder.
And we have noted that not every news outlet is designated as such. News aggregator Web sites, satirical comedy shows, and blogs each play a part in feeding the news stream.
What I have found so far is a fairly empty landscape when it comes to thinking about what the news produces in terms of content. My guess is that the voluminous nature of the news stream makes it almost impossible to study except in tiny samples—a bit like trying to study the water flowing through Hoover Dam by the eyedropper full.
In any case, here is what I have noticed so far:
Books about Education Policy refer to coverage by major news outlets only incidentally and never consider second-tier news media outlets at all.
Christopher Cross, for instance, in his book Political Education: National Policy Comes of Age, cites various articles appearing in major newspapers, but he makes few comments about the coverage itself or about its impact. When he does comment, it is without explanation or analysis [“The Washington Post, in an unseemly reference, called it a ‘political Jonestown’ (Heffernan, 2001, p. 472).”]
Even in the next-to-the-last chapter, Chapter 8 “Lessons Learned From a Half Century of Federal Policy Development,” Cross buries comments about communication problems of any kind as a factor in shaping public policy under the sub-heading of “The Federal Government Deserves a D in Implementing Programs, Building Capacity at the State and Local Level, and Getting Timelines Right” (p. 147). In this eight-paragraph section, astounding for its understatement, Cross quotes Barry White as saying that “when things fail, and they often do, it is almost always due to the lack of an implementation plan” (p. 147). Cross says major changes in federal law come with money for “technical assistance, training, and support,” and that this is a “problem that plagues all human –services programs” (p. 147).
The main problem? Communication. “How,” Cross asks, “does a politician explain [emphasis added] supporting the salaries of ‘bureaucrats’ rather than expanding services, even if the quality of the services suffers from the lack of the capacity to deliver them?” (p. 147). Then Cross says the “communication pipeline is inefficient and, as in the old game of telephone, messages are often received—if at all—with the content distorted as it passes from layer to layer, person to person” (p. 147). Web site designs are responsive to people seeking information rather than actively disseminating information. And, Cross says, the time lines in most bills don’t even consider school starting dates, when staff members are generally hired, or other important dates—information is not being sought or communicated. If internal communication is this faulty, can we assume external communication with an aggressive press is any better?
Books about Journalism dismiss second-tier media as unimportant. William A. Hatchen, a professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Wisconsin, mentions second-tier news media twice in his book The troubles of Journalism: A Critical Look at What’s Right and Wrong with the Press. While Hatchen presents a comprehensive look at first-tier news media, Hatchen also mentions two second-tier media sources without seeming to understand the importance attached to what he says about them.
1) On page 10, Hatchen devotes all of one paragraph to weekly newspapers, numbering, at the time, about 7,500. Hatchen says the total circulation of weekly papers was, at the time, around 55 million. 55 million!!! Hatchen has just finished listing the major daily papers and said the total circulation of the dailies was about 63 million. The circulation of the weekly papers almost equals the circulation of the dailies, but Hatchen only devotes one paragraph to this vibrant facet of print journalism.
2) On page 17, Hatchen says most of the news Americans were getting about what was happening in foreign countries came from just seven daily newspapers: “The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Chicago Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, and The Baltimore Sun—which all maintain overseas news bureaus.” What does it say that The Christian Science Monitor is never mentioned again in the book, even though its ownership and financial model is unique and even though it has earned a reputation for quality, neutral reporting? Today, The Christian Science Monitor is published weekly, but its Web site is still updated 24/7.
The academic world seems equally devoid of information about either second-tier news media or about the relationship between journalism and education policy. A search of several databases using the terms “second-tier” and “media” yielded nothing. Because news media often is concerned with reaching a particular market, I next searched “second-tier markets,” which gave me 1,114 articles—almost all of which dealt with the stock market or commodities. The remainder dealt with the real estate market and other financial matters.
Switching gears to “weekly newspapers” and “education” gave me 19 hits, most of which explored 19th century newspapers, college newspapers, or were otherwise unrelated. That’s not to say college newspapers should not be included in discussions of education policy. But the articles focused on management issues than on what they reported.
A search of “journalism” and “education policy” gave me 12 hits—all but one originating outside the United States. These articles will be the subject of the next few blog postings.
Stay tuned.
Stay tuned.
