CNN.com headline from Monday, January 21 showed side-by-side pictures of Obama and Clinton.
Beneath the picture, the article talked about the significant role that black women will play in deciding the Democratic winner in the South Carolina primary. “These women face a unique dilemma: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?” That line was followed by a link to the “full story.”
Should they vote their race (Obama)? Or should they vote their gender (Clinton)? Those are the two key questions?
I find the entire article insulting. Why aren’t black women given the credit that the other demographic groups (black men, white men, white women, working-class voters, rural voters, etc.) are given? Why would black women be less concerned about the actual issues than everyone else? Why would black women NOT be considering what the rest of us are considering. . . namely who they think might actually do the best job as president?
Maybe the link at the end of that paragraph should point to “Less than the Full Story.”
Monday, January 21, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Everybody Look What's Goin' Round
I’m no daisy, certainly, but sometimes it is overwhelming. A snapshot of CNN.com on Wednesday January 9 showed links to 20 or so separate stories. Of those 20, here are 10 headlines:
Roughly half of the stories on the site at that moment pertained directly with murder or tragic death in extremis.
This death story ratio on CNN.com is considerably higher, I believe, than the death ratio of CNN’s TV news coverage.
None of these stories affects me. Not in the way that politics and world events and the economy and public policy issues affect me. These are tragic stories to be sure, but the four dead children and their dead mother do not inform my life in any important way. A father throwing his four kids off of a bridge doesn’t lead me to take any action or learn any lessons. They simply sadden me and shock me and make me shake my head in dismay.
So I couldn’t help wondering what pushed CNN.com’s editors to the point at which their seining of the day’s world news for publication resulted in this deathly detritus instead of real news that affects everyone.
I don’t believe that TV news could sustain such a high death ratio in its stories; national TV news tends toward broader stories with more national and international applicability.
Surely some of these tragedies would also be talked about on CNN and Headline News, but the broadcasts could not get by with having these stories comprise the majority of their programming.
But CNN.com, while global, really does serve a personal, what’s-interesting-to-me purpose. They can make it as trivial and tragic as they want, knowing that the few folks who want more substantive news can easily toggle over to another web browser instance. CNN.com knows that its readers want quick-hit 200 to 400 word articles about stuff that gives them a thrill.
That explains why web news and broadcast news CAN be so different. People expect different things from TV and the web. But what explains why the two ARE so different?
Simply put, death stories cause people to click. This is far more important, I think, than the tired old lament about the media gravitating toward bloody, sensational stories. For sites like CNN.com, this has come to truly represent their purpose; to not just provide news, but to provide tragic news, almost to the exclusion of other subjects.
CNN.com is a for-profit site generating advertising revenue off of its content while also cross promoting its broadcast ventures. Fine. The more clicks a story gets, the more profitable it is. Dandy. And apparently, the more tragic a headline is, the more prone viewers are to click it. Sad, but not surprising.
What is most pitiable about the situation is that the administrators of CNN.com surely have robust metrics to show PRECISELY which kinds of stories generate the most activity. I imagine the marketing folks with a sophisticated metrics dashboard at their disposal, allowing them to see associations between content and page hits in dozens of different ways. The editors are attuned to (and likely compensated directly for) posting as many of those stories as possible.
What this really tells me is that CNN.com has become what broadcast news wishes it could become. . . a revenue factory that is free (because of its format) to ride the far edge of sensationalism and tragedy to generate income instead of informing with actual news. Broadcast media doesn’t do this only because they can’t. Yet.
I hereby vow to use headlines as a screed to smooth out the concrete of my news consumption, pulling the news that I need to consume to the surface (for me to read) and making invisible those stories that are designed only to titillate and earn revenue. I will contribute to the bloodbath no longer.
Is this a big move on my part? Nope. Will it bring about any change? Nope.
But as Mother Teresa once said, “We can do no great things, only small things with great love.”
Four children's bodies found with woman
Hiker murder suspect now focus of Florida case
Pregnant Marine vanishes before testifying
Police: Spiteful dad threw 4 tots off bridge
'Brutal execution' caught on tape, U.S. says
KSAT: Medic never checked victim's pulse
2 children among 5 deaths blamed on weird weather
Man sees 'mark of the beast,' cuts off hand
3 die in 50-car pileup in fog, smoke
Investigator: Tiger attack victims will not face charges
Roughly half of the stories on the site at that moment pertained directly with murder or tragic death in extremis.
This death story ratio on CNN.com is considerably higher, I believe, than the death ratio of CNN’s TV news coverage.
None of these stories affects me. Not in the way that politics and world events and the economy and public policy issues affect me. These are tragic stories to be sure, but the four dead children and their dead mother do not inform my life in any important way. A father throwing his four kids off of a bridge doesn’t lead me to take any action or learn any lessons. They simply sadden me and shock me and make me shake my head in dismay.
So I couldn’t help wondering what pushed CNN.com’s editors to the point at which their seining of the day’s world news for publication resulted in this deathly detritus instead of real news that affects everyone.
I don’t believe that TV news could sustain such a high death ratio in its stories; national TV news tends toward broader stories with more national and international applicability.
Surely some of these tragedies would also be talked about on CNN and Headline News, but the broadcasts could not get by with having these stories comprise the majority of their programming.
But CNN.com, while global, really does serve a personal, what’s-interesting-to-me purpose. They can make it as trivial and tragic as they want, knowing that the few folks who want more substantive news can easily toggle over to another web browser instance. CNN.com knows that its readers want quick-hit 200 to 400 word articles about stuff that gives them a thrill.
That explains why web news and broadcast news CAN be so different. People expect different things from TV and the web. But what explains why the two ARE so different?
Simply put, death stories cause people to click. This is far more important, I think, than the tired old lament about the media gravitating toward bloody, sensational stories. For sites like CNN.com, this has come to truly represent their purpose; to not just provide news, but to provide tragic news, almost to the exclusion of other subjects.
CNN.com is a for-profit site generating advertising revenue off of its content while also cross promoting its broadcast ventures. Fine. The more clicks a story gets, the more profitable it is. Dandy. And apparently, the more tragic a headline is, the more prone viewers are to click it. Sad, but not surprising.
What is most pitiable about the situation is that the administrators of CNN.com surely have robust metrics to show PRECISELY which kinds of stories generate the most activity. I imagine the marketing folks with a sophisticated metrics dashboard at their disposal, allowing them to see associations between content and page hits in dozens of different ways. The editors are attuned to (and likely compensated directly for) posting as many of those stories as possible.
What this really tells me is that CNN.com has become what broadcast news wishes it could become. . . a revenue factory that is free (because of its format) to ride the far edge of sensationalism and tragedy to generate income instead of informing with actual news. Broadcast media doesn’t do this only because they can’t. Yet.
I hereby vow to use headlines as a screed to smooth out the concrete of my news consumption, pulling the news that I need to consume to the surface (for me to read) and making invisible those stories that are designed only to titillate and earn revenue. I will contribute to the bloodbath no longer.
Is this a big move on my part? Nope. Will it bring about any change? Nope.
But as Mother Teresa once said, “We can do no great things, only small things with great love.”
Monday, January 7, 2008
Nothing Better Than a GRN
I was feeling punk last Sunday, just cresting the peak of a January cold. Sick enough to be miserable, but not sick enough to admit to being so.
Wild card weekend in the NFL meant there was no football worth watching on TV. I was weary and uncomfortable and irascible and just couldn’t figure out where to put myself. I couldn’t get comfortable on the living room couch. We have no comfortable chairs in our house. The idea of going to bed in our bedroom seemed too much like admitting that I really was sick. So what was I to do?
The guest room.
It stands apart from the general traffic and bustle of our house in a kind of sub-space isolation. It’s a simple room, neatly arranged with a tidy little bed and an old fashioned writer’s desk. Quiet and dim, uncluttered and neatly appointed, it's a kind of peaceful in-home hotel room retreat.
I’m pretty sure there are few things better than an impromptu Sunday afternoon guest room nap. Door closed, shades pulled, asleep on top of the bed spread, covered by a light blanket, removed from the world for a time.
A guest room nap (GRN). I can't wait for my next one.
Wild card weekend in the NFL meant there was no football worth watching on TV. I was weary and uncomfortable and irascible and just couldn’t figure out where to put myself. I couldn’t get comfortable on the living room couch. We have no comfortable chairs in our house. The idea of going to bed in our bedroom seemed too much like admitting that I really was sick. So what was I to do?
The guest room.
It stands apart from the general traffic and bustle of our house in a kind of sub-space isolation. It’s a simple room, neatly arranged with a tidy little bed and an old fashioned writer’s desk. Quiet and dim, uncluttered and neatly appointed, it's a kind of peaceful in-home hotel room retreat.
I’m pretty sure there are few things better than an impromptu Sunday afternoon guest room nap. Door closed, shades pulled, asleep on top of the bed spread, covered by a light blanket, removed from the world for a time.
A guest room nap (GRN). I can't wait for my next one.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
"Subprime" Update
As an addendum to my earlier post about the meaning and misunderstanding of the word subprime. . .
In early 2008, the American Dialect Society named subprime the word of the year for 2007.
Then again, the same group chose plutoed (to be demoted or devalued) as their 2006 word of the year, which goes to show you. . . something, I guess.
In early 2008, the American Dialect Society named subprime the word of the year for 2007.
Then again, the same group chose plutoed (to be demoted or devalued) as their 2006 word of the year, which goes to show you. . . something, I guess.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
How Important, Service?
Took the wife and daughter to Big Cedar Lodge near Branson, Missouri between Christmas and New Years this year. Pricey by our standards, but it was a short trip and we like our niceties. (Note, the room we had is circled in red in the picture above. Second floor, all the way to the left.)
The first two days of our trip were great. We ate at the lodge restaurants, partook of a carriage ride around the grounds, bought a car load of souvenirs and generally acted like great patrons.
Toward the evening on that second day, our daughter started not feeling well.
Thinking ahead, I saw us perhaps wanting to check out a day early to get our sick daughter home. I stopped by the front desk that evening and asked the guy (we’ll call him John) about my chances of NOT being charged for that last day if we checked out the following morning, a day early. John’s response? “You’ll still be held responsible for that last day. Sorry.” He was implacable.
That night, our daughter’s fever spiked to 103.3 and by morning she was throwing up every fifteen minutes. We had to leave, regardless of whether or not we’d be charged for that last day.
I packed the car and went back to the front desk at 9:00 a.m. that morning to give them one more shot at doing the right thing. This time, I talked to a different guy (we’ll call him Andy), and I could tell before I even opened my mouth that he’d be able to help me out.
I told Andy my story and asked if I’d be charged for that last day. Andy’s response? “No sweat. I can take care of that for you.” Clickity clickity click. Done. No charge for the last unused day. Andy wished my daughter well and sent us on our way with a caring smile.
Had the first guy (John) with the obstructionist attitude prevailed, that resort would have made $269 more from me this year. But I would have left that resort angry, I would have never returned, and I would have made it my mission in life to steer others clear of Big Cedar Lodge.
Because of Andy, though, I’ll likely take my family back to that resort again around Christmas time, spending around $1200 on lodging, food, souvenirs and activities. And we’ll likely go back year after year.
How important is customer service?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)