Why does scandal sell?

On CBC's Cross-Country Checkup yesterday, there was an intriguing discussion of whether Ottawa (collectively, the media and politicians)  was too caught up in scandal. It was a clever way of using scandal to protest about scandal, but that's another point. For what it's worth, here's the two cents I was offering (aloud, while cooking in the kitchen) as the broadcast unfolded. 

* Neither the media nor the politicians decide the pre-eminent story in a vacuum. If scandal sells, someone's buying. That would be you, the readers/consumers of news. Some callers made this point. And these days, our editors can actually quantify, immediately, the kind of stories that people want to read, through web stats. Thousands and thousands of people have  "clicked" on our stories about the Guergis-Jaffer controversy. I haven't seen the web statistics for the Liberals' thinkers' conference, which was preoccupied with matters of pension reform, foreign policy and the digital future, but I doubt it holds a candle to the readership of stories about sex, drugs and errant politicians. 

* It is true there is little reward for politicians who want to talk about policy or have discussions in shades of grey, rather than black and white. The media spent the last year ripping apart the Liberals for not tackling policy discussions, then rewarded the three days of Montreal policy discussions (see above) with either minimal coverage or snide dismissal from folks who didn't even attend.  The New Democratic Party regularly uses Question Period to tackle policy issues.  It's heartening to see, in fact, day to day. The reward, in poll numbers or media attention? Nil. 

The Prime Minister knows this -- why do you think he only takes two questions at his rare press encounters? The less politicians say, the better. Note that Harper been saying nothing about anything quite some time now -- it's only the Guergis-Jaffer affair that has attracted some attention/criticism about his minimalist attitude to disclosure. 

* This all said, much of the  Cross-Country Checkup discussion yesterday revolved around journalism as the business of giving people the information they want.  Should we only do stories that get a massive amount of clicks on the website? Of course not. There is, I hope, still room for the public-service model of journalism. When you hear people say: "No one cares about the Afghan-detainee story," I'm not sure how we should respond. Okay, we'll stop looking into it then? Throw some busty hookers into the debate? 

* And one final point, which I sort of said when I was on The Current last week. At the risk of sounding whiny, it's worth noting that politics takes up a lot less space in the news than it used to occupy. There used to be room in the paper for the serious and the scandalous. We managed to cover all of Mulroney's ministerial resignations in the 1980s, as well as free trade and the constitutional travails. Now, as a result of a combination of factors -- shrinking news pages and fewer reporters, the triumph of consumer journalism over the public-service model, the tendency of the media to inflate one story at the expense of others (a trend that one smart friend of mine traces to Princess Diana's death) -- there just isn't the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.  I think there's probably a whole discussion that can be had here around the idea of competition -- are we competing to be the same, or competing to be different? But this blog post is long enough. 

Comments most welcome.

Comments

[Wascally Wabbit]

I'd take your point a step further Susan.
While many of us seem to assume these days that politics is "the art of the possible" - minimizing the potential of any politician or political party (even someone outstanding like Barack Obama) to effect change - and apparently forcing politicians to test anything remotely dramatic on profile groups before officially proposing them - we can see that an incremental approach to achieving a far ranging change (such as the approach that Prof. Tom Flanagan has advised PM Harper on to minimize the value and ultimately the size of government) can fly below the radar - if the main stream media doesn't do its job and key on it.

I'm of the mind that Canadians generally want our leaders to do what they can to maintain our little world as "distinctly Canadian" in the policies they propose - and I suspect the main reservation we have with PM Harper (or for that matter Michael Ignatieff - at least until he proposes some clear differentiators) - is that they both seem - at the moment - to be trying to make us more "North American" which to me means more American - and - when I hear news stories of huge rallies in Washington planned for this week - where NRA supported protesters are trying to force the Federal government to permit the open carrying of arms (hand guns) in public - I want to rear back and adopt the only policy of PM Haprer's that might be appropriate in this situation - that is - to building a fire wall around Canada - to keep that American influence out!

[David Gagnon]

Listened to Checkup, too.

Is much of the 'earned media' unquestioned by desperate editors ... instead of 'what matters to citizens and society' ?

For example, a semi-proven medical theory which may lead to treatment in a decade.

'Fairness at the pumps' - nothing happened the last time it was mentioned. What are the chances this would be relevant (i.e. protect them or save them money) to the average person watching during the next year? Covered again like 'news' !

New political polls are covered breathlessly like an on-going horserace. The only poll that counts ...

Seal in the Parliamentary Cafeteria !!

Media memory? Did the Canadian government eventually hire those promised meat inspectors? Are they inspecting the killing floor (NB: punchy! words!) or are they still doing paperwork at their desks all day?

Perhaps the demand for 'interesting news' which is 'happening now' or 'breaking now' exceeds assignment editors' ability to weigh which stories actually matter?

[FloolwingwithInterest]

I though Robin Sears talking about new social media was ironic - isn't he the one who set up a webcam in the Mulroney hearings - trained on reporters to catche them snickering at times *he* deemed inappropriate after making similar claims on his Mulroney-spin website?

It's a incestuous lot on parliament hill - old time reporters, new ones, all now connected in with frindly politicians etc - so it leads to a public feeding frenzy.

But, underlying the scandals, there are some legitimate issues - as Bob Rae summed up on The Current last week dealing with conflict of interest, misuse of parliamentary budgets/assets.

Personally, I'm interested in finding out if both Jaffer and Guergis paid full tuition themselves for their 2009 Executive MBAs at the U of Alberta (Edmonton) (2010 tuition $58,000) and did they pay for their personal flights every two weeks for 20 months to/from Edmonton - Guergis for the whole period, and Jaffer after he was defeated. Susan, how about asking Helena to clarify in an e-mail?

[J. Teller]

>>Neither the media nor the politicians decide the pre-eminent story in a vacuum. If scandal sells, someone's buying.<<

Someone wouldn't buy if the story wasn't being covered. It starts with the journalists and they feed the public, not the other way around. The bulk of the media coverage has dealt in speculation and rumor as opposed to cold, hard facts, and the Star has milked the living crap out of this to the point of debasing itself (and the media) by reporting about Helena Guergis miscarriage which has NOTHING to do at all with the reasons for her dismissal from the Tory caucus.

That, Susan, isn't journalism. That's a smear. It's irresponsible and cruel. Guergis might be a screwup of epic proportions, but when the coverage of the story becomes the story, then it's a big red flag for all journalists to re-read that part about ethics they learned in journalism school.

[FloolwingwithInterest]

"by reporting about Helena Guergis miscarriage which has NOTHING to do at all with the reasons for her dismissal from the Tory caucus."
.
This in all likelihood would not have been reported unless it was initiated by the Guergis camp itself. Think about it. A desperate effort for sympathy - that appears to be working (see L. Ian Macdonald). For that reason, I agree. It shouldn't have been reported.

[Catherine]

Rex Murphy irritated me, yesterday, on Cross-Country check-up.

While assuring us that the Harper party was trustworthy, and criticizing Ignatieff for tackling the deportment of one of Harper's deciples, he took a jab at journalists.

While Murphy himself, left untruths lie as truths.

One caller mistakenly made allowances for Guergis because of her 'young daughter.' And managed to portray her as a victim.

So, female politicians without children are measured differently?

But, Rex didn't waiver from his blue blood.

[MyThought]

Easy on Rex there - he only has three subjects, bash climate change, bash Ignatieff and Obama and toot Harper.

Just check it out - that's about all he writes about. I don't read him anymore.

NDP only have a handful of questions to ask so it shouldn't be hard for them.

[Kingston]

Susan, I have no intention of allowing you and your comrades off that easy, it is plan to see that the media is backing tracking huge on this story as the see possible massive law suits heading their way for not confirming information. What happen to that age old principal that it is not a story until it has been confirmed by more then one person and they are willing to put their name to it. Bob Fife led this mess with the able assistance of Jane and Kady and the rest of the media jumped into the pool with them. I think it is time all of you think back to your basic journalism courses and start to report according to what you were taught. Fair, Accurate, Confirmed, and Timely would be some keywords I would right on my keyboard after this mess.

[George Dyson]

Since when is 'news' about popularity? It should not matter what salacious gossip is around out there, news media should report all the news equally. It should not be treated like a popularity contest.
It is up to the media to report responsibly, with context, and with good analysis, on all new events within their geographica horizons - how many people read a story should have absolutely no bearing on whether a story is newsworthy.

Unfortunately, it seems that news reporting has to compete with other more titillating broadcasts and only items which garner large viewership/readership are deemed worthy. Is it any wonder that the public is woefully ignorant of many of the important , if dull, happenings in the world if all they are fed is gossip? Is it any wonder that news reporting is becoming so trivialised and narrow in scope?

I despair at this trend in news reporting - lowest common denominator thinking.
We are becoming a very superficial and ignorant culture.

[Robin Ottawa]

Good points on an important topic. One of the columns that grabbed the attention of a lot of (online) readers recently was that of Dan Froomkin who was at the Washington Post from about 2003 - 2009. He had a story tracking system. The details are not important - what was crucial and different was that you knew you could get an overview update on any story he followed. I have found very few similar services on the Internet - I seem to be left to do the digging myself. Why? Facts are being dug up all the time. Someone should find them and summarise them, with links. I'd buy into that.

[Gabby in QC]

Roy MacGregor wrote an interesting column on March 14.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/when-journalism-is-about-hits-the-craft-goes-amiss/article1500373/
"Why be a storyteller when a ranter will have far more traffic? Why be *investigative* when *instigative* is a far quicker route to success on the Web?"

And that sums up what has been happening to journalism.
It's the cooks who're cooking and serving up the slop to the diners, not the other way around.

As happened in the case of Lady Di, there's a period of cursory hand-wringing and examination of conscience ... just in case there are some repercussions around the corner. But then it's back to business as usual: rumour, gossip, and cutting down to size.

[Frank Docherty]

Saying how much or how little Canadians care about Afghan Detainees is not the issue that is at the heart of the Afghan Detainee Investigation. The heart of the matter is Ottawa's neglect to act on reports of war crimes being committed, and, Ottawa's continued denial and diligent effort to not allow the facts to be presented before the courts ( http://fairwhistleblower.ca/content/richard-colvins-catch-22 ) Richard Colvin is not allowed to talk about redacted facts that could vindicate him. Canadians need to read the Richard Colvin testimony as told under oath ( http://fairwhistleblower.ca/cases/richard_colvin ) The PMO is now doing to Richard Colvin, what it did to Joanna Gualtieri ( http://fairwhistleblower.ca/content/experts-see-link-between-gualtieri-colvin-cases ) for 12 tumultuous years.

[Lou]

So why were you not all over climategate - the public is VERY interested in that, but you all ignored it!!!!

[Wascally Wabbit]

Frank Doherty nails this issue - whether he recognizes it or not.
All of this obfuscation notwithstanding - and whether the Canadian public is "interested" or not - surely the federal government is to be held to account as to whether it knowingly broke the law i.e. the Geneva Convention that one of Mr. Harper's more honourable predecessors (Lester Pearson) helped to craft. Mr. Harper's cynicism is now becoming monumental - if I think the Canadian public don't care if some dark skinned men in a far off country are tortured by some of their own - I'll ignore a fundamental international law - a direct continuation of the advice that he and his Reform colleagues gave to Canadians back when the Gun Registry was enacted - in response to the concerns of many after the Montreal Massacre - ignore it - send in wrong information - do what you can in the way of civil disobedience to kill this program...

[Moosecall]

What I find (I hope there are those that can see this happening "to" them), is that those who say things like "No one cares about the Afgan-detainee story", are trying to and perhaps succeeding in speaking for the Canadian public when in fact, those particular people are either speaking for their particular political party, or for just themselves, not all Canadians.

I would hope that those whose opinion is supposed to speak for "all" Canadians is taken with a small grain of salt. A very tiny one.

For journalists, trying to anticipate what Canadians need to know, and what Canadians want to know is sadly NOT that hard to do. When things are simple and people don't have to think too hard about the consequences of what is being done "to" them, then that seems to suit the general public quite well.
But policy matters are another thing altogther. Something many people find boring since they are used to things not changing so that they may be hurt by what changes in policy could do to them. Changes in policy? Nah, it wouldn't hurt me, would it?

That wonderful phrase "back in the good old days" comes to mind when there was more policy being put out, even though there was a guarentee of a scandal or two, (or three, or four....). You did have things that were worth talking about. Scandal or no scandal.

But then what "gov't policy" can you discuss when you aren't TOLD what it is?

There's no question the PM likes it that way. Journalists can "be allowed" to ask questions, just don't expect the PM to answer any of them.

But between the PM not talking to the media about anything from policy, to Afgan-detainees, to the Jaffer-Guergis scandal, there's lots to write about, just nothing that the gov't will give specifics about. That, on the part of the Prime Minister, is sad indeed.

You NEED THE PM to be open to questions for the media to be able to do their job.

That what is written is not their fault. It's as truthful as anything that can be written.

From policy to scandal, the media are the voice for Canadians when questions are to be answered. It's not their fault when the PM controls what is news worthy and what isn't. And when he won't tell you "what" his policy IS, the media must decide what he is doing and thinking. Not a good policy for the PM.

That the PM won't answer questions doesn't give them much of substance in policy to write about, which is something, by actions that have never changed, that I'm sure Stephen Harper wants to continue to do.

[hollinm]

Question...what will be accomplished if in fact it is "proven" that the military transferred Afghan detainees knowing they will be tortured. Canada may or may not be accused of war crimes. Remember it is not Mr. Harper or Mr. McKay who will be charged with war crimes it is Canada. So the high and mighties who keep screaming about detainee abuse will be supposedly vindicated. What then? Canada will have been marginalized in the world and for what? The Libs decided to change the protocol and turn Afghan detainees over to the Afghans. There was no plan available to do otherwise when the Conservatives took power. So then after all the knashing of teeth we have an election and Harper is elected with a majority government. What then? What has all of this navel gazing accomplished. Chretien stopped the Somalia inquiry because the results would have had a devastating impact on the country. The same holds true here. We are trying to "get" the PM because nothing else is working for the opposition. Trying to destroy the good work the military has done in Afghanistan is a big price to pay trying to gain some partisan advantage under the guise of war crimes.

[Karen Krisfalusi]

I think it's not an either/or game. Journalism is a community of professionals at the crossroads of a changed relationship to their audience. Hecklers like me are teaching the next act. We can canadanewsfeed your product any damn way we please and that's your most pressing relationship issue. Hits/missess-keeping readers engaged the right way is the challenge. You let the audience direct your show? And teach them how? That's your problem.

[Frank Docherty]

While the comments are still open, does anybody mind if I hammer another nail in the coffin? ( http://fairwhistleblower.ca/content/federal-lawyer-may-have-broken-conduct-rules-mp ) This isn't rocket science folks - if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck... it's a duck !!!

[Frank Docherty]

Do you like stories? True Stories? Joanna Gualtieri told a true story, and Richard Colvin is telling a true story... ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmnbXj6E430&feature=fvst ) What does it take to make you a beleiver?

[Frank Docherty]

How could Canada possably sweep war crimes under the carpet, the Afghan Detainee Torture Investigation? ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u0GJdNu1Ds ) It's an "Eminence Front", a put on! If that is not true, dare I challenge you to explain the justification for such a violation of current human rights standards???

[Frank Docherty]

Do the Harper Conservatives support members of their Party who do Cocaine??? ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXuv7m-5_gw ) Is it safe to support this kind of political party? Is this the kind of message Canadians want to pass to their children???

[Jim M]

I think that scandal sells because it gives readers a chance to forget how scandalous their own lives can be (works for me;), and I think that scandal is sold because every circus needs a sideshow. But for readers with enough energy to move on after seeing the woman in the Safari suit that Shelly Glover wore to her high school prom ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elly_del_Sarto.jpg ;), there seems to be more news published every day than any one person could possibly digest. That's why I sometimes check to see what's cookin' on blogs like this one. Plus, you can try to start scandalous rumours of your own... http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/s/Hey+Good+Lookin/bBKsH ;)