The results are in, the people have spoken and – apparently – those watching cable news don’t know what the hell they’re talking about anymore.
Significant post-election analysis has focused (as I did in a previous blog) its gaze on the abundance of pundits who ignored the historical accuracy of comprehensive polling data to push misleading political narratives.
Well, it appears the damage isn’t just limited to the paid “professional” prognosticators. There are plenty of road apples to spread around, and the pile is squarely at the feet of the cable news networks themselves. Not only were the pundits not doing their jobs, actual news reports failed miserably too.
A study earlier this year by Fairleigh Dickinson University revealed that people watching MSNBC, Fox or CNN are less informed than those who drink their Sunday morning coffee in front of that day’s political talk shows, watch “The Daily Show” with Jon Stewart or listen to NPR.
To take it a step further, viewers of ideologically slanted news coverage were less informed than those who didn’t watch those particular channels at all.
“Ideological news sources, like Fox and MSNBC, are really just talking to one audience,” said study co-author Dan Cassino. “There is solid evidence that if you’re not in that audience, you’re not going to get anything out of watching them.”
It’s sad that we’ve gotten to this point in the news media, where the silos between news and ratings used to be separated by a strong if not impenetrable barrier. Now we know entertainment passes for news and ratings matter more than accuracy.
People also watch cable news simply to have their worldviews reinforced. That’s why those viewers were likely so shocked – on each side of the political spectrum – when Mitt Romney lost this year or John Kerry fell in 2004. The talking heads had assured them that their guy would win with little or no evidence to support those claims.
Author Michael Wolff wrote earlier this week in USA Today that one impact the recent election might have on far right-wing radio is to moderate its tone. However, much like those who watch Fox or MSNBC, people favoring honest discourse shouldn’t get their hopes up. This type of media isn’t necessarily interested in informing people so they can make educated decisions about their elected officials.
“Its business is getting a robust audience,” Wolff writes. “Conflict and polarization are good for ratings.”
Being middle of the road simply isn’t good business. Just ask CNN, Wolff goes on to argue.
So here we are and here we are likely to remain. At WordWrite, we can appreciate the value of an organization constantly reading the audiences it is targeting to ensure the messages are resonating. However, above all, we value honesty and authenticity in those messages and credibility from those communicating the message.
Being provocative is sometimes a useful strategy, but is it sustainable? We would argue that long-term success in the B2B world depends on an organization’s ability to continuously demonstrate its credibility. Clients who can’t rely on your honesty or a full disclosure of the facts up front won’t be partners for long.
Which brings us back to a media landscape where the major players in cable news are more concerned with ratings than responsibility. Wolff does have a possible solution. Those with the gold giveth and then taketh away.
“As soon as advertisers begin to sense a shift in respectability, or, worse, acceptability, they shiver,” he writes.
Sadly, it’s a telling sign of the times when the decisions to make the news more accurate, less gossip driven and less mean spirited won’t come from the journalists who have the power to insist on more fairness and accountability in reporting.
Instead, it appears advertisers – whose very existence depends on influencing public opinion – will be the ones to determine what we need to know.
Through the looking glass, indeed.
Jeremy Church is an account supervisor for WordWrite Communications. He can be reached at jeremy.church@wordwritepr.com and on Twitter @churchjeremy.
