Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
Community discusses role of local media
by Ben Ilfeld, published on April 2, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Storyline: All the rest
Loading images
Representatives of local media outlets and community members came together Thursday night to discuss how to make local media better and more reflective of the community. The meeting was organized by the Sacramento Media Group, California Common Cause and Access Sacramento.
There was discussion and debate about the role and responsibility of our local media. Ron Cooper, executive director of Access Sacramento, summed it up when he said, “Media and your influence over media is really a local issue.”
The event was well attended by a diverse mix of community activists, students, and stakeholders. There were representatives of local broadcast stations, newspapers and online ventures.
The debate was lively, civil and structured. The most contentious issues surrounded bias, balance and facts presented by local media.
Another major topic of discussion was the lack of breadth or depth of local coverage.
Surprisingly, there was a lot of debate about the formation of community advisory boards to help media organizations be more responsive to the needs of the local community. Many thought the boards might have too much influence over coverage, and that their roles would have to be narrowly defined.
There was very little talk of the changes in our local media landscape brought on by technological innovation and the recession. But the structure and form of the discussions kept the focus on constructive criticism of the current state of local media.
The event was held at the Coloma Community Center.
All participants were asked to sit at tables based on their interest or primary media of choice. There were tables for TV, radio, newspapers, internet and general media. Each table had seats for 12, and all were filled.
The format was simple. Each group held structured discussions on public affairs, diversity, political coverage, community input and broadband internet access. Then, after the discussion, moderators from each group presented to all participants. Finally, there was time for individuals to speak to the whole group.
There will be a full report detailing the conversations of each media group, and when it is available, I will link to it.
The night was a great jumping-off point for discussions about local media, particularly the challenges that lie ahead.
More importantly, what do you think? Please continue the conversation below.
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
How should the media work in your opinion? I would love to have you write an article about your thoughts on the subject for our site.
You are also welcome to come and take a tour of our offices, meet our staff and learn more about our operation.
I can tell you that at the "internet" discussion group we talked about the challenge of outreach and broadband access. Geoff pointed out that while there is more diversity of news and opinions online it is easy for us to only read news from sources that confirm our existing beliefs.
The discussion in the "general media" group had a different take. Many argued one of the core problems with "diversity" in media reporting was the way mass media tended to look at people as part of ethnic, racial, or religious groups. They felt the best way to be better was to tell stories about individuals worth talking about rather than worrying about groups.
The TV group proposed using longer format video online to tell stories that dealt with minority groups.
Each of the discussion groups spent considerable time on the topic. Each group had a different understanding of the meaning of the challenge and creative solutions specific to the strengths of the media format.
Can you give me an unscientific vote on how many felt that the media was NOT biased vs those in attendance who thought it was ?
I'm going to guess that the majority felt there was no left leaning bias in the media.
Yes? No?
But overwhelmingly, the concern was that whoever pays for the news be they advertisers, the government, or foundations, have undue influence over reporting. There were a few people who overwhelmingly resisted this notion. Geoff pointed out that we have very clear lines that separate our editorial from our advertising departments. Someone from the radio group passionately argued that advertisers are drawn to certain demographics and political coverage - not the other way around.
Back at the internet table, we did not talk about mass media bias as the internet is not a broadcast medium. We talked about conversations, debates and trolls on forums.
At the end of the event someone said that we should change the channel if we don't like the coverage. Another participant said that there weren't enough channels. I stood up and argued that we should all use the tools we have to create our own channels. If you don't like "the media" use the tools available on the internet to report unbiased news or share your opinion.
I was the facilitator of the General Media group so want to set the record straight here. We were not seeking consensus in these discussions. Rather, we were eliciting comments in a round-robin fashion from the group. Participants could agree, disagree, cite a new point or pass. Therefore, opinions expressed in each group belonged to individual people, or a few or several people, but did not necessarily represent the group as a whole. Your comment: "The general media group believed the bias to be left leaning in TV and print" incorrectly represents a group consensus that was neither there nor sought. Several people in the group did express this point of view, but there were at least an equal number of people who did not support this view at all. The folks who saw a left leaning bias expressed their views with conviction and vigor and were, perhaps, heard over the other voices at the table but, by no means, did their views represent a group consensus. Examination of the laptop notes taken at the table will bear this out. If anything, as the neutral facilitator, I was struck by the clear ideological divide at the table. If an open discussion format had been used, we would have ended up in spirited debate. It's clear that there is community interest on this topic. I hope for more community education on the issue, more information gathering from the community, and opportunities for informed debate.