Andrew on target audiences
Wow, Amanda! You covered a lot in that short amount of time. I'm going to touch on one of your points in particular ...
I agree with you about the detriments of the strategy behind "tailoring" a news broadcast to fit an audience that might keep watching an Oprah-like production. Personally, I think this practice tacky. And if we were to look at this from a purely 'idealistic' perspective, we would begin to question the motives of producers, editorial directors, etc.
However, and we should all be aware of this by now, journalism isn't about idealism. It's about competition. It's a business. There are bottom-line winners and losers. There are decisions made. And at the end of the day, money, and money alone, drives enterprise. Those who have it win. Those who don't lose. If said strategy serves the public interest in the process, then that's an additional, but mutually exclusive, perk.
Therefore, I can't fault stations for doing "dovetail" stories about a topic discussed on Oprah, CSI, etc. I think it's a good marketing ploy. ("We're looking out for you!") It's a way to appeal to niche advertisers. It's a way to boost ratings and popularity. It's a way to win the battle for viewers, the battle for survival.
Is this necissarily a bad thing? Of course not. Until viewers change their habits or stop responding to such things, producers won't change content. Consumers dictate the direction of a station -- if that station is smart about its business practices.
But I DO think it's dangerous if a station directs its entire contect toward a niche audience in this way. There is something to be said for diversity in content. And I think a nightly broadcast is the proper place for a discussion about a variety of issues. Content should inform as well as satisfy. Content should attempt to serve some capacity of the "idealism" inherent in all forms of journalism: to serve the public. If stations don't balance "cookie-cutter news" with a healthy dose of "intellectual broccoli", then they aren't serving society's best interest -- no matter what the ratings numbers say.
I agree with you about the detriments of the strategy behind "tailoring" a news broadcast to fit an audience that might keep watching an Oprah-like production. Personally, I think this practice tacky. And if we were to look at this from a purely 'idealistic' perspective, we would begin to question the motives of producers, editorial directors, etc.
However, and we should all be aware of this by now, journalism isn't about idealism. It's about competition. It's a business. There are bottom-line winners and losers. There are decisions made. And at the end of the day, money, and money alone, drives enterprise. Those who have it win. Those who don't lose. If said strategy serves the public interest in the process, then that's an additional, but mutually exclusive, perk.
Therefore, I can't fault stations for doing "dovetail" stories about a topic discussed on Oprah, CSI, etc. I think it's a good marketing ploy. ("We're looking out for you!") It's a way to appeal to niche advertisers. It's a way to boost ratings and popularity. It's a way to win the battle for viewers, the battle for survival.
Is this necissarily a bad thing? Of course not. Until viewers change their habits or stop responding to such things, producers won't change content. Consumers dictate the direction of a station -- if that station is smart about its business practices.
But I DO think it's dangerous if a station directs its entire contect toward a niche audience in this way. There is something to be said for diversity in content. And I think a nightly broadcast is the proper place for a discussion about a variety of issues. Content should inform as well as satisfy. Content should attempt to serve some capacity of the "idealism" inherent in all forms of journalism: to serve the public. If stations don't balance "cookie-cutter news" with a healthy dose of "intellectual broccoli", then they aren't serving society's best interest -- no matter what the ratings numbers say.
posted by Andrew Astleford at
7:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home