Tit For Tat

Image representing News Corporation as depicte...

I was reading something yesterday which, on the surface, seems pretty innocuous but which, in my opinion, can herald the start of a really dangerous trend.  Then again, given the state of some parts of the media today, maybe I’m just late to the dance.  As usual, I’ll let you guys decide.

The article was written in the Sydney Morning Herald (you have to love the way we all can read any paper in the world!) and features everyone’s favorite media baron, Rupert.  It’s not so much as what’s here but where the road leads.

This is the gist:

The world’s largest media company, News Corporation, is threatening to deny coverage of movies starring artists who routinely refuse to give interviews to its outlets, one of its senior journalists has revealed…”we are really getting together now to say ‘OK, if you don’t want the help of the Fox network then let’s see how your film goes’. We are really starting to push back”

It’s not a big deal in entertainment, but what if news coverage of other sorts is skewed away from non-cooperating sources?  What if a political candidate refuses to give interviews?  Does the same policy apply?  What if it’s a candidate News Corp. supports (you can find 5 or 6 Tea Party candidates who refuse interviews)?  Does the coverage stop?  Or does the policy only apply when it suits the corporate needs?  What if the star who isn’t cooperating is headlining a Fox movie?  Same rules?

The problem with establishing policies (don’t cover something newsworthy) which conflict with your underlying mission (cover the news) is pretty obvious.  The thing is we sometimes don’t realize that we do this in other areas though it may be less obvious.  We tell our employees to excel but don’t reward them for doing so.  We demand department heads set goals but don’t hold them accountable for achieving them.  In the case of news, this path leads to highly selective coverage, a highly distorted view of the world for those who see it through your prism, and failure of sorts.  In the case of other businesses, employees, partners, and customers will see the disconnect even if you may not and that’s just as dangerous.

So am I off-base or what?  Thoughts?

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 Comment

Filed under Helpful Hints, Huh?

One response to “Tit For Tat

  1. John McGourty

    Two may play the same game.
    Bill Veeck bought Suffolk Downs in 1969-70 and doubled the handle and attendance. Veeck put on the world’s richest grass race on the last day of the spring meet. Veeck had realized that the media was against him from the start because the owner of competing Rockingham Park gave the writers all the liquor they wanted and tips on fixed races. On the morning of the last day of the meet, with the richest race that had ever been, the Hearst paper’s headline said, “Rock set to open Monday.”
    At the party after the race, a bitter drunk Hearst writer walked up to Veeck and said, “You’ve got a lot to learn in this town.”
    “I’ve never been insulted by a man drinking my own champagne,” Veeck said.
    The Internet was tailor-made for bypassing the media. We’ve just learned that a far-left media executive (Washington Post deputy publisher) has been subsidizing two Alaska writers to pen petty tales and has been an agent provateur in the handcuffing incident. Basically, anything you know about Sarah Palin is subsidized, slanted and outrageous.
    Isn’t she smart to bypass the media?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.