Reporting from the Convention, originally uploaded by WBUR.
WBUR’s extensive convention coverage has this On Point listener fuming:
I think this is a complete waste of NPR/WBUR resources, and as a station member/contributor, I’m not happy about it.
There was a great discussion about this on (NPR’s) On The Media last Friday with Jack Shafer of Slate, (http://onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/08/22/01) who also thinks that the conventions do not qualify as genuine news events.
If NPR wants to send ONE reporter, fine. But to set up bureaus there, or for individual stations (e.g., WBUR) to send teams, has no journalistic justification. It’s just spectacle; it’s not news.
His sentiments remind me of a recent post by hyperkinetic blogger Jeff Jarvis who wants old and new media to ditch conventions altogether. (The less extreme Schafer still wants the number of reporters scaled back significantly.)
I Tweeted about this issue today. Your responses have been largely supportive of WBUR, but to give our angry On Point listener his due, bear in mind that this is a zero-sum game to some extent. Money spent on “X” may mean less available for “Y.” So don’t go expecting a bunch of social media hires anytime soon.
Remember: It is you, our listeners, that makes this possible. Do you believe your money is being well spent?
Please respond here or jump into the fray over at the On Point blog.
Maybe they should explain what the benefits are having been at the convention. I think people might be interested in how much money is spent on a junket like this and what comes from it that couldn’t be done remotely and with a person or two onsite. Increased transparency?
I always wonder why so many reporters go to ask questions of the White House spokesperson too.
I like Andrew’s idea above — please explain WHY this is necessary and WHAT it costs. And I agree with you as well, Ken — spending money on this means not spending it somewhere else. If the money hadn’t been spent on the convention, where might it have gone? Interesting issues.
The reaction one person gave me in Alaska tonight (Tuesday night, Alaska time) was anger that a station had cut AWAY from the national NPR coverage of the DNC convention and instead gone to statewide coverage of our primary election — a bona fide election, not a convention. They were mad because their station cut off the Hillary Clinton speech and went with our statewide coverage instead.
To me, real elections, with binding results, trump something like a convention. But that just raises more questions — where SHOULD a political convention fit in the pantheon of news? Is it news? What’s it worth? We need this kind of discussion.
Do I think it is time to reconsider conventions?
Absolutely. Do we scrap coverage altogether? Absolutely not.
This applies for big media and little media. Old as well as new.
Andrew gets the nub of it. Media needs to be transparent regarding the costs
and deliver a cogent case about why the latter are justified.
But transparency should hold true for everything we do…not just convention coverage.
Regardless, the general sentiment — at least what I could glean from Twitter and the On Point blog — is supportive of WBUR’s decision to cover the DNC “live and in person.”
I guess then we are delivering what listener’s expect from us.
And John yes, the entire system is overdue a conversation about how spectacles like conventions fit in the “news pantheon.” We should vigorously debate this and other related issues at the PRPD and other appropriate forums. (Though I am not sure what they discuss at those estimable shindigs as I have yet to attend one).
Anyone interested in this issue is well advised to check-out the discussion over at BuzzMachine.
Thank you both for sounding-off. Anyone else care to add their two cents?
My two cents:
Why can’t I access both Alaska election coverage and the speeches at the DNC? That’s a problem with a single, real-time radio channel, but it’s not a problem with web-based delivery media. I should also have the option of directly listening to Bill Clinton’s speech or to Tom Ashbrook and Jack Beatty analyzing what Bill Clinton’s speech means.
To the original question of whether WBUR should cover the conventions, I think it’s a matter of degree. I do believe the conventions are newsworthy and warrant some on-site coverage. However, the cost of WBUR’s coverage of the two conventions would no doubt fund one or two new media journalists for a year.
Gary, at least for my stations, you COULD choose between convention coverage and state election coverage — if you were willing to choose between TV and radio. On radio we had elections. On TV (via PBS) we had the convention.
But on the web? I actually don’t know, but I suspect there were many ways to “tune in” to the convention coverage, whether in a stream or in downloadable forms.
I’ve often asked myself, “why are we there?” but in the long run I’m glad we are. There’s an advantage to boots on the ground that will pay off, not only this week, but throughout the remainder of the campaign, and even beyond. Sure, we could try to do it by phone, broadcast line or satellite, with Bob, Tom & Robin here in the studio, but having them in Denver this week and St. Paul next, gives them direct access to the sources we rely on. We all know the conventions are carefully choreographed, but we need to have an in-person presence at what is the center of the political world.