
CNN Sending Eight Times More Staff to Royal Wedding Than to Japan - lotusleaf1987
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/03/statistic-day-cnn-devotes-8-times-much-manpower-covering-royal-wedding-japans-crisis/35923/
======
jsdalton
I was having a conversation with an editor I work with about CNN the other
day, when the following occurred to me:

I feel like the root of CNN's problem is that they have more or less abandoned
the pursuit of "quality" reporting in favor of "popular" stories.

In any publication, there is always this tension between quality and
popularity. Consider how much has been going on in the world this past week,
in particular with regards to the earthquake in Japan and the uprisings in the
Middle East. I've been following those stories closely on the NY Times, which
in my opinion has done some excellent reporting on both topics.

Now consider the "most popular articles" on the Times right now:

    
    
        1. The Times Announces Digital Subscription Plan
        2. The Quad: Grant Hill’s Response to Jalen Rose
        3. Paul Krugman: The Forgotten Millions
        4. Pogue's Posts: ‘Chimping’ and Other Photo-Taking Tips
        5. David Brooks: Social Science Palooza II
        6. Ex-Racehorses Starve as Charity Fails in Mission to Care for Them
        7. William D. Cohan: Degrees of Influence?
        8. Timothy Egan: Frankenfish Phobia
        9. Letter: A Letter to Our Readers About Digital Subscriptions
        10. SAT’s Reality TV Essay Stumps Some
    

You know, I probably end up reading half the articles that appear on the
Times's most popular list, and I enjoy them greatly. But if the Times just
gave up on doing "real" reporting and focused instead on these kinds of
"popular" topics -- well, I'm sure I'd pretty quickly lose interest in the
publication and go find another source of news and interesting tidbits.

Which brings me back to CNN. I just have this feeling that this is what their
business team was seduced by. Somebody looked at their numbers and said, "Hey,
we don't get nearly as many viewers when we run an in-depth expose on the
state of women's education in Afganistan as we do when we broadcast Lindsay
Lohan's court proceedings live. So let's just ditch that newsy stuff and focus
on what our viewers really want."

This strategy of following what's most popular probably works in the short
run. But in the long run, it can be devastating to your brand if it comes at
the expense of quality.

~~~
brown9-2
I don't think many people would disagree that this strategy has already
destroyed CNN's brand. You don't need to qualify that with _can_. The long-
term implications are already here.

~~~
jsdalton
Well, I think the executives who _made_ the decision to pursue this strategy
might very well disagree with me. I'm also not convinced that it's common
sense to pursue quality over popularity.

In general, following your metrics _is_ the sounder strategy. If CNN were to
A/B test the "education in Afghanistan" story against Lindsay Lohan, what do
you think would win? I have to guess Lindsay Lohan by a mile.

Unfortunately, I don't have an easy answer for distinguishing between metrics
you "should" follow vs. metrics you should not.

------
anigbrowl
It makes sense in a strange way. For a disaster or war, you put as few people
in harm's way as possible, and overdub the reports in other languages for non-
English markets in the studio. Viewers need facts and often the images speak
for themselves, and the nature of the situation justifies endless replay of
the same bits of footage.

For showbiz/celebratory type stories, almost all the reporting (in multiple
languages) is talking to camera because viewers who care about that stuff
_want_ the experience of being there, so they enjoy it vicariously via the
reporter. Also, there needs to be a much larger flow of material because
people who want to be entertained get bored more easily.

There's a huge audience for this sort of thing. I was reading an economics
paper a few months ago observing that the wedding of Charles and Diana
generated the equivalent of 8 or 9 billion dollars in today's money, over the
course of 20 years. This upcoming one is expected to add something like a
billion to the UK economy just this year.

~~~
imr
Good point, not to mention the fact that sending people to Japan or other
disaster would require additional logistics planning or add strain to a
damaged local food supply chain.

~~~
iuygthyjuk
Have you tried public transport in London ? Or the local food.

~~~
imr
As a matter of fact, yes and I found them to be both adequate. The university
I attended (USA based) sends freshman overseas during spring break for a
ridiculously small amount of money. I chose to go on the London trip.

------
mc32
Does Japan need any more foreign reporters who don't know Japanese to report
on the tragedy?

They encumber Japan less by sending fewer reporters. I see this as a win-win.

They can send more, in-depth, reporters when things have settled so they can
do their investigative stuff and give some insight.

Sending people right now would be more or less taking advantage of a fresh
disaster story and riding it till it had no more to give.

I don't see how it's a bad thing that they're not sending more reporters to
Japan. Keeps the sensationalism down, puts less strain on a strained
infrastructure, etc.

------
knweiss

      "Earthquake terror figures rise
      Princess Di is wearing a new dress"
      -- "New Dress" / Depeche Mode (1986)

------
estel
I wonder if the networks' bureau size has any play in this. As large as Japan
is, it wouldn't necessarily surprise me if a large part of the 400 staff were
based out of London regularly and that the London office were a few times
larger than the Tokyo one.

Not that I'm defending this absurd proportioning of reporting, just looking
for other factors.

------
thingie
How would the figures have differed if the earthquake was properly announced
six months in advance?

------
zdw
Sensationalist bottom feeder People magazine crap gets a lot of attention.

I wish that we as a culture were more concerned about things that really
mattered. Unfortunately, we have people obsessed with how they look and what's
going on in "famous people's lives", 90% of which is tabloid distortion or
outright fabrication.

I blame marketing for this. People are convinced they need stuff they don't
really need, and the best way to do it is to say "person you admire uses X".
The reason CNN is sending all these people is they know it will make result in
great ad revenue.

 _sigh_

~~~
jerf
"I blame marketing for this."

OK, but why does the marketing _work_? I'd submit the marketing is more effect
than cause. We have significant support in the human brain for tracking social
status and the leaders of the (perceived) hierarchy. We don't have very much
support for "important long-term risks and issues". It may be unfortunate, it
may yet kill us all, but it's not surprising.

~~~
zdw
Marketing fundamentally is about matching up a solution with a need, and
convincing that the solution being provided is better than others.

The problem is that often there are solutions with no need, thus the need is
manufactured (becomes a want).

My wager is that celebrity coverage, and the products that advertise on that
time are nearly all in the category of wants, and often frivolous/stupid ones
at that.

~~~
jerf
I don't think anyone had to _create_ a need to observe the ranking of the
perceived-by-the-brain-as-local social hierarchy. Gossip has been with us for
as long as recorded history goes back. This is nothing more than the gossiping
impulses translated into modern connected society.

------
forgotAgain
The PBS News Hour is the only real news program left.

~~~
jacobolus
That’s been the case for 20 years. There has never been enough quality
reporting to fill a 24-hour news channel, and so the time is naturally filled
with easy garbage like popular scandals and blathering pundits many with
undeclared agendas.

~~~
colanderman
My local NPR station does a good job filling up 24 hours. There are some
repeats of course but very little of it is the crap you'd find on CNN.

~~~
jacobolus
NPR doesn’t need footage, their programming is more than half something-other-
than-news, they repeat programs a few times, and most importantly they’re
funded by subscription and grants, rather than by advertising dollars driven
by ratings.

They do substantially better work than CNN, but they’re not really analogous.

------
zephjc
Except it appears that, according to an update, CNN is sending 'only 50
"reporters, cameramen and crew"' to the wedding. The WSJ (who first reported
this about CNN) is refusing to retract it because, well, that's just the kind
of quality reporting you get from the modern WSJ.

------
VladRussian
John, do you wanna go to London, report on the wedding, live in the nice
hotel, eat at the nice restaurant, all expenses paid? Or there is also another
job available - Japan, increased radiation levels, hot water and electricity
may be available at the hotel,...

~~~
Vivtek
I'd pick disaster-Japan in a heartbeat. I'm probably not alone here in that
attitude, which is why there's such outrage about this.

~~~
VladRussian
would you need 8 morons to accompany you on the trip, or better them being
distracted somewhere else?

~~~
Vivtek
Ha! Point taken!

------
eof
I think this makes perfect sense. That wedding has been being planned for a
long time; CNN _knew_ it would be the media event of the season.. so they are
probably setting up a lot of infrastructure.. sending managers.. etc as this
whole to do. The staff going to Japan would necessarily be much leaner.

I wonder how many "journalists" as opposed to "staff" went to Japan vs the
wedding.

------
incomethax
If you were a CNN reporter, would you rather go to a fancy wedding or a
disaster region?

I can't help but think this factors a bit into where the reporters are going.
It also saddens me that we as a society are willing drive our attention (and
ad dollars) to weddings over disasters and wars.

~~~
colanderman
Do the reporters really have that much say where they go? (Or at least enough
to alter their overall distribution?)

------
jsz0
It's worth considering that the people who watch cable news may very well want
huge coverage of a royal wedding. Why not? It's a made-for-TV event. Very
entertaining to some folks. Increasingly the people who want better/faster
coverage are going elsewhere. Throughout the disasters in Japan one of the
best sources of news I found was an individual doing live translations from JP
news sources on U-Stream. From there NHK-TV doing live coverage of press
conferences. I don't see any good reason to wait around for the western media
to spoon feed me information in-between commercials for erection drugs.

------
Tichy
I don't think the disaster victims care much for more reporters. Total non-
issue.

------
LostInTheWoods2
I've long ago given up on CNN and other cable news networks. All the cable
news channels are dumbed down to the point of annoyance. The only exception is
CNBC, which of course is financial news. CNBC, perhaps because of its focus on
the economic perspective seems to keep closer to the facts, and also gives
more interesting analysis. One thing for sure, CNBC, wont be covering the
royal wedding. They may at most, show a clip of it, followed by how much it
cost the British taxpayer.

------
edge17
cnn is in the _business_ of viewership, not news... you know, kinda like mtv

~~~
metageek
It's kinda sad; they used to be good, 20 years ago. They really made their
mark covering Gulf War I.

Although I suppose I'm not sure whether they were good, or just better than
other TV coverage of the time.

~~~
brazzy
Pet peeve: the first Gulf War began over 30 years ago. It did not involve the
USA directly, though they were providing military aid to Iraq.

~~~
philwelch
While some people refer to the 1980's Iran-Iraq was as the "First Persian Gulf
War" and the 1991 was as the "Second Persian Gulf War", most of the usage I've
seen is to call them the "Iran-Iraq War" and "Persian Gulf War", respectively.

If it makes you feel any better, there were a half dozen world wars before
World War I and World War II.

------
motters
The aristocracy represents the worst aspects of Britain - the cronyism,
unthinking deference, inflexible adherence to tradition and gigantic social
class divisions. As far as is possible I intend to avoid watching or reading
anything about the royal wedding when it occurs.

------
InclinedPlane
The traditional media has not been about journalism. It has been about
portraying the appearance of journalism, which has always generated just as
much revenue at a fraction of the cost. This is why I'll be happy when the old
guard finally goes bankrupt.

------
j_baker
Let's be fair. Knowing CNN, the analysis will probably be more than 8 times as
deep as their analysis of Japan. Don't underestimate CNN when it comes to
overanalyzing the most trivial of issues.

------
evo_9
Probably for the best, this disaster-porn obsession is pretty sickening.

------
fourspace
At the end of the day, we get what we celebrate.

They're only doing this because it's likely that they'll receive 8x the
ratings for the royal wedding than for Japan coverage. Sad, but true.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
So, the new informal credo for journalism should be "if it blings it leads"
instead of "if it bleeds it leads"? Doesn't rhyme, though :(

------
JoshKalkbrenner
Does Traffic = Ad revenue?

~~~
hsmyers
Viewing = (indirectly post ratings review) = Ad revenue

------
georgieporgie
What's the point of sending English speaking journalists to Japan, where they
typically do intro pieces from the streets of Tokyo, then segue into footage
provided by Japanese news organizations?

At last in England they'll understand what's going on around them...

~~~
estel
Brilliant point. News organisations can really annoy me when they send
reporters to the scene of an event just to do the same piece to camera that
they could easily have back in the studio, and this is further compounded if
they don't speak the languages necessary to do proper reporting.

Also, in a country that's struggling to recover from a disaster, every news
organisation sending hundreds of reporters to the region might be a huge drain
on resources.

~~~
CallMeV
There's a reason why they still send out reporters to get their boots on the
ground and try and figure out what's actually happening. Research.

Any lazy journalist can just sit back, crib a whole bunch of feed and stills
and press releases floating off he internet and boilerplate it into the column
inches without bothering to make even the most cursory check for facts, but
there's a word for such slack jawed lacklustre button pushing: churnalism.

People used to complain about news helicopters flying over scenes of disasters
such as flooding, saying things like "Why don't they pick up some of the
stragglers and ship them to safety?"

The answer is: Because that is not their job.

Reporting on what is going on _is_. And that means going in there, asking
questions, getting the agency to rope in a native speaker to translate where
needed, and actually bearing witness to the sort of things that end up on your
screen, or in print.

They have to go in there and report, because nobody else is going to - and if
nobody else reports, nobody will know how bad things are until that ignorance
comes back and bites us.

Journalists - at least the ones truly earning their crust - do what they do
because they have a compelling need to show the world what they do not know,
and need to know.

They are the ones whose job it is to bear witness.

~~~
Semiapies
They're not going to _do_ any significant research in Japan.

They're going to take establishing footage of their personnel, then repeat
aloud what they're told while showing disaster-porn imagery.

~~~
iuygthyjuk
>then repeat aloud what they're told while showing disaster-porn imagery.

Pretty much standard for a royal wedding then

------
ScottBurson
Can only upvote. I'm speechless.

