HOME / press box: Media criticism.

Michael Crichton, VindicatedHis 1993 prediction of mass-media extinction now looks on target.

(Continued from page 1)

"Senior scientists running labs don't read journals; they say the younger people will tell them about anything important that gets published—if they haven't heard about it beforehand anyway," he says. "So there may be other networks to transmit information, and it may be that 'media' was never as important as we who work in it imagine it was. That's an argument that says maybe nobody really needs a high-end service."

It will take a media visionary, he believes—somebody like Ted Turner—to create the high-quality information service he foresaw in his 1993 essay. In addition to building the service, the visionary will also have to convince news consumers that they need it.

Sounding like a press critic, Crichton criticizes much of the news fed to consumers as "repetitive, simplistic, and insulting" and produced on the cheap. Cable TV news is mostly "talking heads and food fights" and newspaper reporting mostly "rewritten press releases," he says.

Crichton suggests that readers and viewers could more objectively measure the quality of the news they consume by pulling themselves "out of the narcotizing flow of what passes for daily news." Look at a newspaper from last month or a news broadcast.

"Look at how many stories are unsourced or have unnamed sources. Look at how many stories are about what 'may' or 'might' or 'could' happen," he says. "Might and could means the story is speculation. Framing as I described means the story is opinion. And opinion is not factual content."

"The biggest change is that contemporary media has shifted from fact to opinion and speculation. You can watch cable news all day and never hear anything except questions like, 'How much will the Rev. Wright hurt Obama's chances?' 'Is Hillary now looking toward 2012?' 'How will McCain overcome the age argument?' These are questions for which there are endless answers. Contentious hosts on cable shows keep the arguments rolling," he says.

Crichton believes that we live in an age of conformity much more confining than the 1950s in which he grew up. Instead of showing news consumers how to approach controversy coolly and intelligently, the media partake of the zealotry and intolerance of many of the advocates they cover. He attributes the public's interest in Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to its hunger for a wider range of viewpoints than the mass media provide.

He tosses out a basket of questions he'd like to see the press tackle, some of which I've seen covered. "What happened at Bear Stearns?" got major play this week, after Crichton answered my questions, in a Wall Street Journal series. And I know I've seen "How much of the current price of gas can be attributed to the weak dollar?" answered a couple of times but can't remember where. (Answer: a lot.) But such Crichton questions as "Why have hedge funds evaded government regulation?" and what specific lifestyle changes will every American have to make "to reduce CO2 emissions by 60 percent?" would be great assignments for news desks.

"I want a news service that tells me what no one knows but is true nonetheless," he says.

******

Me, too. What do you want? Send your requests to . (E-mail may be quoted by name in "The Fray," Slate's readers' forum, in a future article, or elsewhere unless the writer stipulates otherwise. Permanent disclosure: Slate is owned by the Washington Post Co.) Track my errors: This hand-built RSS feed will ring every time Slate runs a "Press Box" correction. For e-mail notification of errors in this specific column, type the word mediasaurus in the subject head of an e-mail message and send it to .

Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
Jack Shafer is Slate's editor at large. Follow him on Twitter.
Photograph of Michael Crichton by Kevin Winter/Getty Images.
COMMENTS

Notes from the Fray Editor

"Americans are the best entertained but least informed people on the planet" says Cayrick, and gives us a list of the issues we really should be worrying about. Bibble, here, has very specific complaints about the way the media covers certain stories, and Crawford answers the question on why hedge funds are unregulated. For a long argument about the article, sliding into a discussion on climate change, start here.

Comments from the Fray

While I admit the newspapers and the traditional TV news will no doubt all but vanish, what I believe we will see is a lot more smaller media projects of all kinds--hardcopy will have a longer shelf life and more local focus, and the real time-short cycle news will become more distributed as web-based featurettes or specialty parts. The newspaper cannot compete with the 24 hour news cycle, that is true, but the motivated reader is always looking for that free magazine or newspaper while waiting for a pizza or while stuck somewhere waiting for a ride. We don't take our laptops everywhere…

--The Real RML

(To reply, click here)

People need lots of information, but most of it is useless to anyone else --things like 'what is the deadline for this project at work?' This is not 'newsworthy' and will never be so. But it makes up 99.9...% of what we really need to know. Sometimes we all need to know something - and then the rumor or news spreads like wildfire person to person. Twin towers coming down; hurricane on the way... the media can speed this news up and provide a repository for more information, but often first notice is word of mouth.

So what ends up in the news, if most of it isn't important to most people? Some is news to 'some people' - to politicians, to day traders, whatever. Some of it is 'evergreens' - how to clean a wine stain. A little is investigative - but that falls into the rare 'big news' and the news to a few people. Some is just people up on a soapbox (op-ed). The evergreens will eventually move to web-references more and more. They will be there when you look for them.

News to 'some people' is actually best managed by specialist publications for different groups. We might see a NY Politics or a NY Food or something come out as sections of a paper split up.

Then there are the few pieces of real 'everybody' news - and they tend to show up on the Front Page. Perhaps then, we'll see the NY Times and its ilk become two or three page sheets - half ads, seen by everyone. Add to that the soapbox for the occasionally important opinion (ex-presidents pontificating about world affairs and the like) and you could make a very profitable paper. And a short one…

--BenK

(To reply, click here)

(6/2)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
The Bhopal disaster.88/091203_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on the White House gatecrashers.66/091203_TC.jpg
Loud and clear.26/091203_TD.jpg