This Just In: Old Media Still Doesn’t “Get” New Media

Trust me: when it comes to social media, debating whether or not someone “gets it” is the kind of empty argument that makes me want to punch people in the throat.  But phrases don’t get overused unless they’re accurate, and in the case of the Sunday morning TV political roundtables, there’s more than enough throat punching to go around.

One of the most astute observers of the intersection between new media + journalism, NYU’s Jay Rosen, recently lamented the stale format of those Sunday morning shows and offered one simple tip for improvement: why don’t the shows fact-check the statements made by their Sunday guests and then run their investigative results online later in the week?  It’s admittedly a small step toward addressing the shows’ perceived partisan “truthiness,” but it’s a logical one.  (The other much-discussed flaws in the Sunday shows’ format include their failure to ask the tough questions and their appalling lack of diversity.)

Now Politico reports that Rosen’s suggestion is being discussed by David Gregory’s team at “Meet the Press”.  That’s an encouraging sign.  But to hear most of the personnel from these venerable programs tell the story, there’s nothing wrong with any of what they’re doing.  In fact, not only do they not see any reason to change, but they doubt things can get any better than they are now.

What really blew my mind was a series of quotes from Syracuse professor Robert Thompson, whose point of view seems to encapsulate everything wrong with the current state of Sunday morning affairs.  His quotes from Politico, emphasis mine (as pertains to my list of objections immediately following):

Syracuse professor Robert Thompson admits that Sunday shows are “terribly old-fashioned,” but notes the irony that debates over their relevance are popping up on Twitter.

“I get a kick out of people online talking about how outdated “Face the Nation” and “Meet the Press” are,” said Thompson, who directs the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture. “Here are people using the new technology and they’re talking about “Face the Nation” and “Meet the Press.”

Since Sunday shows never really appealed to 20-year-olds, Thompson thinks that trying to skew younger or add new technology and graphics isn’t likely to work. “Even before cable and the Internet, you wouldn’t have gotten younger viewers,” Thompson said.

Given all the bells, whistles and holograms — hello CNN! — now employed on cable news, Thompson thinks that because of the simple Sunday show format, what’s old may actually be new again.

“Some of these really stodgy old shows,” he said, “are looking kind of avant-garde.”

And, in rebuttal…

3 Reasons Why Robert Thompson Makes No Goddamn Sense

1.  Irony deficiency.

Strictly speaking, using the Internet to talk about pre-Internet media is not ironic.  Stating this not only displays a misunderstanding of the concept of irony on Mr. Thompson’s part, but it posits an insane theory: that new media forms automatically disregard the relevance of the forms that existed before them.  This is the “Why would people write a book about computers?” argument, as made by a man who’s paid to be an expert in media and pop culture?  Ridiculous.

Related: using new media to discuss the flaws in old media’s presentation in no way invalidates the notion that the old media being discussed is “outdated.”  Acknowledging that something exists doesn’t condone it.

2.  You say “potato,” I say “avant-garde.”

TV shows resoundingly recognized as being outdated and increasingly irrelevant to their desired audience are, by definition, the opposite of avant-garde.  I know he’s being glib, but he’s doing so at the expense of coherent meaning, which is a distressingly escalating trend among modern communicators.  Have we now reached the point where media professors probed for sound bites simply draw adjectives from a hat?

But for me, the real blood-boiler from Thompson’s pull quotes is this:

3.  Let’s pretend 2008 never happened.

Politico’s Michael Calderone notes, “Sunday shows never really appealed to 20-year-olds,” effectively absolving them of the need to try.  Thompson is there to shore up the argument: “Even before cable and the Internet, you wouldn’t have gotten younger viewers,” he insists.

Of course not; THEY’RE ALL ONLINE, DESTROYING YOUR ANTIQUATED BUSINESS MODEL.

Thompson seems to believe that because 20 year-olds weren’t watching “Meet the Press” in droves back in 1990, they sure as hell won’t watch it now that they have Facebook and YouTube to keep them occupied.  Thus, the mere existence of competition for young people’s attention means that the Sunday shows can publicly declare themselves “not for those people,” and then deflect any criticism leveled at them for not attempting to appeal to any audience other than the one they’ve always had.

And that might be a sound business strategy, if not for the part where BARACK OBAMA JUST RAN THE MOST EFFECTIVE INTERNET CAMPAIGN IN HISTORY, ELECTRIFYING YOUNG VOTERS IN A WAY THAT FRIGHTENED THE OPPOSING PARTY INTO EMBRACING THE SAME TOOLS.

From Daily Kos to the Tea Parties, engaged Americans are scouring the web in search of information they can (at best) absorb and (at worst) deride.  People are hungry for content, and the most venerable sources of that content are refusing to make themselves more relevant to an audience that’s actively seeking an excuse to embrace them.

Well played, old media.  Tell me again about the newspaper industry’s financial crisis, or the importance of traditional journalism, or the “avant-garde” approach of having four old white guys debate the nation’s key issues at a roundtable every Sunday morning.

I promise I’ll listen.  And I promise I won’t care.  (Until I’m 50.)

Dig this blog? Subscribe and you’ll never miss a witty insight again.

Tags: America, audience, common sense, education, perception, politics, Social Media, Sociology, tv