British Invasion Hits U.S. Media
As Old Media news outlets scramble to defend themselves against new online competition, they may be overlooking a more dangerous new threat coming from the Old World. For the first time since the Beatles, there is a British invasion. The last one transformed our music, this one may transform our news.
When you visit a news stand in London, you instantly sense you are in a different country. Unlike the 1 or 2 daily papers you would see in a typical U.S. city, you may be confronted by 8 or more. The front pages bristle with excitement and vie for your attention. They are engaged in heated competition, a concept that seems so foreign to newspapers in America.
You might ask, if the competition among London newspapers is so fierce, how can so many of them survive? Wouldn’t all readers naturally gravitate to the best couple of them, putting the rest out of business as happened in so many American cities decades ago? The reason so many survive is that they deliberately appeal to different target audiences, and differentiate themselves from the others largely on the basis of – are you ready for this? – BIAS. While in modern American journalism, “bias” is a four-letter word, mixing facts and opinion has never troubled papers in London. The British also do not share American journalists’ prudish disdain for “boobs” and humor. The differences in their intended target audiences is so obvious, even their front pages transparently appeal to those of different worldviews, socio-economic statuses, and tastes.
For just about any reader, London’s views-papers and boobs-papers make for a lot more enjoyable reading than America’¬ís dull fare. Their titles include the Morning Star (Far Left), the Guardian (Left), the Daily Mirror (Center-Left Tabloid), the Sun (Center ¬ìT & A¬î Tabloid), the Daily Mail (Center-Right Tabloid), the Times of London (Center-Right), the Financial Times (Center-Right Business), and the Telegraph (Right).
Using this as a key, you should now be able to follow this skit from the British TV comedy “Yes Prime Minister.”
Ironically, the London papers are simply using a business practice perfected in America ¬ñ “market segmentation.” The ideal product is one that is custom-made for each individual consumer, a luxury enjoyed only by the very wealthy in many categories. But, next best in a mass market economy is when companies divide their audiences into separate groups with similar interests, then design separate products to meet the special needs of each group. That’s what the London papers have done.
The market segmentation of news never happened in America because of a journalism movement launched a century ago by legendary thinker and editor Walter Lippmann. His Modern Journalism movement attempted to turn journalism into a science that would provide us with a pure stream of objective, verified truths. What readers wanted would no longer matter, as journalists would henceforth be “professionals” who, like doctors, could hold their own beliefs about best practices and resist the wrongful ideas of their amateur readers. Bias, sensationalism, titillation, and humor were to be viewed as contaminants. We were now to get a fact-laden, one-size-fits-all version of “the truth” presented in a serious, authoritative tone, whether we actually wanted it or not.
The British invasion ironically began in 1976, the bi-centennial of America’s Declaration of Independence from England, when Rupert Murdoch, owner of the London Sun and Times of London, purchased the New York Post, a paper founded by Alexander Hamilton. Using market segmentation, he transformed it into a tabloid for relatively downscale and conservative audiences. It is now the best selling weekday newspaper in the New York City area. Twenty years later he launched the Fox News Channel, applying market segmentation to cable TV news. He split a one-size-fits-all market dominated by CNN into one in which Fox attracts conservatives and CNN attracts liberals. With his recent acquisition of the Wall Street Journal, we should see more market segmentation, this time at the expense of the NY Times nationally and the Financial Times globally.
Now that Murdoch has proven that Americans have a taste for British news fare, the rest of the British are coming — not by land or by sea, but by web. Britain’s The Economist magazine has reported a US circulation increase of 16% vs. Time magazine’s 17% decrease. Online versions of the Guardian and Times of London have more American than British readers, and the Independent has twice as many. Just recently, the Guardian introduced an American edition.
London¬í’s viewsy, witty, and naughty newspapers now point to the future of news. America’s snoozy, prissy, and haughty papers had better wake up.
Steve Boriss blogs at The Future of News. He works for Washington University in St. Louis, where he is Associate Director of the Center for the Application of Information Technology (CAIT) and teaches a class called “The Future of News.”
Oh, so this is why the UK is sinking into dhimmitude.
Oh wonderful!
Having championed Britain’s meltdown into the dysfunctional mess that it is today, the British press wants to export their cancerous mindset across the sea.
The correct title of the Times published at London, England is “The Times” all other journals that use the word Times in their mastheads, such as the New York Times, must carry their geographic denominator with them.
If this is true then I might just drop Journalism as my major here in college.
frankwolftown wrote, “If this is true then I might just drop Journalism as my major here in college.”
Which part of the article leads you to that decision?
Not that journalism seems to be a wise career choice in the USA today.
From Bob Norman’s “The Daily Pulp” we have Newspapers Free Fall (Illustrated).
McClatchy’s on deathwatch, even online revenue is falling.
Both systems have their drawbacks. The British system makes it easier for everyone to read only that which confirms their existing beliefs (plus provides more entertainment, prurient or otherwise). This may increase factionalism (although it’s been that way a long, long time). The Internet, of course, provides that opportunity to anyone, UK or US.
The American system makes it easier for the left-elite to confirm what they already believe, while leaving everyone else dissatisfied. This leads to a misinformed or uninformed populace.
Murdoch, with Fox, provides a true improvement in American journalism: choice and entertainment. He mixes hard factual news (e.g. Britt Hume) with opinion (O’Reilly and H&C), sprinkles in “true crime” with Gretta (ugh) and puts in a regular dose of T&A with video reports about Victoria Secret fashion shows, etc. It’s a formula that works.
Whatever happens, it is time for the media elites of America (like the ridiculous Dan Rather) to be knocked off their pedestals and retired. Lippmann was wrong. O’Sullivan’s second law dominates the news (organizations not explicitly conservative will become liberal), and unbiased factual presentation is merely a fantasy that the media tries to believe and foist on us. Screw ‘em.
Frankwolftown asked me a great question on my blog at thefutureofnews.com in regards to this article, and I’d like to place this Q&A here.
He commented, “I can’t seem to understand how openly biased news will improve anything. People seem pissed off enough as it is where does this help? It’s like the article recently published here that Yellow Journalism is a good thing. Can someone tell me what I’m missing here?”
My answer:
“Thomas Jefferson believed in a country in which freedom was preserved by a multitude of voices competing in a freewheeling marketplace of ideas. He particularly liked the process of “attack and defense,” which in a letter to George Washington he supported by claiming that “Nature has given to man no other means of sifting out the truth whether in religion, law, or politics.” Debating and arguing is very American, a way to preserve our individual rights. Now compare that to what we have now…mainstream media that in fact is giving us a monolithic partisan position — center-left — while claiming it to be “truth” and denying others with opposing views the dignity of acknowledging there are other reasonable alternative positions. In my mind, that is the main reason why people are so “pissed off” now. It is out of frustration. We will all have the satisfaction of expressing our views, and greater tolerance for others’ views, in a world of free expression. Who can deny that this is what the First Amendment is all about?”
frankwolftown wrote, “I can’t seem to understand how openly biased news will improve anything.”
The honesty will be a breath of fresh air after decades of toxic hidden agendas.
“People seem pissed off enough as it is.”
No amount of open bias will be half as infuriating as CNN’s sandbagging the Republicans at their “debate.”
Even The Manchester Union Leader has called CNN’s dishonest bias “bad journalism.”
CNN’s subsequent stonewalling is enraging.
“Where does this help?”
Open bias offers the change to engage in an honest manner.
Otherwise people are forced to resort to gotcha games, like Don Surber’s “Name that Party.”
“It’s like the article recently published here that Yellow Journalism is a good thing. Can someone tell me what I’m missing here?”
Honesty.
A final note on the economy, from American Journalism Review, Oct/Nov 2007, Newspapers are paying the price for shortsighted thinking.
[Emphasis was in the original.]
“Newspapers’ performance hasn’t been this bad since the 2001 recession, when revenue slipped nearly 6 percent and profit was down more than 26 percent. And this year the nation is not in a recession. But the newspaper industry surely is, and it is worthwhile examining why.”
Oh, and it’s too late for Page 3 girls to save newspapers in the USA, even the tabloids.
One of the key differences that wasn’t brought out in the article, however, is that the UK newspaper market is a national market whereas the main newspapers in US tend to be regional (with the exception of USA Today and to a lesser extent The New York Times). US newspapers tend to be dominant in their city which results in a lack of competition and vibrancy.
UK newspapers would however love to have the US newspapers’ profit margins. In the UK broadsheet papers, the Telegraph is barely profitable, the Times rarely makes a profit, the Independent has never (to my knowledge) made a profit and the Guardian doesn’t even try! (Amusingly, the Guardian’s official position is ‘profit seeking’). Also it should be noted that the biggest (by a country mile) news site in the UK is the BBC (which is entirely funded by tax-payers and therefore I guess could be described as ‘tax seeking’).
One thing that surprised me was how poorly Time is doing (especially when they are basically giving it away for free to subscribers). Nearly all the UK news and current affairs magazines (The Week, Economist, Spectator, New Statesman, Private Eye etc) are doing well at the moment. Part of that is due to them putting together great products (The Economist, Private Eye and the Spectator are all excellent). However I also think there is a structural change going on. My own hyposisis is that as people get more and more of their daily news online, they are giving up on their daily paper but they still want a print news digest therefore they are moving to the weekly magazines. Not sure why that isn’t the same in the US.
I’m afraid Mr. Boriss is inexplicably very confused or has some kind of an agenda that differs from wanting an excellent news media for all. We already have room, in our newspapers at least, for subjective commentators who are free to take sides. This space is often called op/ed or some such. The news spaces are for reporters to report, as objectively as possible, what happened. What the heck is wrong with this ideal that it should be cast aside for all propaganda all the time?
Fred, Gallup reports that 63% of the public believes that the news is biased. It’s reasonable to conclude that news spaces are not objective. Nor do I believe it is possible that they can ever be.
Fred Beloit “The news spaces are for reporters to report, as objectively as possible, what happened. What the heck is wrong with this ideal that it should be cast aside for all propaganda all the time?”
Many people feel the news is already “all propaganda all the time.” Only the Parliament of Clocks ensures it’s from a monolithic point of view.
The concept is being lost that it’s possible for reasonable people to disagree. On anything. That’s not healthy.
Now I understand why NPR can’t trust any American Media outlet for its news, and subject people to anti-American BBC, a government funded outlet. To NPR, even BBC is more trustworthy than NBC. Unfortunately, US media have been so one sided, manipulative, and sensational that there is nothing left of it. These day no one trust print media like NYT, LAT, or any other Times or Timeless WP. As far as TV news is concerned, there is no one left to trust except Tim Russet. Just watch MSNBC, garbage -in, garbage-out one night and you will understand what I mean.
I would love to see the Brits in the media—go missing. Whatever suggestions they can make for saving traditional media here should be considered. However useful this Internet thing is, it’s a weak substitute. But I hate the Britishisms creeping into the language. It’s so not American English.