In another book entitled "The News About the News" authors Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser document this phenomenon. They say that it isn't necessarily journalist that have changed, but America itself has changed. They believe that the American audience demands a certain type of paper, whether it be pure entertainment or sensational. For example, so much emphasis used to be placed on owning your own home. You know...the American dream. Well since 1995 more Americans have invested their money in stocks and bonds than real estate. They say "This seems symbolic of a broad sociological change." What I'm getting at is Americans ideals and wants have changed. Maybe they'd rather hear a good story because they don't care about being a good citizen. Americans often care about money rather than the old American dream. The authors said "in an era of mostly peace and prosperity, millions of American consumers turned their backs on civic life to focus on personal development, enrichment and pleasure. Maybe journalists are just delivering what their audiences truly want.

I have to admit, I was surprised to learn that the reduced size of pages, the increased size of headlines and the use of pictures, and the developed "lead" paragraph (pg. 103) were such early developments for newspapers. The claim is this layout "adapted to the needs of commuters" (those who read the paper the most). But when we talk about today's newspapers, I am not sure that the need of the average citizen to consume justifies the numerous advertisements we see crowding out the bodies of text.
I'm not quite sure if this would be considered a print medium, but I decided to look at the layout of washingtonpost.com (which is one of my main sources of news online). But since the number of readers obtaining news from online news sources has been increasing, I think its important to examine the type of layouts online news sources use to convey information. With this medium, I don't think there is any justification for the overwhelming amount of advertisements that decorate every page. I believe that, for the information seekers, these ads serve to make the paper follow more of the story ideal--even if the actual content of the articles does not follow the story ideal. Arbitrarily, I would say that online layout styles have a 40:60 ratio of information to advertisements. Ads are usually at the top of the page, to the sides, at the bottom, and sometimes even in the middle of the text. Furthermore, in my opinion, we also have our culture of sound bites to thank for this new hybrid of mixing the information and story ideals. It requires high journalistic ethics to present such small pieces of information accurately within news stories (thus manipulation of information becomes easier). As far as content goes, there are certainly a lot more anecdotes than one would expect from a more information-centered source. Not as many statistics or arguments are discussed--but then again, it largely determines on the story you read.

I wouldn't say that all the ethical ideals of journalism have left the media completely - but I do think that most print media outlets especially place an emphasis on getting the story, the scoop.

The front page of todays Houston Chronicle, for instance, has the introduction to 6 stories on it. The top story chronicles a photo of Saddam at trial, which looks straight out of a movie, and the headline "More theatrics at Saddam's trial" accompanying. The Associated Press story talks about what Saddam wore, and what he complained about during the trial - the only statement on the front page that gives the reader what the trial is even concerning, or what stage it is at, is a two-sentence caption under the photo that reads "Saddam Hussein and other ousted leaders of Iraq appear at their trial... They face charges that ordered the killing in 1982 of more than 140 people after a failed assassination attempt on Saddam." I think that by presenting the trial this way, there is far more focus on the entertaining, shocking aspect of it all - Saddam and his crazy hijinks. Nevermind that he has allegedly been violating human rights laws for decades.

Deadlines for a daily print medium do not only revolve around going to the presses at night; all the big print newspapers have websites that are constantly updated. If you're on an assignment, there's always the pressure of getting 'the story' first. At larger newspapers, or even here sometimes, the first person with the story gets on the wire first, and that's the story that gets syndicated across the country. It's a general assumption that there's always a story, you just have to find it. I wouldn't argue that this is necessarily a bad assumption to work off of, but it can be dangerous at times. Even if another paper has a better story, or a better photograph, the first one to publish gets the credit.

In the ERES article by Schudson, he mentions that Joseph Pullitizer's version of journalism fufilled the 'aesthetic' function, or "the reporter is generally sent out to get the story, not the facts". However, I think we, the people, have encouraged the media to become something beyond mere stories, we have driven them to become a localized version of the E channel. Now, I can't claim that I have an intense familiarity with E, but I can state that I live with a woman who most definately does. And because of this fact, I constantly hear about bullshit that has no bearing on my life, my city, my state or my fellow people, and it shook me up somewhat that millions of dollars poured in and out of the channel.

As disgusting as it is, I believe that popular media does basically the same thing: it tells a story for a story, not a story because there is some facts behind it. Schudson states that the story function of journalism adds a pleasing aesthetic to a story which helps interpret their own lives, and relate them to the nation, town or class to which they belong. In looking through the Statesmen, I don't see that so much. Even when the story is about people who are like me, or live near me. Take this headline: Student killed in 290 wreck. Ok, no qualms about it, this is sad, and I'm not trying to be a disrespectful asshole about it, but this is entertainment. Morbid as it is, it has all the qualities of 'good' entertainment that draws people in. A student, in the prime of life, on a roadtrip with their friends, killed in an unfortunate accident. Austin is a city of students, so we're all drawn to this. We're all people, so we are all somehow enticed by the tradgedy. But this story is like an empty Twinkie: there's no filling. What are we supposed to take away from this? Another headline, Woman, 76, killed in dog attack near Thorndale. Again, the formula is in play. A person we can all relate to, elderly (which makes the tragic factor greater), killed by a pack of dogs (which is random, and therefore even more scary).

So to review, we've learned that car accidents are scary and so are packs of rabies-driven Rottwielers. I think most people would have gotten that by 5th grade. So what is the function? To keep us morbidly entertained, to be afraid. I don't have a catchy new name for this type of media, but it all together disconerning. It's disconcerning because it's somewhat dilluted in print form. You take this type of journalism and apply it to TV or the web, people start building panic rooms in their basements. I can't watch Wolf Blitzer on Situation Room anymore because another ulcer would be too much. Media has evolved beyond information, or story and has become "what can kill you today".

Back when Joe Pullitzer was breaking in the idea of 'infotainment' he became famous for putting in exposes and shocking headlines. Usually, there was something to these stories. There actually WAS a crooked cop, or there WAS a rapscallian engaged in fisticuffs near the local haberdashery. Now, were constantly afraid, of dogs, of planes, of escalators, or SARS. Talk to a MD about SARS, and he'll laugh. Probably because he knows the surviability rate of SARS is 99.98% But for us, the unwashed masses yearning to be scared out of our wits, we can only tune back into Situation Room, and brace for the worst.

What a coincidence--yesterday's NYT had an interesting front page image: somewhere in Brooklyn, a man (wearing a Yankee cap) is helping a friend completely encase her home in Christmas gaudiness. It's a nice photo; the fellow has clearly done an outrageous job. No article, just a story about Christmas preparation told in one huge photo.

Directly below that, there's an article ("Gimme an Rx! Cheerleaders Pep Up Drug Sales") about a new pharmaceutical ad campaign in which drug companies recruit cheerleaders to promote meds in doctors' offices and clinics. The first five paragraphs introduce the reader to the "characters" in the story: Cassie, a 26 year old national champion U. of Kentucky cheerleader, and Onya, a Redskins cheerleader. It isn't until the seventh paragraph that the writer provides a definite context for the story: to compete with 90,000 other drug reps, drug companies are hiring attractive and outgoing female cheerleaders to "sway the hearts of the nation's doctors, still mostly men." The article has larger concerns--that federal discrimination laws do not include "appearance" next to race and gender--but we discover this only after reading through a nine paragraph argument in which the reporter tries to convice us that males like female cheerleaders. The last five paragraphs question the safety of attractive female drug reps, citing instances of assault by doctors and an informal survey about sexual harassment.

I'm not arguing that the NYT consistently favors "the story" over "the information." I do think that this article is a good example of how newspapers may take an issue (federal discrimination laws, sexual assault, drug company advertising practices) and effectively bury it inside a larger story that is primarily concerned with the private lives of a few characters (Cassie, Onya, etc.). If the article had been completely objective, we would not have read so much about male-female attraction. It seems that the reporter, a female, labors this point to advance an implicit argument that appearance-based hiring practices may constitute discrimination or jeopardize employee safety. Here, the story implies that consequences or problems exist while facts and information support the story.

The Austin Chronicle is boldly liberal and foregoes objectivity, but I think they try to hold to standards of accuracy and high quality information. Even though they use a wealth of information in most pieces, they mostly focus on the story. They choose subjects that tie directly to their readership with plenty of emotional appeal, which also includes entertainment coverage as well. Their covers are either eye catching photos or illustrations that take up the entire page with clever or sensational headlines. Plus, it's free.

I think Texas Monthly does the same, just in their own glossy, high price way. Their biases are less tangible, but I swear they are there if you look.