Four Words or Less

We all learned the power of the sound bite in the 1980s. Although I can't really remember much about mainstream-media before then, I remember thinking - even as a kid - that news broadcasts were constantly getting sketchier and sketchier. I sometimes wondered if it was because there is always an increasing number of things the diverse public cares about. The more topics you try to cover in a one hour broadcast, the less detail you can give. In the 1990s everyone was lamenting the decline of journalism into blatant sensationalism, but it remained an inevitable process. We all saw it happening but our dismay did nothing to stop it.

Now that the internet is a primary news outlet it seems to me like another inevitable change should be here. The pendulum should be swinging the other way. There is no longer a need to condense news to fit into limited bandwidth. Execs should no longer have to make judgments as to which stories are the most newsworthy. The public is free to respond to what stories they care about in real time. They can choose to absorb as much or as little detail as they wish. Now that information is so readily accessible it seems like the news agencies would be focused on covering as wide a spectrum as possible, or seeking an edge over their competitors by providing the most comprehensive and insightful analysis of the more complex issues.

full text

Arguments could be made that this is already happening on the internet at large, but I'm still surprised by the slow adaptation of mainstream American media. Take today's news coverage of the controversial speech that the pope recently gave:

• ABCNews.com's short article explained that the pope made controversial remarks by quoting the words of a 14th century Byzantine Emperor, but it doesn't explain exactly what those remarks actually were. It seems responsibly written but brief, and contains no links.

• CBSNews.com's coverage merely contains a copy of a brief AP article (which is fine), but contains no links.

• CNN.com's story focuses more on the pope's inflammatory remarks. In the first three sentences there's a link to a video clip where you can watch Pakistani Muslims burn the pope in effigy. There is another link to the brief AP coverage of the speech from several days earlier.

• FOXNews focused almost exclusively on the Islamic response to the speech and condensed the pope's entire speech to the words "evil and inhuman." It does contain hyperlinks of the names of the main players in the story, but instead of biographies or analysis - clicking on the name of Pope Benedict XVI or The Prophet Muhammad creates a news search with the name as the topic item.

• MSNBC's coverage also includes a prominent link to video of protesting Muslims burning the pope in effigy. While it's news article is only a copy of an AP article, there are also links to an analysis of modern historical interactions between Islam and the Vatican, a link that contains the full text of the pope's speech, and another link to a special report on Islam in Europe. While it's initial format strongly resembled CNN's sensationalistic approach, it's inclusion of access to more in-depth materials makes MSNBC's coverage stand out among it's American peers.

• USAToday also merely includes a brief AP article. Although it contains a link to "Read what the pope said" the link actually only goes to another even shorter article.

• TheWashingtonPost listed a well written article which - in preserving its newsprint pristineness - contained no links whatsoever, but the sidebar did include a link to the Vatican's official transcript of the pope's entire speech.

It seems to me that major American news providers continue to overlook just how wonderfully powerful an information-medium the internet is. Given the ease and power of the internet, any coverage that doesn't - at a minimum - contain a link to the pope's entire speech is contemptible. Thanks to the internet, any interested party is free to read all of the pope's unfortunate remarks in their original context. This is true regardless of whether or not a link is provided. But unless a news provider is willing to acknowledge that some readers will continue to seek more in-depth coverage, and invested in creating mechanisms that facilitate this - readers will go elsewhere.

For contrast I submit the BBC's coverage of the same story as an example of how to use the internet to spread news. It's main article is a well written yet intentionally concise synopsis of the news story, which includes only brief quotes and succinct analysis. It contains unobtrusive links to a host of complimentary information from video, picture libraries, biographies, previous articles, and of course the full text of the speech itself. But perhaps the most prominent link is one labeled "Key excerpts: Pope's speech" which leads to a more in-depth article which focuses on key passages from the speech which are now more fully exposed through viewing them in the context in which they were delivered.

The BBC chose to present the story in layers. Its initial article is exactly what most viewers want - a quick explanation. It also has a more detailed analysis for those who want a deeper explanation of what happened. The detailed article lets a reader get the nuances that had to be edited out of the shorter article, yet still insulates the reader from having to digest the entire three-page speech in order to gain a more complete understanding of what was said. Of course, the entire speech and other potential reference materials are all linked there too. So if desired, the reader is given access to the primary source material itself. By breaking the story into chuncks it provides a wealth of information that is easy to navigate and adjusts to the requested level of detail - all without ever leaving the BBC site itself.

Still I think the most compelling aspect of the BBC coverage is the manner in which it incorporates public reaction into its story-telling process. The main article actually exhibits an apt comment from one of its readers (from Illinois no less.) So the BBC not only wrote a story - but managed it after publication, reacting to what the public was saying and responding to its needs and inputs. While other news providers occasionally solicit comments as well, only the BBC seems to interpret this device as an ongoing interactive process rather than a repository of statements.

Throw in the fact that the BBC somehow manages this level of service without ostentatiously embedded displays from advertisers and constant pop-ups and you'll start to wonder why anyone even bothers with other news providers.

I know sound bites and sensationalistic headlines are here to stay, but we need to realize that they needn't bind us to shallow journalism coverage. Behind every short news blurb lies a wealth of information that can no longer be hidden from us. If we continue to demand the substance behind the blurb they'll have to start giving it to us. And if we do it enough - then maybe they'll finally wise up and raise the bar instead of lowering it.