by Judith Morais

Journalism: Newspaper vs. television

Created on: May 28, 2008

Even though newspapers and news shows claim to be two branches of the same tree they could not be more opposed in their presentation. With television we get flashes of imagery accompanied by sound bites. The enunciation of the newscasters is robotic and serves to nullify many of the horrors presented. After awhile for many viewers it all sort of blurs together until they get to the one thing that affects them directly-the weather. Why do you think they spend so much time on it?

Print media is more dynamic. It provides the details that the nightly news often skips out on as well as avoiding most of the same grotesque accompanying images. In the 2000 election a study was done showing: "In general, television covered more about the personalities of the candidates, 16% versus 10% for print. It was less likely to cover policy topics, 16% of stories versus 27% for print, and the electorate, 6% versus 10% for print."

Even more damning was the study's indictment on how the televised media would engage in extreme acts of vanity with much greater frequency: "It covered more stories about how the candidates were performing with the media. That comprised a marked 20% of TV stories, compared with 7% for print. It did fewer stories about tactical topics, 15% versus 24% for print."

Now not all news programs are created equal. The study cited Good Morning America as being better than its competitors, though it still fell short of the standard set by print media. All this study does is give a few statistics to further cement a truth that deep down we have all known for some time.

I do not feel like I should have to cite the numerous studies done showing that people who consume print media as opposed to televised media are far more informed on average because it should be common sense. The act of reading at all is more "digging" than most people do, but that is just the beginning. Most people who own computers (the majority of us) read their newspapers online. This increases the advantages of the medium exponentially. The fact that there are links provided at the end of almost all news stories allow one to explore trains of thought related to the stories but tilted toward their own interests until it is exhausted.

Curious people in this day and age are more didactic than ever. Instead of waiting for a stranger to present them with information they might be interested in they remove any doubt by hunting for stories and facts that are inherently compelling from their perspective. The

simple but enthralling detective work of finding the information via search functions only serves to make the imprint of the material all the deeper on their memories once acquired.

In the effort to adhere to their policy of sensationalism the televised media loses the majority of discriminating viewers who prefer to hear facts instead of speculation, policies instead of personalities and objective analysis instead of emotional reactionism.

The televised media has a personality that you do not see in print. If someone in the spotlight dares to criticize them they distort their words to the end of the earth. It is as if the televised media are insecure and feel the need to lash out in petty ways against those who challenge their authority. There is also an inherent bias since most television companies that put these shows on are owned by other businesses. By extension those businesses own politicians or at least are owed many favors by them for the campaign money they invested in their campaigns. All of this leads to certain blind spots that are not there in newspapers.

The bottom line is that if presentation is most important to you televised media is ideal but if you want to really get to the bottom of an issue and research it yourself you should read the paper. One is created as spectacle, the other as an extension of true curiosity about the world around us. The difference is night and day.

How revered those storytellers of the past must have been. Before the age of the printing presses, our craving for news of the "outside world" could only be satiated by the obliging traveler who would sit down to entice listeners with tales of faraway lands. It would have been difficult to tell the difference between the embellished story and the fact. So we really must be grateful today for the way technology has opened the deepest corner of the worlds to satiate our appetite for news.

The invention of printing in Gutenberg in 1456 opened the door to the widespread dissemination of news in a somewhat more reliable form than previously. It was only in the early 20th century that television was invented, and by the 1950s it overtook the radio in its appeal. There must have been speculation in the early years of broadcast journalism as to whether the days were numbered for printed news. Thankfully, that has never happened.
So how do these two forms of media compare? Personally, I see these two medias as distinct and serving very different needs. Yes, both aspire to deliver news to its audience, and both are usually business enterprises that thrive on the ability to get the news out first. But, if we look beyond all the politicking, we can see that each has a unique and valuable role to play, and by harnessing the power this gives them, both can be successful in their own right.

In the race to get the news out first, television would win hands down. The fact that newspapers need to get printed and delivered at regular times, also means that some pieces of news just don't make it to deadline, or are old news by the time they are delivered. Television has the advantage of being able to be delivered not only at its allocated news timeslot, but through bylines and breaking news that can be transmitted at any time of the day's transmission. The horrors of 9/11 were transmitted instantaneously to people all around the world and in fact, even as the incidents occurred. The Newspapers could never match that impact.

That said, however, it is the newspapers that emerge quickly out of the cloud of excitement caused by the immediate impact of television. Yes, television does explore news in depth and present researched and thought provoking programs too. Newspaper journalism, however, has this ability as well as the power of carefully crafted language to present events to an audience craving for the chance to empathize and consider the impact of the events. It is the similar

situation we face when we consider reading the book or watching it on television. While the television entices with its glossy images, the impact is lost once the show is over. There is something about the written word, however, that leaves its mark, and when well crafted, can be savoured long after the book has been closed.

I made an earlier comment about the advantage television had in presenting news instantaneously if required to. The Newspapers, however, have the advantage when we talk about how accessible the news is. Because the newspaper can be taken anywhere, and purchased at any street corner, it has the advantage over the television which is, by nature, a home appliance we retire to after a hard day at work. Since most news is only presented at the news hour, we are the slave to that hour rather than the case of the newspaper which basically is there for us whenever we feel like accessing it, for example in the one hour ride home in the train, or while we wait for lunch to be served.

Is Journalism simply about presenting the facts, and allowing the audience to make up its mind about what they are seeing? Even when widely circulated newspapers first appeared in the 17th century, their power to influence political opinion was recognized and used. Even as we talk about the free press today, it is not possible to present information without it being colored by opinion and bias. Newspaper journalists do not simply present events and news incidents. In television, the choices made of the images used, and the angles taken by reporters, will portray only part of the news to the audience. The images however, cannot lie and the viewer can be presented with the opportunity to make up his own mind about the meaning of the messages he is receiving.

But both media today seek to persuade and color the readers perspective, to try to influence the way we see the news. A large part of the newspapers today are dominated by opinion pieces and reporting that aims to help the reader think through the events affecting their lives. Programmes such as "60 minutes" attempt to open up hidden worlds through their investigative journalism. Both mediums are powerful in their ability to do this, but again, the impact of the news is somewhat different in both cases. The television is strong in its immediate impact largely due to its strong visual imagery. You would need to be strongly auditory to be able to grasp the message within one viewing. The newspapers, on the other hand, have the advantage of strong imagery that elicit feelings through the powerful use of language, while at the same time, being something we can constantly go back over and savour. Those of us who are linguistic or verbal in nature would prefer this medium.

With the advent of the internet, and its ability to combine both the permanency of print and the vivid imagery of television, some may wonder if the old ways will die. Personally I would say that we will all be the richer for having even more ways of accessing news.

In theory, these two forms of news presentation would be more similar than different. In practical terms, they couldn't be more different. The television gives you a quick look, then on to the next thing. Newspapers will give you a lot more depth. I suppose either one has its qualities. I don't watch a lot of television news but then, I don't watch a lot of television.

They say print news will be going the way of the dodo, soon. It may well be true, but I hope not. The problem with television news is, they spend more time making everything look pretty, and less time actually telling us anything. The paper may have the same old look and feel, but at least there is usually something you can sink your teeth into when you read it.

With the little television news I've seen, this is the way I analyze it. The earlier in the day the news program is on, the less likely it is to carry anything of any meaning. If it's the 5:00 am show, they'll take a quick look at the day's headlines, then do a five minute feature piece on some cute seventh grader who did an experiment for science class disproving the "five-second rule." (Forget the fact that any adult with any sense already knows not to eat anything off the floor, no matter the length of time).

At noon, the news may take a slightly longer (but still quick) look at the day's headlines followed by a four-minute cooking feature. As the day progresses, we get a tiny little bit more news and a tiny little bit less of the cute. The 10:00 pm (or 11p on the coasts) broadcast tends to be more news than fluff, but still.

The newspaper, on the other hand, tends to give you hard news for the overwhelming percentage of its presentation. Yes, there is usually a section with soft news and the comics and puzzles. Generally, though, the newspaper is three-quarters news and a good portion of it is meaningful. But, this is the form of news that is apparently dying in America.

What's that tell you about Americans? Helium had a topic for writers about America getting dumber. I wrote that America isn't so much getting dumber, as it is lazier. I use our consumption of news to illustrate the point.

This doesn't even touch on the subject of objectivity. I suppose one could argue that neither of these forms of news are very objective, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree. The difference in presentation is really more about substance versus style. Television is all style, while print news at least attempts to present some substance.

In discussing the differences between televised versus print news, it appears to be obvious that the two are as different as night and day. Unfortunately, most consumers of news prefer the light and airy approach that television takes. Pity that. And with that, it looks as though the print news industry is about to fade away for good (according to many analysts). If that ends up being the case, I can only say that we get what we deserve.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14