Return to the Blogosphere: Wildfires and Facebook

Two posts caught my eye in the blogosphere this week and I wanted to share them with you all. I also posted some of my thoughts on these sites, and have included a copy of the comments below. My first stop was Brian Lowry's column at Variety. Lowry is the trade magazine’s chief television critic and previously reported for the Los Angeles Times. This past week he wrote about two media trends he observed during the heavy coverage (left) of the recent wildfires throughout Southern California. First, Lowry argues that many in the national media make assumptions about the culture of the region, and these surface as stereotypes when the reporting begins. Second, Lowry found it hard to take local television seriously during the disaster, as such outlets usually focus on coverage of celebrities and scandal. You can find my response posted here. I then browsed over to Henrik Örnebring’s “Doctor of Journalism” blog. Örnebring is a research fellow at the University of Oxford and primarily blogs about European journalism. However, I think his recent post about the portrayal of journalists via Facebook groups (below) is relevant around the world. Örnebring notes that while such groups on the social networking site are usually tongue-in-cheek, they still promote an outdated image of journalists as alcoholic hacks desperate for a story. My comment can be found here.

------

Cross-post of Variety comment:
Brian, I enjoyed this post on “Things We Learned in the Fire.” However, much of your argument for Part I is drawn from a small handful of anecdotes, which is unfair given the great number of hours of airtime devoted to covering the fires. I do not think that national fire coverage featured any type of “condescending attitude” overall. While Glenn Beck’s comments were certainly out of line, other networks like CNN and NBC stationed several reporters throughout the region to respectfully cover a story of loss and peril. Conversely, Don Lemon’s “little quip” was probably appropriate for that story given Qualcomm Stadium’s success when it came to accommodations for evacuees. When it comes to Part II, I think viewers had an easy time forgetting celebrity news when they were faced with fires raging across the Southland. I agree that local news is indeed sliding towards the “Extra” tabloid format, but your post skipped over reporters who worked twelve-hour days on the front lines, getting information for the many who had been forced from their homes. While it is easy for us to critique media coverage, I imagine residents caught in the thick of it were able to “take talent seriously” when it was their homes and pets in the balance.

------

Cross-post of “Doctor of Journalism” comment:
Henrik, thank you for this entertaining post. As a university student studying journalism, I have perused many of the Facebook groups you mention, though I never stepped back to consider the message such factions send. However, it is important to remember that most of these groups were created for tongue-in-cheek self-mockery, with creators going so far as to create journalistic caricatures of themselves. As you justly point out, most of the traits celebrated by the groups (a “hard-hitting, carousing, adventurous, carousing, frontline, techno-phile”) are indeed myths and do not truly reflect the diversity of today’s young journalists. I think it is a curious point that as these “myths of journalism” age, their ethereal presence is only bolstered. For a generation that hates to be pigeonholed, why support a group that lumps all journalists into one outdated stereotype? Perhaps the image of boisterous, alcoholic, male reporters is more entertaining than anything else. However, I am curious about the networking implications of such groups. You note the growth of serious groups (usually centered on a common employer), but do you believe these more casual groups offer any benefits of networking among members likely to be future colleagues?