Where are the Poor? Not on Your Network TV Newscasts

I wish I could say I was surprised.

But a report released last week by the liberal advocacy group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting noting that the three network newscasts ran just 58 stories on poverty in more than three years of newscasts simply confirmed what I had already suspected.

Despite promises in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to report more on poverty, and a Democractic presidential candidate who has made poverty one of his core campaign issues, the network newscasts covered more stories related to Michael Jackson in the period examined -- Sept. 11 2003 to Oct. 30, 2006 -- looking into Jacko-related issues in 69 stories.

FAIR also does a bit of math extrapolation to estimate that the 191 sources in the 58 poverty stories were likely less than half of one percent of all sources quotes by the newscasts in three years. But the study doesn't name two obvious statistics: What was the total number of stories aired on network news over the three years, and where did poverty rank in relation to other popular serious news topics such as the war in Iraq, crime and terrorism?

Also, poverty consistently ranks low on TV news coverage indexes because it isn't a very telegenic subject, and stories about poverty are often complex and time consuming to prepare. In a media world where commercials are constantly presenting a middle class universe relatively free from money troubles, stories on the crushing effects of poverty that aren't tied to a major disaster like Katrina are not very appealing, I'm afraid.

Another indication poverty may be undercovered: This very study hasn't gotten much more than a few mentions in the mainstream press. Back to stories about Anchorwoman, Britney Spears and the View (see! I'm doing it, too!)

Media Matters Study Says More Nationally Syndicated Newspaper Op-Ed Columnists are Conservative

I was gratified to see powerhouse Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts listed among the nation's top 10 newspaper columnists, as identified in a new study from the liberal advocacy group Media Matters.

What disappointed me about the study was that he was the only person of color in the top 10, which was led by conservative pundit George Will and included Kathleen Parker, Ellen Goodman, David Broder of the Washington Post, Cal Thomas, Steve and Cokie Roberts together, Charles Krauthammer and three from The New York Times: Thomas L. Friedman, Maureen Dowd and David Brooks.

Of course, Media Matters focused more on the political end of this equation, noting: "Sixty percent of the nation's daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists every week than progressive syndicated columnists. Only 20 percent run more progressives than conservatives, while the remaining 20 percent are evenly balanced.

In a given week, nationally syndicated progressive columnists are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of 125 million. Conservative columnists, on the other hand, are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of more than 152 million."

Because the syndicates which distribute the columnists won't reveal where their clients are published, Media Matters contacted newspapers directly to get numbers of national columnists run frequently and occasionally. The group assigned political orientations to writers by reading the descriptions offered by their syndicate, looking at the writer's professional affiliations, reading the writer's own description of his or her politics or reading a selection of their columns. (they list Will as conservative, Pitts as progressive and Broder as centrist, for example)

The Times' Bill Maxwell, Robyn Blumner and Phil Gailey were included in the sample; Robyn even made the top 100 columnists listed by total reach, ranked at number 100 for reaching just over 1-million readers in 11 papers.

My big question: How did George Will, who writes some of the most impenetrable prose I've ever seen in a newspaper, wind up syndicated in one out of every four newspapers in this country?

   

Comments

we have poor right here in are on united states sure we have a place to lay are heads but we are dying from no medical you work ever day that you can just to make it every day god only knows whats going to happend in time to come i've hade a learning problem all my life its so much you can do with what you have

[Robin 'Roblimo' Miller]

A week from Saturday I'm flying to New Delhi, India, to speak at a software conference. I'm taking my good Sony A1U (broadcast quality) video camera and, while I'm there, I'm going to shoot a bunch of interviews with ordinary (which means dirt-poor by U.S. standards) Indians.

My primary questions will be about outsourcing, as in "Does it do you any good?"

I ought to come back with enough material to make a 10 - 15 minute documentary and way more than enough to make a 3 - 5 minute news piece for a TV network or station or one of the newspaper web sites that now runs video news.

But I really expect that this video is more likely to end up on my personal site + YouTube than on a more professional channel, because I don't think there's a lot of interest in the U.S. about the opinions of ordinary Indians.

Sad to say, out of the thousands of articles and three books I've written, the most popular one wasn't about a technological advance or anything else important but was about how a skilled chauffeur could have prevented Princess Diana's death.

That one ran in the Baltimore Sun and (best estimate from the Sun and then-owner L. A. Times Co.) about 1200 other papers worldwide.

I'll bet if I grab tape of someone super-famous doing something super-stupid, I'll find a ready broadcast market for it. But anything about ordinary Indian (or for that matter, American) people? Nah.

[tampafilmfan]

"Impenetrable prose" -- brilliant! I thought I was the only person in the world who didn't care for George Will's writing.

*sigh of relief*

[former tampanian]

Call yourself whatever you want. Just think for yourself. Don't automatically buy into everything "conservative" and denounce everything "liberal." While I am against the Iraq War, I was for the invasion of Afghanistan to wipe out Osama. While I am for feeding hungry children who cannot fend for themselves, I am against people who milk the system because they're too lazy to work and support themselves. (I work 50 plus hours a week and receive welfare benefits because I don't earn enough. And no, I am not black and I didn't grow up in the ghetto. I grew up in a two-parent house in the 'burbs and they both worked very hard and taught me a great work ethic). So how 'bout, you going to give me some tough love or are you going to think about both sides and have sound arguments before you post?

You're right, I should think for myself and be a liberal. It takes a lot of thought and courage to be against war and poverty. I'd love to have such a simplistic ideology, to never consider the ramifications of surrender in Iraq or the entitlement mentality that has destroyed the black family. Nope, I'm just against war and for feeding hungry kids. Look how special I am! Liberalism is the most mindless and unimaginative political doctrine in existence. The answer to every ill is more taxation and redistribution of wealth. And no matter how many times more money fails to get results, the answer will remain more money. That's because it's good intentions, not results, that are important. You feel free to massage your ego with self-important slogans about compassion. Invite a few bums to crash at your house. I'll continue to believe that what they need is tough love and a job application, and I'll sleep soundly knowing that help is available for anyone who isn't too lazy to take it.

[former tampanian]

mike-
you're spouting off a lot of numbers there, pal. I might be swayed a little more if you're argument had some sources to back it up. Also, Eric's blog wasn't about the lack of *programs* to help those that you say are "unwilling...to improve themselves" but the lack of media attention that those programs-and the people they're supposed to help-receive in contrast to the mindless fluff that saturates the public. BTW-It's easier to poke fun at someone that's supposed to be "better off" than the average joe than it is to rag on someone who is (willfully or other wise) less fortunate.
One other thing, "the flat earth society" of pre-1400's can be compared to the close-minded, by-into-everything-Bush-is-telling-you ultra-conservative party of today. Start thinking for yourself mike or you might fall off the edge of the world.

Of course there are good people caught in tough circumstances. But there is already tons of help for those people, and they are a small minority. Like I said, show me 100 people living in poverty and I'll show you 99 who are there as a direct result of their own willful behavior. Of those 99, 80 of them will be unwilling to do what it takes to improve themselves no matter how much assistance is offered. The whole premise, that we ignore the poor, is a steaming pile of BS. It's not a lack of attention, money, programs, help... it's a lack of will among the poor to better themselves.

[Eric Deggans]

As ugly as the world is that you describe, Mike, I can see why you like living there.

No one is stuck in a crappy circumstance who doesn't deserve it and the only people who get the short end in America are those who never deserved success in the first place.

I just hope you're never in a position where you need someone to feel differently about your circumstances.

Because it would awfully ironic if you didn't get help when you needed it because some other person thought you deserved whatever mess you stepped in...

[mike]

Guilt? I can say unequivocally that I don't give a damn about people who are poor because they use drugs, have babies they can't raise, would rather whine about injustice than do something to better themselves, etc... It's like we live in an alternate universe where bums are now "the homeless," everybody is a victim, and we assign some kind of perverse nobility to irresponsible miscreants. Show me a housing project and I'll show you 99% of the population there that chooses to be poor. This notion that we ignore the poor is absurd. There are programs out the wazoo; everything from free lunch to free medical care to free job training to free student grants for college. These people live in poverty because, thanks to the welfare state, it's all they know. There's a whole generation of kids, especially black kids, who think it's normal to not work. We've created a sub-culture of parasites who believe they are entitled to anything they want. Go to a homeless camp. They're filled with healthy young people who unapologetically refuse to work for a living. Lets call a spade a spade. For every hardworking person living in poverty, there are 100 worthless bums who wouldn't work if you gave them a job and drove them there every day. These people are not noble creatures down on their luck. They are criminals, bums, and miscreants who have chosen their own destiny. More government entitlements, piled on top of the mega-heap that already exist, will only increase dependency and poverty.

[Oscar]

I love people who attack the messenger, oh boy. I think it is easier to comment on something like MTV because we can hold the moral high ground and be all smug and superior. But when it comes to poverty and helping our fellow man, then good old guilt gets in our way.

[mike]

For the most part, poverty is caused by willful behavior. It's that simple. We're a society that works hard and succeeds, and there will never be a well spring of sympathy and concern for irresponsible bums.

Thanks for the two leftist polls. I'm sure they're perfectly unbiased and accurate, just like the SPT. Hold on, I threw up in my mouth a little bit... I hear the flat earth society has proof that the earth is not round. You should print their findings. I figure the science is at least as good as the computer models that pass for science on climate change.

[Tom]

The poor are hardly noticed in the current city council campaign.

We should change that.

Thanks for keeping us informed.

[Eric Deggans]

I don't disagree with you, my friend. And guess what I end up writing about to get the hits...?

[Ron]

This blog is a sad reminder of what our society has become. Write about something meaningful, such as poverty, and no virtually no one bothers to post. Write about a worthless topic like MTV and Britney Spears, and they come out of the woodworks to post.

[Eric Deggans]

Wish I could tell you. Maybe they don't want to reveal how little some of their clients are actually published...

[GlennS.]

Eric, why won't the syndicates which distribute the columnists reveal where their clients are published? I think I'm reasonably intelligent but I can't for the life of me figure out why this would be some sort of a secret.