The problems with Business news…
In Fast Company.com’s Idiot Box, Elizabeth Spiers takes shots at the TV Business channels over the way they do their news…
The problem is not that straight business news is too boring to work on TV; it’s that the channels perceive it to be too complex for the notoriously dumbed-down medium and its presumably dumb audience. On the Fox Business Web site, featured articles include “What Is Wall Street?” and “Dating to Meet Your Match and Your Budget”–online counterparts to the channel’s service-oriented on-air stories that, for instance, tell you how to avoid foreclosure if you default on your mortgage payments. From this we can deduce that the channel’s producers imagine its typical viewer to be someone tightly budgeted and single, so ignorant of the business world that “Wall Street” is nearly if not completely unintelligible, and on the verge of having his or her house repossessed. CNBC and Bloomberg seem to think a bit more highly of their audiences, but their content still consists overwhelmingly of dry digests of market news and analysis generalized to the point of meaninglessness.
In the process, something important is lost. In bending over backward to make business relevant to viewers and assuming that they aren’t sophisticated enough to understand or want anything beyond a rehash of whatever ran in the morning’s Wall Street Journal, televised business news misses an opportunity to really examine the influence of private-sector power in modern society.
My favorite part has to be:
“This is rather emblematic of FBN’s programming: The stories of the day are mostly political happenings masquerading as business news. It’s as if the men and women behind the curtain are hoping to drag the formidable audience of its big brother, Fox News, into the business category by making more of the same. Is that really necessary? Is straight business news too boring to sustain a cable channel?”
Comment by Terance — December 1, 2007 @ 10:18 am
This critcism is unwarranted. Yes, most of us are not familiar with how business in general works, which does not make me wince to listen to and view what is being presented. FBN, specifically, wants to cater mainly to those inhabiting Main Street. What’s wrong with that?
I notice the last paragraph of this criticism, and I’m not sure what the author means in her statement of “private-sector” power in shaping modern society. That is as vague as most of her run-away sentences, which, compared to what I read in most financial papers, is not exactly a model of clear writing.
Ms. Spiers, I think, doth protest too much.
Comment by RGL — December 1, 2007 @ 10:19 am
“Televised business news misses an opportunity to really examine the influence of private-sector power in modern society.”
Oh please! This type of crap is exactly what’s wrong with journalism. Inserting commentary, more often than not, with the usual liberal anti business slant into the news ruins the stories and the integrity of the journalism. Sounds like the CNBC reporting before they had competition where they reported the business news and winced about the winners and losers and supposed evil effects of capitalisms. Please report the straight business news and leave the commentary to opinion shows. Then for a change please have on experts in economics along with the Marxists so we get a well balanced debate. Something unheard of on NBC, CNN and most of the MSM
Comment by Steve L — December 1, 2007 @ 11:45 am
It seems FBN is targeted to the investing neophyte, the beginner who must have every four-syllable word explained to them. After you master the basics, you would locically graduate to CNBC, which assumes their viewers at least know the basic vocabulary of business.
Also, I’ve noticed how FBN tries to sugar-coat the negative market news (there’s been a lot in the last two weeks)as part of Murdoch’s “pro-business” ideology. But it’s not “anti-business” to report honestly that the stock market is tanking and the housing market is crashng. As an investor, I don’t appreciate happy-talk spin. I much prefer facts straight down the middle.
For an investment oriented advertiser targeting high-income clients, CNBC seems to be offering a more attractive audience.
Comment by Dennis M — December 1, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Steve - I’m afraid you’re projecting your own prejudices onto my column. I’m a libertarian, and a fairly public one at that. I do not think–nor did I state–that more and better coverage of the business sector means more negative coverage, much less an anti-business party line. Any securities holder in this market has an interest in getting better information. And Fox isn’t providing it. I think more transparency is always better than less, particularly if you’re a shareholder. And you can malign “journalists” and “journalism” all you want because my feelings about the lack of good business coverage stem mostly from my pre-media career as a tech equity analyst and years of consuming financial journalism that told me nothing new.
And RGL - If Fox did cater to Main Street business news consumers, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. It doesn’t.
Perhaps it will in the future, but right now it’s not even helpful to people whose sole interest in business news is whatever might affect their 401(k) or their mortgage. And let’s face it, that’s the Main Street consumer.
At any rate, I can’t really argue with anyone who thinks dumber coverage is better. The underlying assumption seems to be that smart coverage is inherently inaccessible. I don’t think it is. Even complex concepts can be made accessible if you know how to edit, produce and present content properly. Given Roger Ailes’ historical talent for doing just that, it’s really surprising that Fox Business News isn’t better. It’s exactly the sort of thing they should know how to do.
Comment by Elizabeth Spiers — December 3, 2007 @ 6:48 pm