U.S. News Media: Reporters of Information or Creators of Branded Content?

In 1961 Robert Minow, then chairman of the FCC  famously called television a ‘vast wasteland’ and admonished network executives that ‘your obligations are not satisfied if you look only to popularity as the test of what to broadcast. You are not only in show business…It is not enough to cater to the nation’s whims---you must also serve the nation’s needs’.

Robert Minow: TV 'Vast Wasteland'

And the networks responded. From the 1960’s to 1980, Networks came to regard the quality of their news coverage as a source of prestige, not a source of profits. As such, network news was a perpetual ‘loss leader’ but news programming was revered.  

Networks were quick to forgo commercial programming to cover breaking news events. From JFK’s assassination to the moon landing, to the Watergate hearings, events were covered with little commentary and no commercial incentive as they unfolded. Thus the narrative was the same across networks. The difference was whether you chose to hear about these events from Walter Cronkite or David Brinkley, and how you chose to react to them.

Information or Content?

But that is no longer the case. As big changes have occurred in media companies, technology, and audiences, news sources seem to be behaving more like creators of branded content, than reporters of information. 


What's the difference? Information is defined as ‘facts provided or learned by something or someone’. Branded content, on the other hand, is defined as ‘a form of advertising that uses the generating of content as a way to promote the particular brand which funds the content’s production.’ 1

Facts or Brand Myths?

In promoting themselves, brands selectively communicate facts that support their story.  Great brands often augment those facts by creating myths that build perceived brand value. Was Apple, the world’s most valuable brand, really started in Steve Job’s garage? Steve Wozniak says ‘not exactly’.2 Was Johnny Walker whiskey, the most valuable spirit brand, really ‘born in 1820’ when Johnny opened his first store?  No, the first blend wasn’t created until after Walker’s death. But despite their lack of veracity, these myths become gospel to these brands' evangelical-like followers. And their belief in these myths ultimately contributes to these brands' real economic value.

And that is what seems to be happening to the news. One need only look at the home pages of some US media giants to realize how dissimilar the news seems across sources.  Rather than covering events, each source appears to be curating stories that support their own brand narrative, seemingly in an effort designed to strengthen their connection with a specific audience.

In fact, according to Business Insider, since purchasing the Washington post Jeff Bezos 'has taken a hands on approach on the business and technology sides to reinvent the paper as a media and technology company.

'That's helped it take a more data-driven approach. It now employs common web strategies like "A/B testing" to track how different headlines and story framings affect readership for each story. It also created a program that takes articles from other publications and asks readers which ones they'd rather read.'

Thus, where current events used to unite us in common experiences, branded content serves to divide us through alternative realities. Consequently, we see people who wear the badge of their favorite news source as proudly as Ford or Chevy owners defend the virtues of their trucks against one another. 

How did this all happen? 

Three factors, all fueled by enabling technology seemingly converged to get us here:

1. The 'Baby Jessica' Factor - the need to feed CNN's 24 hour news cycle, in absence of any significant breaking news
   
2. The 'OJ' Factor - forever blurring the lines between news and entertainment
   
3. The 'Mickey Mouse' Factor - media consolidation that puts the ownership of news brands in the hands of entertainment companies
   

Where do we go from here?

Certainly, we can't go back in time. But if the name of the game is finding an unserved audience, perhaps the next big news brand will go back to covering events with no commentary, and let the 'do it yourself' news audience interpret the facts for themselves. Considering  that, according to Gallup, American's trust in the news media has fallen from 76% in 1972 to 32% today, there may just be a market for facts. After all, I hear that trust is a very strong foundation upon which to build a brand.

1 Source: Wikipedia
2 "The garage is a bit of a myth. We did no designs there, no breadboarding, no prototyping, no planning of products. We did no manufacturing there. The garage didn’t serve much purpose, except it was something for us to feel was our home. We had no money. You have to work out of your home when you have no money."  Steve Wozniak, Bloomberg Interview 2014