Don’t Blame the Messenger
I recently read an editorial from the Nicholls Worth titled, “Media should cover news that matters.”
In essence, the article argues that there should be more news coverage of “current events” and less coverage of Paris Hilton. It further discusses a proposed boycott of Paris Hilton stories.
At some level, this editorial suggests changing the behavior of the news media, while providing no incentive to do so. I give it absolutely no chance of impacting anything. If the same article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, I would give it slightly higher chance, but still I would put the chance of an impact as vanishingly small. Why?
As you already know, and will be reminded of approximately 200 times throughout the semester, economics is about incentives. If you want to try and learn about the behavior of people, a fine start is to look at the incentives they have. If you want to try and change their behavior, a fine start is to chance the incentives of those people. People respond to incentives; their behavior is typically not “accidental”, it is purposeful.
For example, imagine being the producer of soft drinks. You are considering which flavors to produce. The first option is orange soda, which seems to be pretty popular with your customers. On the other hand, your mother is a big fan of liver and onion soda, which seems to be not so popular with your customers. If you produce the liver and onion soda, how do you expect to do? Would it be correct to say that a firm producing orange soda could be easily persuaded to switch to liver and onion soda?
What does this have to do with Paris Hilton, you ask?
How do you think a newspaper will do if it covers stories that its readers do not wish to learn more about (liver and onion soda). Or if it does not cover stories its readers do wish to learn more about (orange soda)? Is it then an “accident” that the news media is covering Paris Hilton? Would media outlets be willing to stop providing it?
What then is the point of this editorial? If anything, what should the editorial be complaining about?
–CT
Do a Google search of “Adam Smith” and “Invisible Hand” and see what you come up with.
June 16th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Chad,
Your point here reminds me of a couple of lines from an old John Prine song (never heard of Prine? he was a 70s singer/social critic) from his song “Sweet Revenge.” The lines are:
“so I called up my local deejay
and he didn’t have a lot to say
but the radio
has learned all of my favorite tunes.”
Radio stations won’t make it on advertising without programming that has a wide appeal. That is why public radio stations that opera all day on Saturday, for instance, have a hard time staying afloat financially and have to beg listeners to send in money and beg the legislature to use tax dollars for support. That is why stations like KNSU have to tax students for support. These stations stay afloat using charity (love) and coercion (force) instead of the market (exchange). The same holds for news. If newspapers don’t report on the things people want to hear about, they will lose circulation and then advertisers, and then will not be able to afford the reporters and editors that kept the news of Ms. Hilton from their audience. So, the newspapers learn what news people want to hear, the radio learns our favorite songs, and the car producers learn what features we like for our automobiles.
-MC
June 19th, 2007 at 8:43 am
I agree with you both that newspapers should cover what people want to hear. The hundreds of tabloids would not be around if we only wanted to hear about U.S. relations with the United Arab Emirates. While the editorial says that news media should focus less on Paris and more on issues like the G-8 summit in Germany, I believe that the NW is justified in saying that the media should focus on what “matters.” Today’s media is more concerned with Hollywood and P-Diddy’s parties rather than global issues affecting our nation. Sure we want to know who won the Oscar, but who really wants to know their every single move?
While I agree with the view of the NW, I also agree with Dr. Coats. Newspapers will lose support if they don’t report about what people want to hear. Even though the Opera station will fail, the rock, rap, and pop stations will continue to thrive because they know what its listeners want. However, I also think the NW knows its readers. More Putin, less Paris.
(Dr. Coats- It makes me sad the the opera stations fails. I love Glinka’s “Life of the Tsar.)
June 20th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I totally agree with all of you that suppliers produce what people want. Whether it be news about a movie star or orange soda. Suppliers will not risk losing money on a certain thing that only one person wants. They only produce things that will initiate a positive effect on society as a whole. Incentives are what makes society move forward because it motivates people to want to accomplish something.
July 15th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
The entire issue of Paris Hilton had brought a lot of attention to what we hear about on the news and read about in magazines. People all over were shocked at the amount of attention 1 girl got because she was going to jail. Most were outraged and all the could talk about was how we shouldnt be talking about her… BUT they were still talking about her.
I guess what I am trying to say is that all the publishers who wrote about how we should let the Paris thing go were still writing about her in the end. It just proves the point that producers supply what people want.. and often times they find indirect ways of doing it.
August 21st, 2007 at 8:18 pm
The newspapers will never stop publishing about the stars and all of their drama because it sells newspapers. Yes, they should publish more on issues that matter, but people are nosey. People have an uncontrollable urge to be nosey and to talk about the famous people’s lives. Even the people who are complaining about Paris being in the news are secretly wanting to know what is going to happen too. So as long as people continue being nosey, the longer the newspapers are going to publish these stories.