When I was a rookie at ABC News decades ago, our coverage of big stories—from war to impeachment to the World Series—always included plenty of “man on the street,” or MOS. As soon as important news broke, a pack of reporters from TV, radio and print dashed to New York’s iconic crossroads, Times Square or Grand Central Terminal, to learn what “average” folks were thinking.
MOS was never scientific. It consisted of quick sound bites from people given little time to think before blurting opinions. And it was almost always edited to create balance: If there were two sides to a story, we sought to represent them equally. The process was quaint and sometimes misleading, but it did serve as a reminder that not all issues are black or white.
The man on the street as we knew him is dead. He may reappear occasionally after natural disasters or in political battleground states. Most MOS coverage, however, has been replaced by a plethora of faceless polls—and even polling averages—along with tallies of likes, tweets and Google searches.
Following the Democrats’ debate in Miami last June, USA Today reported: “Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard emerged as the clear winner by one objective standard: She got the most Google searches after the debate.” There was nothing “clear” or “objective” about the story. Did people search for information about Ms. Gabbard because they liked her positions? Or were they simply curious about that outspoken woman in the red blazer?
Who are these googling masses? Where do they live? How old are they? Do they look you in the eye when they speak? These metrics have a scientific sheen, but they’re no replacement for MOS. Neither are the other digital facsimiles.
Today when news breaks, reporters don’t have to trek to Times Square. They can open Twitter and have the world’s opinions at their fingertips. But they really don’t have to bother with the general public. Politicians, entertainers and denizens of the B List also dish their digital opinions.
Following the Dec. 20 Democratic debate the New York Times ran a story titled “Who Won the Democratic Debate? Experts Weigh In.” The report consisted almost entirely of tweets, more than a dozen of them, from “experts” such as former Obama adviser David Axelrod, and Meredith Kelly, a former spokeswoman for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s presidential campaign.
In some ways reprinting tweets is more journalistically careless than MOS ever was. The statements aren’t spontaneous, they’re crafted as mini news releases. There’s no follow-up, no back and forth with the reporter.
Yet the power of Twitter shouldn’t be underestimated. From #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter to scores of other influential hashtags, it has a profound effect on what journalists and politicians think about and report. But only 22% of American adults use Twitter, and it has a tendency toward groupthink.
One place where MOS remains a staple is in local news coverage. At the scene of a fire or horrific car crash, reporters still go after quotes such as, “It looked like a war zone” (the line we heard most over the years at ABC News), usually spoken by people who had never been to an actual war.
In the media lexicon, MOS has another meaning in addition to “man on the street”: “mit out sound.” Mit is German for “with” and this use of MOS refers to footage that is silent. You might say what remains of MOS in the digital age is now mostly MOS. The more tools we develop to give individuals a voice, the less we care about what they have to say.
Mr. Funt is a writer and host of “Candid Camera.”
Copyright ©2019 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
"street" - Google News
January 13, 2020 at 04:12AM
https://ift.tt/2FGmscM
The Man on the Street Has Died - Wall Street Journal
"street" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2Ql4mmJ
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
No comments:
Post a Comment