Nielsen Media Research reports 27 million watched ‘American Idol’ on TV last night. But an average of just 18.6 million watched the Winter Olympics.
So I open the local newspaper this morning, then cruise around news websites, and I see plenty of expanded coverage for the Olympics. But I don’t see those news outlets running columns covering what happened on ‘Idol’ and inviting readers to talk about it.
Why not? I thought the journalism industry was in the business of attracting readers. And that news execs are blowing millions on consultants and makeovers to reach younger readers. If there’s a contest going on in this country that’s attracting 27 million viewers, many of them teens and young adults, why wouldn’t the news industry want a piece of that action? Why leave it to morning radio shows and fan websites?
I’m not calling for eight-page special sections. But how much work would it take to assign an entertainment columnist to write a blog and print column with recaps, previews and analysis? Plus an invitation for readers to leave comments at the paper’s website?
Surely, some newspaper has figured this out. If you know of one, submit its link below.
About Robert Niles
But do they care enough to write about it?
Technorati shows 4,000 posts a day over the last 6 days; Idol barely nailed a thousand in the last day. And here’s the blogpulse: while the Idol-worshippers’ postings resemble downhill moguls, the Turino followings show an imposing platform of interest.
To Steven Johnson’s well-stated theory that popular television is more interactive and engaging than ever (while the Olympics has declined by comparison), even the talent show competition still doesn’t draw in the citizen’s media interest of subjects that hardly ever have a TV show devoted to them: people talking about their cats and dogs.
Your premise worries me as well. Should popularity drive importance? That’s the crux of media studies, ain’t it?. Not to worry, your opposite numbers on Broadway seem to be evading this question as well.
Heck yeah, news editors ought to consider an event/program/destination’s popularity in deciding whether or not to cover it, and how. Ones who do not ought quickly to become ex-news editors.
It kills me to think about the millions Tribune wasted re-writing wire copy for its Red paper debacle, when it could have reached its target teen-and-early-adult audience simply by covering the stuff that age group cares about: like ‘Idol.’ Where’s the local MySpace site of the day link? The homework help button? The mashup gallery? Heck, if news editors spent less time in the newsroom and more time at home with their kids (assuming they have some), they’d have a far better idea how to reach this audience.