Printable View
Ok, so I know this is a broad topic, but what do you want to see the media in the Metro Detroit area cover on Detroit, or at least cover more of?
We've seen a lot of positive coverage on the city, but we've also seen many negative pieces too.
What should be covered more? What isn't covered? What do YOU want to see more of or less of?
Basically, anything you can think of. History, architecture, people, events, current news, sports, features, arts & entertainment, investigative pieces, etc....
Interesting topic. I would like to see some interviews, discussion, etc. with Detroit high school students at all levels. They are the next generation of citizens that will impact the city and I would like to know how they feel about it. Are they optimistic about education & job opportunities [[not necessarily in the city), city services, crime, etc. Obviously their home environment has a tremendous impact on all of this. Do they feel they have an opportunity at a good life given their present situation?
Just to get this out [[hoping that the publisher of the Free Press still comes here occasionally): I would like to see much, much less of Georgiana Kovaris [[unsure of correct spelling) and her stories on
1. Cleavage
2. That she used to not make her bed and now she does
3. That she may have dirty hair
Please get some shame over there!
Now, on to the real discussion that the original poster hopes for.
First and foremost, I would like for the reporters and anchors to actually familiarize themselves with the city. After all, the new station/newspaper they're working for is licensed TO Detroit.
Whenever they're reporting on a crime, PLEASE tell us the intersection or area that you're at, or at least tell us what side of town that you're on.
Probably too much to ask given the current state of the region [[the veterans from the past were born/raised and lived in the city when it had 1.5 to 2 Million People, and thus were familiar with it), but this has always been a pet peeve of mine. "Live/Reporting from Detroit" tell me nothing in a city that's 143 sq. mi. wide.
My biggest gripe about local media is how superficial all the reporting is. Columnists not included, I sometimes think that "news" articles are just press releases. Summaries of itty bitty items put out by communications people at the police department, politician's office, team president, or corporate spokesman. There is little depth or context. Shooting on the West Side? How many other people were shot near there in the last month? How long did help take to arrive? Were there witnesses? Was the kind of gun used consistent with a gang weapon or a home protection pistol? Instead the we get something akin to: "Detroit police said there was a shooting on X street sometime last night. The victim was taken to Detroit Receiving Hospital where she is in critical condition." Another complaint: why do TV stations have so many reporters doing live shots when the news at said location is no longer occurring, "We're live on the scene where yesterday there was a terrible fire..." Produce and edit the story. Making it live just creates more banter. So our newscasts have lots of banter, not so much information.
I realize that many of the shortcomings of local journalism are do to staff cuts. Those cuts are necessitated by massive shrinkage of ad revenue. That revenue plummeted because our eyes have a million places to go beyond three local newscasts and two robust local papers. So, there is probably nothing to be done, but it's regrettable. Paper-thin reporting.
A few things I'd like to see more in our press:
-Investigative reporting into government contracting at all levels. I have a hunch if you dig a little, most towns and cities have shady financial connections to businesses associated with mayors and commissioners and councilmen and their family and friends. It is pervasive, and I think looking into contracts, donations, and buiness incorporation and property records would reveal alot.
-Lengthy, tough interviews with people running for office, probing their specific ideas. For candidates from both sides. It amazes me that most candidates can get through an election without having to justify and prove things they say. Especially effective: ask them to justify what their campaign ads say.
-Profiles of successful businesses, and the challenges that they have faced in becoming successful.
How about if they cover government, and not just the latest titillating rumor or scandal? Details on votes in council, commissions and state legislature, including who voted yea and who voted nay. And when it's election time, cover all the candidates, not just their hand-picked front runners. Rather than constantly criticizing the way Detroiters vote, give us the information we need to make better decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMAP
LOL! I'm choking on my coffee......
It often strikes me that if the local newspapers went out of business, the TV stations wouldn't have any news programs at all. Few of those talking heads can do much more than read a teleprompter.
1. Report without the sensationalism.
2. When there is a tragedy, give the family time to grieve before shoving a camera and microphone in their faces
3. Ask politicians difficult questions, don't just throw out softballs. Our local reporters have lost any balls they had and refuse to ask a difficult question.
4. Add some real context to the news, not just non-sense.
5. For TV news - 18 of 22 minutes doesn't need to be about weather.
6. Quit making the story about the reporter/journalist. You are supposed to relay and investigate the news, not be the news.
That's a start.Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownguy
They can also actually have a section dedicated to public transportation, as shitty as it is around here alot o fpeople still need/want to know about.
The goings on of the RTA are often buried as a side item like this stuff won't be affecting all of us for years to come.
I think that news media should stop ignoring that there is this awesome barbecue place called Slows. :rolleyes:
And highlight a white kid out of college that just opened a pop up. They are single handedly saving the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Hey, that pop-up is responsible for literally dozens of dollars' worth of investment, and several 5-hour-per-week jobs! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by jt1
And it's the first new store that sells clothes that has opened in the city in 92 years. OK, that isn't true but it doesn't stop it from being repeatedQuote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
I would like less sensationalist shock-journalism dreck, less incorrect "facts" about the city, less over-simplification of the current and historical issues facing the city, and more reporting that actually addresses pressing issues and looks into the barriers and possible solutions to these issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07
For example:
Instead of the media constantly repeating the lie that "there are no grocery stores in the city", they should be recognize that there are tons of Spartan grocery stores, independent and ethnic grocery stores, plus Eastern Market, and many of these grocers offer quality products and serve the city well, but the big national chains still largely avoid the city, and certain neighborhoods are underserved.
Detroit has grocery stores, and it is not a food desert. Detroit does lack major national chain stores, and SOME areas of the city may be food deserts, but oversimplification, incorrect "facts", and blanket statements about the city as a whole only leads to misunderstanding and incorrect assumptions.
Instead of "Detroit has no grocery stores", I'd like to hear "why do large chain grocers avoid Detroit?"
The same goes for the common narrative about Detroit's decline being due to deindustrialization, as if all the jobs and residents left the city and went down south or overseas. To be sure, there were some jobs and residents that left metro Detroit, but they have been offset by new residents and new job grown in the region.
Metro Detroit has more jobs and more residents now than we did when Detroit was in it's heyday. The only difference between 1964 and 2014 is that most of the jobs and residents have moved a few miles outside of the city limits into the suburbs.
According to the Detroit Free Press, the 30 year period between 1960 to 1990, the total number of jobs in the city of Detroit declined by HALF [[700,000 to 350,000), while the total number of jobs in the tri-county suburbs QUADRUPLED [[350,000 to 1.4 million). If Detroit's economic decline had anything to do with deindustrialization, then how the fuck did the Detroit tri-county area grow from 1,050,000 jobs in 1960 to 1,750,000 jobs in 1990? It's certainly not because of deindustrialization and decline. It's because essentially ALL of the growth and HALF of the existing jobs just moved a few miles up the road into the new suburban developments.
Instead of "Detroit has lost half it's jobs due to deindustrialization" I'd like to hear "why are the jobs leaving Detroit for the suburbs?"
Another example of the lazy inaccurate media reporting is the assertion that Detroit's decline was started by, or happened because of, the 1967 riots. This assertion is patently false. Detroit peaked around 1953, with an estimated population of about 2 million people. Before the riots hit Detroit, the population had already dropped by at least 400,000 people, and was down to 1,511,482 in 1970. The city lost almost another 500,000 from 1970-1990, but Detroit's population decline did not speed up after the 1967 riots, it actually continued at about the same pace that was set from the peak in 1953 through the riots of 1967.
The assertion that the 1967 riots were responsible for Detroit's population decline has little to no basis in fact. Detroit's population decline doesn't correlate with the 1967 riots at all. The event that does correlate strongly with Detroit's population decline is the removal of the city's streetcars and the simultaneous construction of the freeways. In 1953 [[at the peak of Detroit's population) the city began to destroy our streetcar system. By 1956, all light rail service in Detroit was ended. In 1953, the first section of the Lodge freeway leading out of downtown was opened, and by 1964 it ran out to the city limits. The first section of I-94 was built during WW2 to connect Detroit to Willow Run, but it was extended after the war and built out to Harper Woods by 1959. The Chrysler Freeway [[I-75) and the Southfield Freeway [[M-39) both opened in 1964.
Deindustrialization and the riots did not cause, or even really have much to do with Detroit's decline. The destruction of our light rail system, coupled with the massive government subsidies that promoted freeway building and suburban development is what caused Detroit's decline.
As long as the media can't get the basic facts straight, the public will be completely misled and focus on the wrong issues.