Huh. Happens Here Too I See
When I was a wee tiny fellow my dad spent a lot of time teaching me how to identify vulnerabilities in the positions of those who I would one day have to deal with. After you identify those vulnerabilities you've got all kinds of options. You can exploit those openings, you can actively defend those openings for that person (usually in exchange for something) or you can just ignore them.
The only hard and fast rule in any of that was that you never exploit those vulnerabilities, or provide others with the information to do so, unless doing so results in direct gains for yourself. Only a fool starts a fight where nothing can be gained, right? Plus, if there's no gain, you're only exposing your own vulnerabilities. Why take the risk? Hubris is a killer you know.
Let's say, for example, a moderately well known specialty media outlet went on a tear about some famous persons stupid mistake(s). Now, there's exactly zero advantage in an expert publicly pointing out the factual errors by someone who is, effectively, not an expert in anything, and who enjoys popularity for the same reasons as wool sweaters: Warm and harmless.
Now, while that media outlet may have their facts correct, you have to ask yourself why they felt the need to point out what any subject matter already knows and the general public could care less about. Only the thickest sort expects the talking heads of any society to actually know what they're talking about. The celebrity chatterboxes are little more than ambient background racket that we all filter out.
So everybody who cares already knows the famous person was wrong; but that was expected. What wasn't expected was a full frontal retaliatory assault by experts on the subject. As noted, the experts already knew and the general public still doesn't care. In fact, the general public, should the incident rise to general awareness, will make an emotional decision and side with the wool sweater. Every. Single. Time.
So now our hypothetical media outlet has lost the support of general public they were aiming for (aiming for the general public being the only reason to restate what experts already know) and have revealed themselves to be prone to individual bias. Once a proclivity for bias has been established, any future commentary by that media outlet is compromised simply by pointing out they exhibit aggressive bias.
Only die hard fans, who already recognized the original error, will over look it. But anyone outside that core has a legitimate reason for tossing that outlets commentary out. Just like people do with The Daily Mail, or Fox News, or MSNBC (or whatever they are now) or NPR. The weight of expertise has been completely offset by a perception of aggressive bias.
The worst part is, there is no defense. Any information coming from that outlet, even if wholly unrelated, can be swept aside as loaded. That's public debate 101, instill doubt about the oppositions information sources. Once that's in doubt, the person using those sources is on the defensive for the remainder of the debate. Rendered impotent. In the arena of public discourse perception trumps fact and correctness every time. To be doubted is to be undone.
Now, journalism isn't my field, but public opinion (audience opinion anyway) most certainly is. If I were employed at a specialty media outlet covering a field with a reputation for vocal, often insulting, condescension I'm pretty sure reinforcing industry stereotypes is not how I would go about increasing readership and the attached advertiser dollars. I would turn that right around.
I would have approached the popular celebrity, who repeatedly makes dumb comments, about a partnership to prevent his saying dumb things about my industry. You know, proof his related commentary and in exchange he sells you to everybody on the island, and beyond. That's marketing no amount of money can buy.
As a quick review of history shows, our media outlet can be neutralized with one snarky comment from the celebrity. Nothing has been gained and reputation has taken a hit. Instead of a futile war on wool sweaters, get your name emblazoned on the sweaters. Let them do the selling for you.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
