Feedback on short story....

[RadioRaheem84]

Decided to include short stories in my new formed blog. First entry I want to include is about a journalist who stumbles upon what he first believes is a conspiracy but later turns out to be the daily systemic mechanisms of politics in a capitalist society. Three questions that would be mostly appreciated from everyone, especially our most seasoned posters, regarding the believablity of the story.

1.) If a journalist writes a story his magazine does not want to publish, can he take it elsewhere? Like a more radical journal?

2.) Just how effectively could I incorporate the whole idea behind Chomsky's and Michael Parenti's beliefs about the media into this? What I mean is how best to convey that there will be no shadowy forces working behind the scenes trying to stop the story but the regular mechanisms that filter radical stories organically.

3.) Can a journalists career be ruined because of a story? Not so much ruined but I am having the guy start off working for a high flying magazine akin to Vanity Fair, basically writes puff pieces on elites to writing a story that would completely ruin a mogul.

I would appreciate the help guys and I would be more than happy to share the story when I am finished with all of you.

[Red Commissar]

I am not familiar with the way journalism works so I'll try to the best of my ability to answer these.

1. I would imagine this depends on the relationship of the journalist to the magazine. If they are a freelancer or some other position where they are free to work with other outlets, then they can try to do so. This does not guarantee that their alternative choices will pick up the story, nor will it probably safeguard them from the current magazine deciding to pass up on their future work.

2. You could point out how certain stories are ignored or pushed down in presumably "free" societies that do not have the pervasive censorship networks associated with authoritarian states. The internet, while making it easier to access stories, has also allowed for a larger pool of stories for people to sort through. It's very easy for some pieces of news to get lost in the shuffle and drowned by others. I mean you could illustrate this right away by looking at common home pages for many users, such as google or yahoo, which feature some sort of news aggregator. I'll stick with Yahoo as an example because it is probably the worst of the two. Let's look at the current top ten headlines:

-'American Idol' singer caught in a big lie
-Want to lower your risk of heart attack?
-Americans ripping up their retirement plans
-Hot Model admits: 'I won a genetic lottery'
-Surprise guest takes over 'Idol' stage
-$78 million ferry being given away
-U.S. Postal Service makes stunning claim
-Couric's awkward night out with celebrity
-Eastwood's son doesn't just look like dad
-Why your tax refund will be late this year

So yeah, lot of sensationalist bull. Even if we consider that today might be a slow news day, even on more active ones we'll get stories that appeal to the lowest common denominator- populist outrage, political correctness, politicians, what ever. People are more likely to view and read these stories than read longer articles on exposing problems and speaking out against something- and thus news outlets adjust accordingly. Here's some examples of some story pairs- which'd get the most attention today?

Coverage on worker abuse in Walmart v. Negative coverage on a union on strike

-American abuses in Iraq v. Violence of Islamist radicals in x country

-Analysis of the causes of the Mali Conflict v. Sharia Law horrors in Timbuktu

-Criticism of Israel v. Violence from Hamas

Any of these stories would be published and have been. The issue is that one would get more attention than the other. Sometimes this is because the editors of a newspaper select one over the other to be on the front page, other times because the populace at large goes towards one more than the other. Most of the time it seems to be a combination of the two. Ugly truth is that most people are not political nerds like we are and are quick to form opinions based on a single story they see somewhere.

There's also the changing face of media with the internet and advances in telecom. Fox News was able to advance over old outlets in part because they realized how to make news more entertaining- they went away from the old newsreader format with discussions and focused more on a format we are familiar with now: TV studios with lots of activity going on from TVS and computers, close shots on the face of an anchor to make the viewer feel more "involved", soundbites, appealing to base pseudo-populist nonsense. All the other news sources followed accordingly, and heck it's continuing to change now. I've noticed we're seeing a lot of news anchors ditch their tables in favor of standing on a stage or sitting in a chair.

The other consequence of this is that it's become more profitable for news groups to report on stories as they occur rather than analyze them as they develop, since many people receive their news through internet as opposed to the paper or daily news. By this I mean how almost all news is focused on things happening now rather than discussions or long-term reporting on something. There is more value in a journalist who can quickly pick up on a scoop and get it on the website's front page as it develops than there is in one who wants to look at it over a week.

News aggregators or blog nonsense like the Huffington Post, Drudge Report, and BreitBart's network of "Big X" sites is a good example of the kind of shit that makes money for media moguls right now.

3. I can't comment on this really with concrete examples of journalists who end up being effectively blacklisted for writing stories the editorial board didn't care for. I guess you can point out how certain stories come back to bite the journalist in a big way if it comes out to be false. The mess over Scooter Libby, Dan Rather and the Killian documents,

Then I guess you could compare that to say BreitBart and what happened with Shirley Sherrod. There was no punishment essentially for doing selective editing and misleading information.

Or I guess seeing why Chris Hedges is unlikely to have his pieces picked up by the New York Times anymore.

[RadioRaheem84]

Thanks for the feedback!

Basically the story is about a playboy journalist who enjoys his life covering social elite stuff for a puff rag like Vanity Fair or Details. He gets a call from his boss that he has received a call from higher ups requesting a tribute of a late industry magnate. The son of the late magnate wants him to write the tribute because he loves his writing style, but when the journalist meets the son, the son has a different motive and wants to expose the fathers business practices in the third world. At first the journalist is apprehensive because he is not a seasoned investigative journalist but more of a high society cultural writer. He eventually agrees and travels to a third world country where he finds out just how mired in corruption, murder, bribery and extortion. He brings the story back to the States where he is turned down by his mag but tries to get it published elsewhere. He finally does in a left leaning one like Mother Jones or something and it seals his fate as a mainstream journalist. Basic point of the story that makes this differ from other similar stories out there is that there is no conspiracy of any sorts to shut him up or anything that wasn't already known about what Western companies do in third world (sweatshops, union intimidation, buying elections) but just that the regular organic mechanisms of the mainstream press is filtering his story. Downplaying it or ignoring it. I even write about how he is a guest panelist on a show but is grilled by the other panelists on just how "radical" his story is and flies in the face of economic reality (how sweatshops make economic sense).

I know it's a fictions story but does all of this sound remotely plausible?

Please comment Red Commisar, you're helping me out a lot.

[Red Commissar]

It sounds plausible to me. It should at least demonstrate an ugly reality with these things. You should make sure though that it's not only his difficulty in getting mainstream press to carry the story, but the general apathy and lack of interest from the public that means his story will not get much attention.