The people, not media outlets, really ‘manufacture’ controversy

To say that recent events pertaining to basketball fan behavior got people up in arms would be an early contender for understatement of the year.

I have never seen as much activity in the world of The Daily Athenaeum as I did in the last week, except for the Heather Bresch eMBA scandal.

Guest submissions and letters were printed every day.

The story on whether West Virginia University officials would remove student seating after the Pittsburgh game reached nearly 100 comments on our Web site.

Though now the comments on this page have been removed due to an unfortunately large number of spam posts unintelligently trashing WVU or talking about how other schools are better.

The report on the game itself had more than 60 comments and a few of the columns and letters on the opinion page had more than 25.

Most of these comments dealt with individual positions on the fan behavior issue.
Several comments, however, accused the DA of manufacturing controversy on the subject by printing an excessive number of articles on it.

While I suspect that these people feel this way because of an overly negative view of the media in general, I cannot ignore the underlying issue their sentiment raises.

People often accuse media outlets of going overboard to create controversy, but they underestimate the role they play in what gets covered by the media.

Looking at the WVU example, it is clear that the DA and other media outlets (even ESPN) were not just making controversy out of nothing anyone cared about.

News Web sites keep track of how many hits their stories get. Presumably, the stories that get the most hits are the ones that interest the most people.

Every time a reader opens one, he or she is adding to the level of interest surrounding a story (or multiple stories involving one event).

With probably 200 or more total comments on fan behavior articles, along with so many submissions, people all over this state and others are telling the media they want to read or hear about it.

Essentially, every click on an online news story (or viewing of a TV new program for those who have Nielsen boxes) and letter to the editor is equal to a "vote" for the interest of the story in question.

Even the negative comments and letters frequently increase the hype of an issue, unless a great many express disdain for an outlet's decision to run a particular story.

Plus, negative feedback shows that although a person did not like a particular story, he or she cared enough to read and respond to the publication.

The voting idea rings especially true when it comes to media that are directly sold, rather than shown on TV or published online.

After a few weeks of extensive coverage on Michael Jackson's death, for example, there were many complaints that the media dragged out the story too long.

But what was stopping the media from doing so?

‘People' magazine had at least three-consecutive issues featuring cover stories on Jackson immediately following his death.

Not surprisingly, they sold millions of copies. Readers voted with their wallets – and dollars are more significant votes than Web comments.

Anyone who was adamantly opposed to that much Jackson coverage should not have bought the commemorative magazines or any other merchandise.

I'm sure there were some who bought these magazines due to future historical importance or big Jackson fandom, but "People" has no way of knowing that.The company only sees numbers, and the numbers said, "keep doing what you're doing."

It is important to remember that media outlets are businesses, and they operate as such.

Even the not-for-profit ones seek exposure by catering to what people want to see.
If a magazine is making money by heavily featuring a particular story, it is ridiculous to expect them to stop.

Ultimately, consumers dictate what is covered in the media.

The alternative is for media outlets to stop asking people what they want and start telling them what they want.

Instead of printing all these guest submissions, the DA could cast them aside and say "no, we don't care about your opinion on this topic."The fundamental goal of the media is to tell people about what is happening around them.

If there is a big issue at WVU, many students and graduates will all have something to say.

It is up to the local media to get these expressions out there for others to consider.
I am not suggesting media outlets never overdo coverage on certain stories.

But most instances of excessive coverage are motivated by consumer response, either because an event has everyone talking or because it has everyone buying.

(2/9) Editor's Note: It is not the policy of The Daily Athenaeum, be they editor or writer, to comment on articles.