Soft News

The term soft news was originally synonymous with feature stories placed in newspapers or television newscasts for human interest. Such stories were often placed much lower in priority than more urgent items. However, more recently soft news evolved into a concept associated with a style of journalism that blurs the line between information and entertainment. In addition to soft news stories, there are now entire soft news programs and reporters who present with a soft news style. Professional journalists often make a distinction between hard news and soft news this way: Hard news stories require immediate attention to an event or incident, soft news stories usually center on the lives of people. In 1973 Gaye Tuchman noted that the publication of hard news of the moment cannot be delayed, whereas soft news stories have no urgency. Tuchman suggested that hard news concerns issues, politics, economics, international relations, welfare, and scientific developments, soft news focuses on human interest stories and gossip. Gamson's 1989 guidelines for soft news suggest it is “telling stories about the world rather than presenting information, even though the stories of course include factual elements.” Repeated studies begun in 1995 by the Global Media Monitoring Project have found women are more likely to be assigned soft news stories about entertainment, arts, and culture. Such stories are also more likely to feature women in traditional, rather than professional, roles.

Beginning in the late 1990s media critics and some scholars expressed concern over the so-called feminization of the media, exemplified by an announcement by the Wall Street Journal that it was setting aside more space for “family news.” Scott and Gobetz documented an upward trend in the amount of soft news carried in the three major network newscasts between 1972 and 1987, from 59 to 73 seconds in 1973 to 90 seconds in 1987. Critics such as former Vice President Al Gore believe the recent de-emphasis on hard news stories characterizes the bottom line mentality of media conglomerates that want to maximize profits by giving readers and viewers what they want instead of what they need. If that is indeed the case, this corporate strategy is not working, because there is evidence that the shift from hard news to soft news has not stopped the decline in news audiences.

Beyond the cultural dynamics of what makes news “hard” or “soft,” Thomas Patterson argued soft news “weakens the foundation of democracy by diminishing the public's information about public affairs and its interest in politics.” His 2-year study of Americans' news habits concluded soft news distorts the public's perceptions of politics and public affairs. He argued his evidence indicates that as interest in public affairs declines, so does interest in news, therefore what is good for democracy is also good for the press.

Others have challenged this general notion, suggesting the effects of soft news differ, depending on whether members of the audience are actually interested in politics (specifically, foreign affairs). The least politically engaged citizens are more likely to view soft news programs and outlets. Such viewers do gain political information from programs such as Oprah and The Daily Show. Some studies have shown that knowledge of candidates is positively correlated to viewing of late night soft news, while such knowledge is not associated with viewing morning news programs.

...