Journalism in Context
On July 1, 2021, Forbes published an article written by regular contributor Bryan Rolli entitled “BTS’s Enduring Success Is Forcing People To Rethink The Charts.” Rolli has published several articles about BTS, some of which we have referenced in other blogs here at Borasaek Vision, so the name may sound familiar, either from our work or from reading those articles independently of our readership.
Before you grow too concerned that yet another Western industry writer has disappointed the fandom, let us put your mind at ease — this is not that type of “Check Yourself: Facts.” While you can be sure that more of those sorts of articles will appear, this article stands out in a different, refreshing way from the pieces we usually cover and sparks an interesting conversation about journalism and our place in it.
First, let’s take a look at the original article. The beginning alone probably makes most ARMYs cheer: “BTS’s ‘Butter’ reigns atop the Billboard Hot 100 for a milestone fifth consecutive week, extending the Korean pop septet’s longest No. 1 streak to date. Fans are ecstatic about this. Critics are not. Same story, different week.”
Rolli goes on to speak about YouTuber Mark Grondin, who — according to the article — recently came under fire from ARMYs for his recent “Billboard Breakdown” video. Rolli describes the video, stating that Grondin “points to the massive digital sales of ‘Butter’ as evidence that its chart success is inorganic.” He further goes on to quote Grondin as saying “‘It’s a well-worn industry tactic to drive up sales across the industry… You get the flash of early sales, send the song surging in public, and ergo it MUST be popular, even if it’s just a quick stunt. This is BTS’ fifth week of it.’”
Notably, Rolli is very critical of Grondin’s assertion here: “This last line is hilarious, because it unintentionally reveals the mental gymnastics critics will do to undermine BTS’ success.” He also points out that, while BTS’ critics tried to invalidate their victories with “Butter” and “Dynamite” by proclaiming them illegitimate due to mass buying, a number of Western artists have gone to some serious lengths (including merchandise and ticket bundling) to get their songs to debut at No. 1. He lists incredibly popular artists, such as Drake, Ariana Grande, Lady Gaga, and Harry Styles, all of whom have very successful careers and don’t seem to be dragged by critics for these bundling practices — it is worth noting, however, that Billboard now no longer counts bundles of this nature towards Hot 100 rankings.
Rolli’s article is very supportive of BTS and ARMY, pointing out systemic issues in the system in which BTS and ARMY are forced to operate within the music industry, even agreeing with Grondin on the point that, even though it is a flawed system, Billboard’s Hot 100 is still viewed as the end-all, be-all for measuring a song’s popularity in the US.
“Chart success leads to more perceived legitimacy and more opportunities as a band,” Rolli states, “so when stodgy pop radio gatekeepers try to prevent artists like BTS from climbing the charts in order to maintain their status quo (read: white, native English-speaking pop artists), BTS fans take it upon themselves to send the band to No. 1. Spending your hard-earned money on a song — multiple copies of that song, even! — seems like a much more dignified way of boosting a song’s chart placement than record labels paying radio stations thousands of dollars to play their artists.”
He concludes with the statement that there might be a silver lining in all of this sort-of controversy around the song: it might cause people to question their “preconceived notions about the Billboard charts” and to stop questioning the validity of BTS’ place there. “As for the unconverted — you can stay mad next week when the collectible vinyl and cassette singles for ‘Butter’ ship and BTS continue to rack up supersized sales.”
Overall, this article (and, in fact, many other of Rolli’s articles — you can click through several of the links in this specific one we’re talking about to find others of his, which are relevant to the conversation) is a triumph for ARMY. It respects BTS’ place in the music industry and brings up several points that ARMY itself has pointed out time and again. By itself, it would be worth covering in the “Check Yourself: Facts” series.
But all of this isn’t even why we’re here.
Instead, we want to draw attention to the update Rolli made to his article on July 2. Instead of quoting the whole thing in text format, we have included screenshots of the entire update below for your reference:
Irrespective of whether or not you’re in agreement with the points that Grondin is making, what we actually want to focus on is the fact that Rolli included an update like this in his article at all.
Why is this important? Considering Grondin’s opinions — and it is important to remember that much of what he says is an opinion — some ARMYs might not even want the update to be there. However, that is exactly why the fact that it’s present is so important.
According to The Elements of Journalism by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel (another source which we have referenced before at Borasaek Vision), “transparency is the first step in the beginning of a new connection between the journalist and the citizen. It allows the public a chance to judge the principles by which the journalists do their work. They are equipped with information that invites them to compare these principles with other choices available. Most important, it gives the public a basis on which to judge whether a particular kind of journalism is the kind they wish to encourage and trust” (chapter 11, page 290-91).
What Rolli is doing by including this update from his conversation with Grondin is demonstrating this transparency that Kovach and Rosenstiel discuss. He’s essentially giving us an “inside look” at how he operates, allowing us as readers to assess his integrity and determine if he is someone we want to trust as a writer.
Grondin reached out to him via email and stated that he thought the statements that Rolli used were taken out of context — but Rolli could have chosen not to acknowledge the email, and he could have chosen not to include an update to his article detailing the information. His decision to include it, even if it might have contradicted some of his own points, demonstrates a certain level of trustworthiness.
Now, having this updated information, we as consumers have to start an evaluation. Part of our responsibility as consumers — and potentially as producers, if we use Twitter, blogs, and other forms of social media to share news — is to make decisions about what we’re reading. To further quote Kovach and Rosenstiel, “Citizens must set aside prejudice and judge the work of journalists on the basis of whether it contributes to their ability to take an informed part in shaping their society” (chapter 11, page 291).
In reading Grondin’s comments, we may find ourselves disagreeing with what he says. But, in reading what he says and developing arguments to refute his points, aren’t we strengthening our understanding of the topic and then better able to make an informed decision on it? Reading articulate, well-constructed, differing opinions can be more valuable to us than just reading things that agree with what we already think. In fact, in some ways, it’s critical that we review points that are different from ours so that we have a better understanding of the whole picture.
Journalism is now, more than it ever was, a process that cannot be carried out without both parties of journalist and citizen. While we should expect more sources to behave like Rolli has — showing us their integrity through admitting that there might be things they could have covered better or didn’t explore more thoroughly — we also have to accept that we as consumers have to put in some effort in order to make sure that the news we take in is news we want to see.
In The Elements of Journalism, Kovach and Rosenstiel lay out a consumer’s “bill of rights” when it comes to journalism, but rights come with responsibilities — one big example being the right to expect transparency but the responsibility to view things with an open mind and not just find things that affirm beliefs we already have. Additionally, if we have objections or concerns, we have to present them in such a way that it fosters trust on the side of the journalists: if we don’t show respect for them, then why should they show respect for us?
Unfortunately, however, there are plenty of times where we might have done everything we could to express our concerns in a constructive, articulate way and were met with only silence. We may have tried tweeting or emailing or commenting and received no reply — no matter how well-spoken we were. There have been a number of times when ARMYs have protested our representation in the media and were brushed off or pushed aside. So, what can we do when we’ve tried our best and still our feedback is ignored?
Kovach and Rosenstiel say it best: “Rights mean something only if they are viewed as being nonnegotiable. At the point when these rights of yours are ignored, withhold your business. Stop visiting. Drop the subscription. Delete the app. Stop watching. Most important, write a clear explanation of why you have done so and send it to the management, to media critics, or post it on your own site. The marketplace fails if we as citizens are passive, willing to put up with a diminishing product.”
When providing feedback, it is important to keep in mind that the more articulate it is, the more value it has. If we are ignored even when we are polite and constructive, that is where the problem arises. That is where we should become more discerning of the sources that we use. And, lastly, that is where journalistic transparency is so crucial — to help us decide which sources deserve our attention.
For further reading, we highly recommend the Kovach and Rosenstiel book referenced in this piece. We used the 2014 edition, which you can purchase on Amazon. A new edition will be published later this year. If any new, pertinent information regarding this article arises from the new edition, you can expect an update to this article.
DISCLAIMER: We do not own any audio & visual content in this video except for the editing. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THE RIGHTFUL OWNERS. No copyright infringement intended.
Written By: Anna Moon
Edit By: Aury
Checked By: Vera
Comments