.
Public Service
“I can understand some of the reasons why journalism has a bad name. . . . But for all that, I don’t see the majority of reporters as exploitative and predatory. Most work harder for the public than they do for themselves. Many of our neighbors are better paid and spend more time with their families. Journalists regularly get into trouble for the sake of the community, often bearing community ire for doing so.”
(Thanks to alert Kiwi WORDster Charles Riddle)
Today in History
1998: Ramzi Yousef, “mastermind” of 1993 World Trade Center bombing, sentenced to life
1993: Elvis stamp released
1987: Dow Jones closes above 2,000 for the first time
1973: Vietnam Paris Peace Talks resume
1941: William Randolph Hearst blocks Citizen Kane ads
1914: Woodrow Wilson delivers his 14-point plan for peace
1877: Crazy Horse loses his final battle against U.S. Cavalry, in Montana
1642: Galileo dies
This strikes me as rather disingenuous. I have a dim opinion of contemporary journalism not because the journalists are "exploitative and predatory." Just the opposite: they're lazy, and sensationalistic, and far too embedded in establishment "conventional wisdom." Judith Miller is the poster child, but I'm also thinking of Nagourney and Bumiller and their clones at WaPo and the LA Times and all the other major papers. Most of the political reporters in this country have spent the last 8 years recycling Bush administration press releases as "news." I don't follow the Aussie papers all that closely, but it seems to me that they scarcely did a better job with the Howard administration. Would that they were "predatory"--they might do their jobs then!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chris Masters about the motivation of most journalists being laudable and they do work hard - understaffed newsrooms with ridiculous expectations and deadlines....
ReplyDeleteThe isthmus between that place and the place where piffle gets served up however, is the place where profit comes in, which is generated mostly by doing/delivering the same thing over and over again, at the least possible cost - so you get twaddle dished up on all channels/media daily...
That sorry state of affairs in itself is not the fault of journalists...where it becomes part of their responsibility, I think, is where they contribute to that situation by agreeing to be part of the whole sorry mess...
Assuming that a 'real' journalist doesnt have ambitions to work for TMZ or a scandal sheet, there arent enough respected media products around to give jobs to all journalists - and I'm talking about news reporting, preferably 'hard news' here... so as a 'profession', we either stop pretending we want to be taken seriously, or we take action to create more reputable media sources/services, to give ourselves something really meaningful and worthwhile to do....
And I agree with Shane about there being far too much recycling of press release material and not enough investigative work... part of that is laziness maybe, but more of it, I think, is the culture of newsrooms now, which is generated and run by profit-driven criteria, not by journalism ideals....
ReplyDeleteI think that old culture either is dead, or nearly so, and younger people coming into newsrooms dont know anything different/better on which to model themselves...
Just as on television shows that are in fact fantasy but are then taken as how life is, or should be, youngsters coming into the profession are learning what the profession is from the current model - cant blame them for that, but we can teach them otherwise by changing the model...
Shane — As a small-town journalist, I think it's a bit unreasonable to just call journalists "lazy and sensationalistic." While there are bound to be those who fit that profile, there are those in every profession who are a little sluggish in their jobs. It hurts the profession overall and perpetuates sometimes undeserved bad attitudes toward the industry to make a blanket statement like that.
ReplyDeleteThat said, there are always ways to improve — especially with the current newspaper meltdown. I think every journalist wishes they had more TIME to do decent, investigative pieces.
Sensationalistic and lazy? Hardly. Maybe one or the other, but not both. I think it's the fear of becoming sensationalistic that drives journalists to the safety net of press releases, thus making them "lazy." I don't know what it's like at the bigger papers, but from my standpoint, I keep watching our staff get smaller and smaller while the population within our coverage area gets larger and larger. There simply isn't the time to cover the hard-hitting issues with as much depth as there used to be while keeping up with the day-to-day demands of monitoring government meetings, writing budget stories and keeping on top of the police force. Those things are crucial to our communities. I agree with Masters. We're not lazy. We're spread too thin on too little pay.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with him based on the fact that people want the information and keep trying to get the information. We act like these reporters are invasive and annoying yet a majority of us still want more.
ReplyDeleteWe can act as though reporters are crazy and will do anything for "slime ball" information but until the people choose that they will actually STOP READING the information, then the mutual respect should be there.
We want the facts and we want to know as much as we can, so until someone can think of a better way for journalist and reporters to go about situations I know I'll "cut em' a break"...
What often comes out in these kinds of discussions about journalists is frustration born, I think, of misunderstanding between journalists and "civilians," plus frustration in both camps about the nature of the profession and its role.
ReplyDeleteEveryone wants to shoot the bearer of bad news, and doubly so when the bad news is presented badly.
Some years ago, I wrote a column for the Herald Journal about "journalists' missionary zeal." My argument was that *most* journalists--like doctors and teachers and social workers--want to do good. Why else enlist in a profession that is so poorly paid, has such long hours, and is so despised by the public we're trying to serve? Masters is correct that few people get rich from journalism, but we go into the business to try to make a difference.
My "missionary zeal" column, BTW, elicited loud derision, mostly from journalists, interestingly. Perhaps the cynicism of the newsroom begins to leach away the starry-eyed do-gooder reasons that so many young people think they want to be journalists. True enough that few last as long as Chris Masters, who retired from the business last year in his 60s.
I agree with Shane about the sensationalistic bit. But I believe the reason for this is not because a journalist is lazy. The only reason journalists have turned to sensationalistic news, is because that is what the people want. The entire role of signing up to be a news-bearer is giving us what we want so we as the consumers/receivers of news don't call them on it. We want fluff and stories that don't have any prevalence on our lives. We want celebrity gossip and squirrels that can water ski. It's because of society, and the people, that journalists can get away with "lazy" stories.
ReplyDeleteI think there are some lazy, sensationalistic, explosive, and predatory journalists. There is no way we can create enough categories for all the different types of journalists, throwing them all into one or two seems unrealistic.
ReplyDeleteJill: "Explosive" journalists? You're thinking of Rush Limbaugh, perhaps? But he's not a journalist.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the problem thats been voiced by Shane isn't a problem with journalists, rather a problem with the journalists we view. There are plenty of newspapers/websites that have hard working dedicated journalists doing a good job reporting the news. (even in the prime of Bush era these newspapers/websites reported what was happening and wasn't just spitting back what they were fed.) So maybe instead of watching ET or whatever people watch these days for their "journalistic news" they should go to a better source.
ReplyDeletePoor journalists...we let people like Bill O'Reilly mess up our reputation by being big-headed, mean, and extremely biased. (No offense to O'Reilly fans!) I agree with Masters. Look at the people doing the local news and local newspapers. Look at the journalists who spend hours and hours a day pouring over interview notes and duedates, and half the time we don't give them the credit they deserve!! This is why when I tell people I'm majoring in journalism, most raise their eyebrows and say, "Why!?" It's true that it is a tough career that is not meant for everyone.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ben that people need to search out good journalists, and rather than use one source for news they should pursue and several credible news sources. I believe that the majority of journalists start out with good intentions. Perhaps somewhere in their careers certain journalists lose their way.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are different type of journalist also. It is hard to get the information out if there aren't many people to do it and so sometimes it makes it so that the coverage may be good or bad.
ReplyDeleteI liked Master's idea of getting rid of the majority of the commentators. We can see evidence that the population of them has certainly increased within the last few years and during the 2008 Presidential Election we were bombarded with all of their diverse and “educated” opinions on the topics. It seemed as if every station I went to had at least 3-4 analysts trying to tell me how I should vote. If we could have some type of weeding out process it would certainly make my day.
ReplyDelete