The Occupational Hazards of Journalism

[HankB]

tombread, from your response to my post (which you partially quoted in your posting) you would have had American journalists avoid taking sides in time of war against Hitler, Hirohito, et al. or be labeled "propagandists."

We disagree.

Think back a few years to when Geraldine Ferraro was running for vice president. There was some controversy about her failing to disclose certain financial documents as required by law. At a press conference, she proudly boasted that she'd released documents (call them D, E, and F) disclosing information that wasn't even required. A reporter from the Wall Street Journal thanked her, and asked when documents A, B, and C, would be released, since those were the ones that ARE required.

A huge chorus of boos, catcalls, and worse arose FROM THE MAJORITY OF THE PRESS AT THE CONFERENCE!!

Ms. Ferraro got away with ducking the question thanks to their help.

Would you consider those reporters who booed the question to be "propagandists" since they were clearly on one side - hers?

If not, why? (Remember this was the MAJORITY of reporters present.)

Then there was the case during Desert Storm when Schwartzkopf gave select members of the press a briefing, swore them to secrecy, and told them American lives were at stake if the story leaked.

Needless to say, the story leaked, Saddam acted on it, and we waltzed into Iraq. See, Stormin' Norman KNEW the best way to get "disinformation" to Saddam was to brief our press under a cloak of secrecy...and, living down to their nature, our press delivered.

It's the 95% of journalists who give the other 5% a bad name.

[This message has been edited by HankB (edited June 08, 2000).]

 

[tombread]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankB:
tombread, from your response to my post (which you partially quoted in your posting) you would have had American journalists avoid taking sides in time of war against Hitler, Hirohito, et al. or be labeled "propagandists."
[This message has been edited by HankB (edited June 08, 2000).][/quote]

This response will take me down the Rant Road about the sorry state journalism has fallen to. My father was a journalist all his life, my wife was a good one until finding higher-paying work, I have been one and my daughter has tried her hand at it in college. Things have changed since WW2, you'll have to give me that. We had consensus about our common enemy, and journalists supported the war effort against Hitler and Hirohito. Since then we have all become more cynical as government and the military have shown a propensity for lying, manipulation, profiteering and dishonesty. (In my opinion Schwarzkopf was as guilty as the press of gamesmanship because he cynically, deviously used and manipulated them.) Meanwhile, journalism in general has become just another business, driven by cost cutting, numbers and head count (the worst thing that can happen in Your Town is to have Gannett buy the local paper and publish your news), but it is occasionally redeemed by ethical, responsible people who really feel the calling of the profession. Contemporary rubberstampers are nothing but flacks, and they do a disservice to "journalism" if all they do is mouth the establishment line. The hallmark of good journalism is objectivity and accuracy. Used to be, 2 to 3 sources were required to verify any story. The need to feed the beast, as it was so accurately described on the best show on television, "West Wing," has rendered the matter of accuracy almost incidental to meeting the beast's deadlines. In the end it's our own fault. We have become an entertainment-crazed society, wanting news bites and sound bites and quick fixes and drive through thinking. We get Junk Everything, including news (and government), because we don't want to pay the price for quality.

[This message has been edited by tombread (edited June 09, 2000).]

 

[Danger Dave]

The media wouldn't be the way it is if sensationalism sold fewer papers than accurate, informative reporting. Whose fault is that?

Most people would rather be entertained than informed. It's easier on their atrophied grey matter.

 

[HankB]

tombread, after reading your second post, it seems we have SOME common ground after all. I disagree with your Schwartzkopf comment in this context and I'm not as fond of "West Wing" as you are, but at least we do agree about the sorry state of journalism today. (Though not necessarily for the same reasons.)

You mentioned "The hallmark of good journalism is objectivity and accuracy."

Both are becoming increasingly rare.

Rather than beat this to death in this forum, I suggest we agree to disagree in the areas we differ.

Best - HankB.

[This message has been edited by HankB (edited June 09, 2000).]

 

[tombread]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankB:
tombread, after reading your second post, it seems we have SOME common ground after all. I disagree with your Schwartzkopf comment in this context and I'm not as fond of "West Wing" as you are, but at least we do agree about the sorry state of journalism today. (Though not necessarily for the same reasons.)

You mentioned "The hallmark of good journalism is objectivity and accuracy."

Both are becoming increasingly rare.

Rather than beat this to death in this forum, I suggest we agree to disagree in the areas we differ.

Best - HankB.

[This message has been edited by HankB (edited June 09, 2000).][/quote]
Hank- maybe I was a little brusque about Norman. I guess he is generally considered to have been a comander that had his troops' best interests at heart.
But-- I gotta get one last point made: the canard about the "liberal" media. Folks, 8 corporations control 90% of what you read/hear/see. In 10 years it is likely that will become as few as 4 corporations. Those companies are controlled by shareholders and analysts and they are in business solely to make money. They are neither liberal nor conservative- they are manufacturers and distributors of a product, i.e., news/entertainment/commentary. The notion that the nation's media is controlled by a liberal cartel is goofy. (Usually I have to debunk this "liberal" notion when I am tasked to defend the crappy state of journalism today. My poor father would be rolling in his grave. He wrote politics for 2o years and to the end nobody in town knew what his political preference was because he thought it was important to his objectivity and reputation that they not know.)