Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I believe that the biggest differences between our "journalists" today

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 10:05 AM
Original message
I believe that the biggest differences between our "journalists" today
and the great journalists of the past, William Shirer, Harrison salisbury and Edward R.Murrow, are these:

1. They had a historical memory. They could remember past events vividly and could relate them to present day events. The current crop's memory last all of ten nanoseconds until the next commercial break. Because they cannot recall the past, they cannot connect it to the present or the future.

2. The older generation could articulate their thoughts and also explain the thought processes of others in clear, unconvoluted English. This generation sometimes looks like it is in a contest to outdo Bush in clarity of language.

3. The older generation actually participated and experienced events as they happened. Their reports had an immediacy and an impact that is clearly lacking in the present generation which simply spends time in a a five star hotel, be it Baghdad or Beijing or wherever.The location is supposed to lend authenticity to their reports.But when you think simply repeating official pronouncements is journalism, it does not matter where you are reporting from.

4.The profession itself has been corrupted by agencies like the CIA which has planted its agents throughout so that one can never tell who is or who isn't a mouthpiece.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
fertilizeonarbusto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. And
These clowns make too much money. Do you think Shit Hume or Cookie Roberts have anything in common with us? Hell, no, we're just peasants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. That is an extremely good point. They certainly do not have anything
in common with us paisans, but actually look down on us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itzamirakul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Absolutely correct!
They complain about how much money sports' figures earn for getting the crap knocked out of them,or for exerting great energy on the fields or courts, yet most of these psuedo journalists earn nearly as much for a couple hours of work on camera. Few, if any of them do their own research...usually that is done by some low-ranking staffer or intern. they just show-up, get made-up, and throw-up garbage on the air.

I have long agreed with the point that they have absolutely NOTHING in common with the average viewer/listener. I mean, what do they have to gain by looking out for OUR interests and what do they have to GAIN by supporting the government of the rich?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RuleofLaw Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
4. I also think
that there used to be a professional code of ethics.

You went after the story and not the messenger.

Take the Rather case as an example. Immediately the other news media went after Rather instead of the story. Eating their own.

Today, there would not be a anorther Watergate story. The competing media would go after the credibility of Woodward and Bernstein instead of the story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
5. I agree especially with point number 4. The CIA has heavily
infiltrated every newsroom in America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. It was the late William H.Colby, the CIA Director, who said:
" Anybody who is anybody in the news business is directly or indirectly controlled by the CIA."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
6. Right on every point
Edited on Thu Jan-06-05 11:04 AM by Lydia Leftcoast
1. The older generation of journalists grew up in an age when U.S. and world history had a prominent place in school curricula. I've read a lot about history on my own, but some of my older relatives have an impressive knowledge of the subject simply based on what they learned in school. If Jay Leno were to stop my older relatives on the street and ask them about history, their answers would not be embarrassing.

2. The older generation read books for fun instead of watching TV or playing video games. About twenty years ago, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune revived a feature in which local schoolchildren are asked to write short essays in answer to certain questions. For a while, the paper ran the responses to the same questions from ca. 1900. It was humbling. The children from 1900 had larger vocabularies and wrote in more sophisticated sentences. Their writing style was consistently about two grade levels ahead of that of the contemporary children.

I attribute this to two factors:

a) Children spent what would today be their TV or video game time reading books. These were not simplified books, either, but stories written with sophisticated vocabulary and sentence structures, deemed suitable for children only because of their content. (Little Women and Treasure Island ] are two examples.) Reading these books, children unconsciously absorbed more difficult words and sentence structures.

b) Schools explicitly taught English usage and effective rhetorical devices in those days. We are now on our second or third generation of teachers who never learned these things in school. How can they teach children skills that they themselves do not possess?

3. The journalists who covered World War II and even the Vietnam War traveled with the troops, and more or less went where they pleased. Edward R. Murrow reported from London as the bombs were falling. As I recall, Shirer lived among ordinary Germans as Hitler was coming to power, not in a five-star hotel.

The first time journalists were not allowed to travel with the troops was the invasion of Grenada. It was also the first time journalists rolled over and played dead in the face of such restrictions. The NPR reporters sat in Washington fretting that they could only rely on Pentagon press releases. Meanwhile, the reporters on the CBC program "As It Happens," also banned from the island, picked up the phone and called the president of the U.S. medical school, the British consul, and other residents of Grenada and learned a lot of facts that didn't come out until years later in the U.S.

4. The CIA has been infiltrating the media for a long time, at least since World War II. However, until recently, there were reporters willing to call them on their B.S.

The wealth of the top journalists is definitely a problem. In the old days, journalism was a relatively low-status occupation, and certainly not a way to get rich. It's no coincidence that we don't see much coverage of labor and working class issues anymore. (Did you know, for example, that major print media, such as Time and Newsweek, hire fresh graduates from Ivy League schools for their fast track? )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. The CIA didn't exist in wwII.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I meant its predecessor, whatever that was.
:-)

Same people, different name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txaslftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
8. There are hundreds of good, ethical journalists out there...
we call them bloggers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lectrobyte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
10. You make some good points, but you have to keep in mind

that today's "journalists" are more selected on criteria such as looks, TV suitability, etc. In other words, they are basically actors, not journalists. IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taxloss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
11. Blaming journalists isn't very fair.
May I direct you to a blog post I wrote today?

"Liberal journalists, yes. Liberal journalism, no."

http://taxloss.blogspot.com/2005/01/liberal-journalists-yes.html

Snip:

"Mr Greenblatt has completely forgotten that journalists are corporate employees ..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ouabache Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I blame the encroachment of the Public Relations Industry
PR firms regularly schmooze it up with the editorial staffs of newspapers, and gloat when articles written in their PR office ends up in part or IN WHOLE as an 'article' in the newspaper. Trust me. I know this exact thing happens. Whole newspaper 'articles' are written at major (and minor) pr firms and are then bandying to the reading public as 'journalism'. Then count the articles written by newspaper staffers that are cleansed by the editorial staff under the influence of pressure from 'pr' firms and it is arguable that many newspapers are nothing more nowadays that broadsheets manufactured by the pr industry.

Real Truth.

Mediawatch.org has lot on this. But I know from other sources as well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taxloss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Tell me about it.
I used to work for a trade magazine. The levels of graft ... sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. I blame consolidation. As corporations get bigger, they become more feared
As they become more feared less media outlets are willing to go after their problems. Also, these huge corporations have bought the media so a journalist can't expect the backing of their parent corporation if they get into a fight, because the article will likely be ABOUT the parent corporation or one of a shrinking number of affiliate that are all buying one another out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
14. The old generation were better educated without computers.
When you have to memorize a lot of stuff and write or type things out manually, it helps it to stick in your brain. When we went to school, we weren't allowed to use any aids to help us like adding machines, slide rules, and even typewriters often, although we could type term papers and such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. The sense of history that a William Shirer or Harrison Salisbury could
convey in their dispatches is utterly lacking in our latter day pundits.All one sees in them is their vanity,herd instinct and the ego mania that comes from their own wealth and proximity to power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC