The idea of an objective media, one without agendas or partisan

[WCGreen]

proclivities is a fairly recent phenomenon...

Anyone who saw the stellar movie, Good Night and Good Luck, saw a dramatization of what the press was for a brief moment in our history as well as the seeds for the destruction of that shinning moment...

Remember when Murrow went for the truth...

Remember what a great feeling we all had when we witnessed, in theatrical form of course, the "smack down" of one Senator McCarthy and his red chasing band of thugs on national television...

But do you also remember that Murrow was forced to "lighten" up his broadcast and was coerced into conducting cheesy celebrity interviews in order to placate angry sponsors…

Many of us remember the documentaries such as Harvest of Shame which exposed the plight of the migrant farm workers and brought their plight to the attention of America. We remember Walter Cronkite, Huntley-Brinkley, Sam Donaldson and his dogged questioning of Reagan (which eventually resulted in his promotion off the White House beat) and even Woodward and Bernstein. To those of us who came of age during that period, that was the press. That was what we believed was normal. And that is why so many American’s today are fed up with the refusal of most news organizations to even attempt to reach for such great heights…

But Journalism, as a profession, is a relatively new concept...

Maybe it’s time to put what passes for news today into proper perspective…

Working as a reporter was, for most of our history, a vocation. There were no ethics in the newsroom. There was no responsibility to print the truth. The axiom we scoff at now, if it bleeds it leads, is, unfortunately, the modus operandi of news organizations through out most of our history….

Remember the Maine and the war that ensued, how it made famous that Bully Roughrider and how the truth was never important, only war…


“The American press, however, had no doubts about who was responsible for sinking the Maine. It was the cowardly Spanish, they cried. William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal even published pictures. They showed how Spanish saboteurs had fastened an underwater mine to the Maine and had detonated it from shore.

As one of the few sources of public information, newspapers had reached unprecedented influence and importance. Journalistic giants, such as Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer of the World, viciously competed for the reader's attention. They were determined to reach a daily circulation of a million people, and they didn't mind fabricating stories in order to reach their goal.”

http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/remember.html


Back when Hearst and Pulitzer were willing to do anything for a buck, it was the muck raker's, the independent journalists such as Upton Sinclair, the magazines that were starting to sprout up all over the place that ushered in reform. It wasn’t the “traditional” and powerful press that enlightened us. It was ragtag individuals who used the access to cheap printing presses to circumvent the power brokers and bring the truth to the American Public…

Fast forward to the late 1990’s and the buyouts and media mergers and that bottom line mentality that resurfaced with a vengeance. Remember too, that a new technology surfaced that literally gave a megaphone to anyone who wanted to shout out for truth, justice and the American way…

Sound familiar…

The point of all this is that we have the power in out hands just as Sinclair did when Pulitzer and Hearst dominated the media scene…

Perhaps it is time we stopped blaming our problems on the lack of spine, although we should never quit holding them accountable, in the media and continue to do what we do best, get the truth out in anyway we can…

It might take longer and it surely is frustrating, but we have the tools to control our destiny…

I, for one, am going to keep fighting for the truth no matter what Rupert Murdoch buys up next…

That’s my two cents…

[bling bling]

1. We should subscribe to good newspapers like the Christian Science Monitor.

Give our money to the people who still strive towards integrity in their reporting.

[WCGreen]

2. It sure is a dwindling number of newspapers...

[Cleita]

6. That would be them and "The Nation" until Ruppert Murdoch

buys them out. Why can't we sue Murdoch or press charges for selling fake news as the real news. Wouldn't that be considered criminal?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. I think your points are well taken...

It was ragtag individuals who used the access to cheap printing presses to circumvent the power brokers and bring the truth to the American Public…


Those ragtag individuals of yesterday are, I believe, the bloggers of today...

The Internet has brought the newsroom into every home where there is a computer, and a person who knows how to use it...

We can use the power of the Internet to get the truth out...

And we are...

K&R

[gulliver]

4. I think nature has to try the new "24x7x365 BS" approach...

... before it backtracks toward the Murrow idea. The current "advertising eyeball, corporate cross-marketing" MSM isn't stable in the blogosphere. It can't maintain credibility when the truth of the matter is a click away and people are starting to get half a brain. The trend is our friend.

[Cleita]

5. I've been around awhile, seen every permutation

of news since Murrow was on radio before he did TV news and I can honestly say that even biased, yellow journalistic media didn't do the blatant ignoring of current events like they do today. I have never seen the real news turned off and totally ignored in favor of sensationalism and with the unapologetic purpose of keeping the populace ignorant like I have today. Back during the Nixon scandals yes, biased stories on both sides were reported, but they were reported. The story was not ignored, covered up or made into a tall tale with little resemblance to the actual happening. The McCarthy hearings were reported on everywhere, even if approving of them, they at least got print space and air time so you knew what was going on. It only took a little research and common sense to peel away the bias. Today, our news media lives in an alternate universe of manufactured fears and those things we should fear go unreported.

[nickgutierrez]

7. Objectivity is incredibly tough to quantify.

Especially in politics, when the issues are often so complex that what one considers to be "objectivity" is based on the facts that one chooses as relevant, which in turn is based on perspective.

For example, health care - somebody that thinks about health care as an issue of poverty and class is going to have a different set of facts in mind than somebody that thinks of it as an issue of governmental responsibility as it relates to the public welfare. There is a worthy debate to be had there, and questions to be asked about objectivity and the role of the media as the deciders of what is newsworthy and relevant to the public debate.

The thing that has changed, though, is that there are more voices than ever before. And despite what Andrew Keen might have to say, it's a good thing. Bloggers, podcasters, us here at DU and other message boards and political and news websites, all of us matter in the political debate in a way that we haven't before.

As a concrete example, remember the Presidential debates from 2004. We slammed the polls immediately after each one of those debates. And, while *'s performance in those debates really was nothing short of disastrous, those polls played a big role in forcing the media to criticize those performances, rather than to simply play up the few lines he did manage to get out without stumbling and declaring the debates a draw. Those were major positives in the Kerry campaign, and we made that happen.

Strict objectivity is tough, and maybe impossible. When somebody like Ann Coulter says something that is pointlessly hateful and polarizing, we've got to jump on her for it. When somebody like Rush Limbaugh lies, and lies, and lies again, we've got to jump on him. But maybe we don't need to look at what we're doing as it relates to strict objectivity, so much as that we have the facts to back up what we're saying from the perspective from which we're saying it. After all, we've seen this administration and its supporters lie and spin and tell half-truths to support the policies, and eventually, the truth has risen to the surface. This trend will continue.

[WCGreen]

8. When somebody like Ann Coulter says something that is pointlessly hateful and polarizing

Exactly...

The people who put her on are just following the tried and true method of sensationalism...

We need to raise outrage here and in other places and show displeasure by hitting them where it hurts, the pocket book...

We should be fighting to get more control of what comes in our house via the basic cable package...

For instance, call your local provider to see if you can remove Fox Opinions...

The Dem's fired a shot across Murdoch's bow by refusing to participate in their debate...