Journalism losing its meaning

[Spike89]

Not really another Tim Russert post, there are plenty of those. However, reading those posts I keep finding myself sidetracked by the concepts of journalism and M$M that people are throwing out. As a working (albeit specialized) journalist myself I'm shocked that so many bright people actually consider opinion journalism. Very little of what is on television on the cable news networks is real journalism, it is news entertainment. I enjoy the Daily Show, Keith, and lots of Air America, but these aren't journalism, at least John Stewart doesn't claim to be a journalist. Lots of newspapers have real journalists, and even a few of the columnists do actually engage in some journalism to bolster their columns, but mostly columnists are simply essayists.

A story from a real journalist can be fact checked. Anonymous sources are great, for pointing a reporter toward a story, but if you're going to make a claim, you need something other people can verify. In extremely rare cases, a plethora of unnamed sources in agreement AND a willingness to stand behind the story can justify running without independently verifiable sources, but that story isn't as strong as it should be and no real journalist can be truly proud of such an article.

I've read some pretty strong unattritibuted/confidential source "quotes" on DU recently. When questioned, inevitably the person using the quote says something like "You didn't prove it didn't happen" usually followed with "it fits right in with everything else, so therefore I believe it." Wow! Can you "prove" Vince Foster wasn't murdered? Can you prove aliens don't come to my house bringing me delicious pudding? Of course you can't, and you shouldn't have to--the burden rests solely on the "journalist" making the claim.

Sorry, but journalistic standards are important and despite their almost non-existence on television, the profession is too important to allow those standards to be ignored or abused, no matter by which ideological side.

[SpiralHawk]

1. But...Jeff Gannon is now blogging for the National Press Club

Surely the official republicon White House male prostitute will SAVE journalism.

Hope springs eternal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. To me what is on teevee is ideology, not journalism

and Randi Rhodes does not claim to be a journalist either, or for that matter Hartmann or Malloy (The latter has done honest to goodness though)

Well said

[Spike89]

5. Thanks, opinion is important too

I agree that Malloy, Randi, and others are important. I'm glad to see that some others here understand the difference between a journalist and a commentator. They both have their roles, but it is crucial that the two not get confused.

Geez, Jeff Gannon!!! That episode still almost makes my head explode! I know lots of much more horrible things have happened during this administration, but I firmly believe the Guckert scandal is perhaps the best evidence of how the press is being destroyed in America and a weakened press allows all the other evil to follow.

[Bobbieo]

7. Opinion is important in an EDITORIAL not in a news story.

[Oeditpus Rex]

9. What's on teevee is designed to get you to watch

and not much more.

[OwnedByFerrets]

3. Wanna see a real journalist?

Lara Logan was on The Daily Show last nite with Jon. Now that is a real journalist!! Video is on his site.

www.wearableartnow.com

[Oeditpus Rex]

4. I wasn't proud of most of my stories

I was fairly ambivalent to probably 80 percent. The remaining 20 percent were divided about evenly into "proud of" and "wish they'd held it."

Pride isn't a factor in what gets printed. Editors want a story, even if it has holes.

[Spike89]

6. Me neither, but I try

A standard is just that--a mark we aspire to. No one hits the mark all the time. In defense of editors, they typically feel proudest when they get the articles the reporters feel proudest about, but they can't always deliver because the publisher is insisting that the editors get the publication out on time...I could defend the publisher, but who likes publishers anyway? :)

[Oeditpus Rex]

8. I hated the bullshit deadlines more than just about anything else

I'd hear "10:45! 10:45!" for an hour, and even if we made it it was often noon before we got on the press (which was off-site, at the "flagship" paper). If we sent at 11 because a lede had to be rewritten or something, we'd hear it even though we got the story right.

In defense of our publisher, who was pretty good, the only shit he gave us was a watered-down version of what was given to him by the group publisher, who's known to some around these parts as "Stalin."

You're right about most editors, though as time went on I saw more and more "Good story!" applied to one that merely had three sources instead of two, or something equally standard-lowering. Didn't matter if they were good sources or what they gave you; the point was the story looked better — not unlike the adage, "If you've got a crappy story, run big art with it."

Like I said in another thread, it never happens the way it was depicted in "The Paper."

[NashVegas]

10. When Using Unverified Claims

One has the option of choosing to believe them or choosing not to believe them, and because this is an internet message board, we have that option.

OTOH, NY Times, Wall St. Journal, CNN, etc., do not - unless the believer wishes to acknowledge they are coming out from under the cloak of the "news umbrella."

There must be room for opinion, and even firebrand, slanted journalism. Our reporters in the US don't do enough to call out public figures on their shit. That's what I love about Lou Dobbs. I don't agree with him 1/2 the time, but I love that he doesn't allow his decision-making guests use his air-time as an infomercial.

[Spike89]

11. I don't disagree, but I think that's all we're getting on TV

I understand that this is a discussion board and thus, all about opinion. But, when people on here are discussing the topic of journalism and "backing up" their opinions with unsourced articles, the unseen irony sets off my alarm bells and I have to wonder if anyone outside of J-schools and newspapers remember what journalism should be. We need both a strong responsible journalistic press AND plenty of soapboxes. Soapboxes alone just let the loudest carry the day.