Comments, relating to the topic, are welcome, add a great deal to a blog, but must be in English, with no profanity, hate-filled insults, or links (unless pre-approved).




Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Journalism? What Journalism?

Politics --
continuing the conversation while changing irrigation sprinklers. Help is always welcome with that job.
My frustration with television's news entertainment media has led to my doing some deep thinking about what I think is wrong. My first thought is that it's not really news-- most of it anyway. It's geared to entertain, fast moving, lots of pictures, excitement, controversy, and no segment lasts long. That is evidently what we want as a people proven by ratings.

The second issue, I think, is that programs on cable, despite the title many of them have, are not newspaper style formats. They are magazines. They have an agenda and offer interviews and news clips to get that agenda across. This is true whether it's Fox news or MSNBC. I am not saying there are not news programs out there, but a lot of what we watch is not and it's what is leading a lot of people to think they are getting the news when they are really getting someone's agenda.

Whether you watch Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow or Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, basically it's the same thing. They are aimed at a viewpoint and exploring, if you are lucky, some issues from several different political thinkers. If you are not lucky, you get people up there discussing an issue, like say a Dick Morris and Karl Rove who expect you to think they discussed it openly while they spouted their prepared talking points with the host adding to it. Each type of cable network does this and a lot of Americans call it watching the news. I have called it watching the news. It's not. It's watching a magazine program.

Even before I realized this, I knew that I got most of my information from newspaper and magazine sites online, but how much better are they? This was Paul Krugman's opinion about that: Horse Race Reporting. Want the facts, want policy details, you better be prepared to dig.

I read newspapers from the New York Times to the Washington Times and check into compilation sites from Huffington to Drudge. Of them all, Google has the least agenda as it simply gives snippets of headlines to click and read more. It's your decision whether you go beyond that headline to find the actual story which might bear little resemblance to the headline.

Pretty much anywhere I look, I am unhappy with the news entertainment media of today. Where is real information? Why is covering something Sarah Palin's almost son-in-law said-- whether defending her or attacking her with it-- a story? Isn't that just a family feud more suitable for reality TV than supposed news programs? To me, this whole game has become a race for ratings and ratings come from feeding the expectations of the viewers and from stirring up excitement.

A good example, of the distortion for sensational purposes, was a rally in Texas for seceding from the United States. We were talking a few hundred people and a couple of speakers whom nobody outside of Texas had likely even heard of before. Let's be frank, a few hundred people can be talked into gathering for almost anything, at any time, for any reason.

The 'event,' which deserved zero news coverage from national media, was replayed on MSNBC until you'd have thought the whole state was rising up in rebellion, gathering their guns and prepared to spill blood. Each time it was presented, it was those few seconds of film footage. It was a small event that media tried hard to turn into something of significance.

What should they have been covering instead? How about what health care bill details, specifics of what exactly is proposed. The accusation that it covers illegal aliens even led one legislator to call the president a liar. From what I have seen, illegals get coverage now in ERs but won't under the bill but isn't this the reporters' job to flesh out? Serious stories are left to newspapers and online articles like: [We already have health-care rationing in the U.S].

Magazine formats like Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olberman are good at providing interviews, some deeper insights into a particular event, but that's it. They do not remotely cover all the important things going on.

How much in that week, while the media was hyping the revolution, did you see about the climate questions. They can't give you: [Climate Wizard]. But they could discuss:[Climate Trouble may be Bubbling up in the Far North]. Given how many people I have heard discussing their freaky weather this summer, isn't it possible that those questions might matter?

How about more journalistic pieces looking at why we are enlarging our troop levels in Afghanistan. This is an issue for all of us to look at seriously, not from a partisan angle (although DC seems unable to get beyond that right now) but asking the same questions that should have been asked about Iraq-- why are we there and can we really do anything about it other than losing 51 more lives each month?

Try reading [Afghanistan and Obama by Nicholas Kristof] with a lot more out there including history books to give warnings to the wise. This is a topic to debate right now not waiting until it's too late and we are in deeper.

How about a ton of important issues that we all need to stay informed about but we mostly aren't unless we spend a lot of hours doing research because the mainstream media didn't. The current situation makes people, from the right or the left, think they are getting news; but they are, with a few exceptions, getting partial truths and sensationalism leaving in depth news to somewhere else if people care enough to do the work.

Looking at what has gone wrong in this country, the shallowness of us as a people, and I thought at first it was the educational system which has turned into a test taking machine (thanks Ted Kennedy and George Bush) and not teaching real logic. That idea falls apart if you look at who attends those tea party rallies. Most got their educations, such as they were, years ago. So what the heck is going on?

Maybe too much Kate and whoever that was and not enough of the kind of programming that was on television when it began, shows like Omnibus. It, for you kids, was a mix of plays, informational programming and unlike say Oprah, it didn't have to compete for ratings. There was only one station. [Omnibus explained in Wikipedia]. Today there might be sponsors who would fund such... maybe but without an agenda... unlikely. And if it was there, who would watch it?

Are Americans so shallow that they must be entertained every minute by some new exciting event. Popularity of reality television shows tell you where this is going. If we don't find a way to get more people demanding real news programs, real journalism, I don't think there is hope for serious solutions to real problems. We can't blame this all on the media anymore than we can blame it all on our government. It comes down to us and how much do we really care what is happening? Do we get our news from diverse sources or only go where we hear what we want?

So what do you think about today's media and if you agree with me that it's off base, what do you think has gotten us here and what can we do about it?


(If you made it this far, come back in two days for one last in this series-- this time the Democrats.)

25 comments:

MaryContrary said...

We agree with you totally. We have complained for sometime about the news that isn't really news. It is more like reality tv (which we have never liked much) and is driven on creating controversy and dramatic conflict. If a democracy depends on a knowledgeable electorate we are in deep trouble.

Peggy said...

I agree with you again Rain,btw, I agree with you far more then I don't;
Yes there is definatly something wrong with the media. With our 24Hr news cycle, I guess it might be hard to not repeat and not use filler stories.
I just wish that the news sources were not so obviously biased. It doesn't matter if your watching MSNBC or Fox just to name two
Or if you're reading the NY Times or our local paper.
I often go to the associated press website to get my "news"
Thanks for your post again!

Rain Trueax said...

I don't watch a lot of television but after reading this article from
David Brooks, High Five Nation, on what it was like after that war ended, what our people were like, I am thinking I need to keep more track of what is on PBS. A lot of righties despise public broadcasting but that sounds like the kind of program more people should see especially those who claim they admire those who persisted to win that war.

Rain Trueax said...

that war as in WWII... I am typing on a laptop with poor reception off and on; so am lucky to get off anything legible :)

Paul said...

For me it is difficult to find unbiased news reporting and often it is entertainment not real reporting. By the way Rain,I have a book for you to read post haste - it is entitled "The Science of Fear" by Daniel Granger...

robin andrea said...

I absolutely agree with you and commiserate with your outrage. We are being ill-served by the "public" airwaves. There really was a time when newspapers and reporters did their jobs-- from everyday reporting (the cat stuck in the tree story) to the hard-hitting investigative pieces (Watergate). Journalism was a serious practice with actual rules (a lede had to tell you who what when where). Just before I retired from the university, they cut the journalism program from the curriculum. You know what replaces journalism? Communication majors. A silly, fluff compromise. You can go into news or advertising from that. What's the difference? Not much, not much at all.

The corporate owners of our country own the airwaves. We hear what they want us to hear. I am not even a wild-eyed conspiratorialist. It's the stark and sober truth about our country. The days of our democracy are long gone.

Alan G said...

I watch the major network newscasts out of curiosity and not for content. For content I watch PBS to include the Jim Lehrer News Hour and Bill Moyer’s Journal. On Friday evenings, in particular, there are several other current news event broadcasts airing on PBS that I frequent. And the National Public Radio website is normally a good place for news without a major slant to it.

The national media seems to be entrenched the last three days in the story, for example, of the guy that threw the shoe at George Bush and the fact that after nine months he’s being released from prison. I miss the point of this issue completely, whether I was stationed politically on the right or left!

The media for all practical purposes has turned into a tabloid delivery system. Information and serious dialogue are being sacrificed for financial gain and sensationalism. It is no longer what is important but what sells. The really, really sad part of this equation however is the solemn fact that “if no one was buying it, they would stop selling it”.

I’m sure there may be a couple of good newspapers out there but most lean heavily to the right or left. I have always thought the word “literature” was a bit antiquated and solely reserved for writings of the past. Today I have the same cynic opinion about the word “journalism”.

Rain Trueax said...

I have internet, kind of, and saw this article, well worth reading: from The New Yorker on Obama, health care and republicans

Darlene said...

Alan G beat me to it because I was going to point out that there are still a few places to get unbiased news; the News Hour with Jim Lehrer and Washington Week in Revue on PBS. Of course, my favorite is Bill Moyers Journal (Again PBS) and, while he is avowedly liberal, his guests do base their opinions on facts.

I have two comments. While FOX news as MSNBC are at the opposite ends of the spectrum, you will find that the left leaning opinions of Rachel Maddow can be documented with facts, while the talking faces on FOX are repeating the lies that Rupert Murdoch tells them to stress. It is reported that all of the FOX people are given the item of the day to talk about. (Obama is not a citizen, for example) If you watch it for 24 hours (I wouldn't be able to) you will hear all of them talking about the same point all day long. Tomorrow will be another garbage piece.

The only way I would compare FOX to MSNBC would be to say they are both at extreme ends of the news cycle. MSNBC is a far more reliable source because what they say is usually more provable.

Second comment is: like nearly everything else, it comes down to the money. Journalism is very expensive and with newspaper circulation dwindling they can no longer afford to send their reporters out in the field. Too bad.

Dick said...

One of Seattle's daily newspapers, the oldest one, ceased publishing a printed edition this year. They now do something online with a much reduced staff. I keep intending to check it out but so far haven't. Their stated intent is to concentrate more on local things and leave the national & international to others. It might work.

I do read our local daily newspaper but it sure has gotten thinner in the six years I've lived here. But it is about the only to keep track of what is going on close to home. I do watch the TV news but often get frustrated with them. You kind of know ahead of time which slant each station will go to with that type of stories.

Maybe I do need to pay more attention to what is on the Internet but it is likely just someone else putting their slant on the stories they write about.

Rain Trueax said...

Since I quit listening to fox due to their commentators, Darlene, I can't speak to Fox's honesty but what concerns me is you can tell the truth but still not give the accurate story. There are many different opinions and statistics out there regarding the health care proposals.

I don't want to hear only the positive or negative view of anything. I want the various statistics and some conclusions by varying experts and I too often don't get that from MSNBC usually either. They have aimed their programming to draw the left and their experts are usually on that side. Sometimes they say they tried to get a different person but couldn't. They do have Pat Buchanan too often defending the nutcase right but that isn't a help for a solid perspective.

I watch MSNBC usually in the evening but I don't kid myself that it doesn't also have an agenda and is cherry picking the figures and people it uses. They have to get ratings in that world. When I often am angry after hearing the program, I don't think that's accidental. I think they also stoke emotions. Which is why I try to get hard facts elsewhere and listen to them for a 'magazine' format not kidding myself that it's what I am hearing.

The increase in the deficit that was begun so hugely under Bush to fund a war that he knew his right wingers wouldn't really pay for, it has started a landslide of debt. We are talking now about some experts saying it could amount to over 85% of our GDP. That has to be scary to anyone who has seen other debtor nations and how it sabotages everything. To ignore that possibility with a health care plan with on price controls, is to be too young to remember the Johnson poverty programs. You can be doing good things but get yourself into a huge mess if you don't have some sense about paying for it.

Rain Trueax said...

my computer went nutty and couldn't edit but i assume you can tell i meant without price controls in some fashion. For me that means ideally a public option. But what Obama seemed to be agreeing to with the insurance companies to get their support, of 31% profits for them is a ticket to disaster. If they do not clearly spell out how much premium we will be paying and how you decide people get help with the premium (like are savings considered or is it only their job, etc etc), that isn't out there yet, [and I don't like hidden packages any better than the right] we have a ticket to bankruptcy. There has to be understanding of what we are agreeing to and how we pay for it. The Iraq war was driven into by not explaining all of that and using fear as a tactic. I don't approve of those tactics for left or right.

Dixon Webb said...

Hi Rain . . Your essay on the media is right on. Thank you. I wonder if you have an uncomfortable feeling (like I do) that under all the rhetoric, Americans have allowed GREED to motivate every factor of our lives. If so it is really a depressing thought. Wish I had a clear country stream to walk in.

Dixon

Ingineer66 said...

Kind of like the big 3 networks ignoring the ACORN video scandal. It seems the Obama Broadcasting Company formerly known as ABC only wants to report good things for community organizers.

Rain Trueax said...

i would not compare that at all as the same. This was a few corrupt people being caught in a sting promoted by britbart. It might be wise to wait and see if it has any significance. There are crooked people in any organization. The white house came down on acorn for it but to me this was not a big story but more like the levi johnson and sarah palin level or the thing in texas. You think it deserves big coverage on a limited 1/2 hour of national news only because of who it would be making look bad. Big stories should impact us all. This got plenty of play on cable and the internet.

joared said...

I've been watching the deterioration of quality TV news since the '60's when local stations found they could get the highest ratings with what we sarcastically called "blood and guts" news. The lead off story was a car crash or some other gory scene. Got more viewers. Sales Dept. and advertisers on the news loved it. Then news ceased to be a moral and ethical responsibility to provide for the public good. The dilution really gained speed when cable then satellites came into being and began taking a big hunk of the profit pie. More choices does not always lead to better. Now with the Internet I'm really curious to see where we're going to end up. I'm past the rage and anger I used to feel about it all and am just numb now. I watch little commercial TV news and don't waste my time on many of those news entertainers you name. It is tragic so many embrace them. It's mind candy that keeps too many people from knowing truth from lies, fact from fiction.

Ingineer66 said...

Is it big news yet? At least 20 states are investigating activist group ACORN after 5th undercover video purports wrongdoing. It appears to be institutionalized corruption by a group that gets a lot of Federal Money. When a couple of shady contractors in Iraq were misusing Federal dollars it was wall to wall national coverage. But now that it is a Liberal group it is "something that should be left to the cable networks". Definitely a double standard Rain.

Rain Trueax said...

ingineer, I don't know what the news covered before or now as I do not watch network news programs. I do know the right wing internet is saying they are not covering this; since it's everywhere else and the white house has come down on it, it's clearly being dealt with.

The sting operation was put together by britbart. Are you familiar with who that is. I have seen their leader on Bill Maher and he's so extreme that I quit reading his internet site. He is a birther and what he did here was get footage of two employees of acorn who helped a prostitute and her pimp (or what they thought were) to get ideas of how to set up their business and not get arrested. Now some people don't think prostitution should be a crime but since it is, this was clearly breaking the law and they have been fired.

The other investigations regard what acorn does in areas that would matter more and it's good it's happening but how exactly do you know that no network news covers it? it only came out a few days ago; perhaps you should give them time.

This is really all about trying to nail Obama with anything and most of it is not remotely news worthy to anyone who wouldn't also vote for Sarah Palin for president.

Ingineer66 said...

In case you had not seen it, this is what I was referring to.

It is a transcript from an interview this week with Charlie Gibson of ABC on WLS radio:

Don: Okay, here’s my news question. A Senate bill yesterday passes, cutting off funds to this group called ACORN. Now, we got that bill passed and we have the embarrassing video of ACORN staffers giving tax advice on how to set up a brothel with 13-year-old hookers. It has everything you could want – corruption and sleazy action at tax-funded organizations and it’s got government ties. But nobody’s covering that story. Why?

Gibson: HAHAHAHAHA. HEHEHE. I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. Uh. Uh. But my goodness, if it’s got everything including sleaziness in it, we should talk about it this morning.

Roma: This is the American way!

Gibson: Or maybe this is just one you leave to the cables.

Roma: Well, I think this is a huge issue because there’s so much funding that goes into this organization…

Gibson: I know we’ve done some stories about ACORN before, but this one I don’t know about…

Rain Trueax said...

So rather than covering Bachus's proposals for health care, the latest thinking on the military and Afghanistan, and who knows what else, you think two people being caught in a prostitution sting mattered more? Amazing. I am sorry but I don't see it as any more important than Levi Johnson saying Sarah Palin quit to make more money and knew she'd do it right after the election. The sleaze you want to cover would block any serious news and that acorn story was minor sleaze. It's purely Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin territory anbd let them have it to please their fans who love that kind of thing. Did you ever look at how many of drudge's stories are purely sleaze? You know why because it's what his market wants.

Rain Trueax said...

and one minute on national news mattered more to you than this-- house votes to strip acorn of federal funding. You right wingers are never happy. To me the news should cover what matters and unless you think that matters, it was only about trying to embarrass Obama. It didn't deserve coverage as it really isn't a story except for tabloids. Since the right has gone to the YouTube sites enough to make it into major hits, I'd say it got all the coverage it needed and more

Rain Trueax said...

Because i went looking to see if i spelled breitbart right, I hadn't, I found out more about the story you want covered-- it happened in 2005... It's beyond my understanding why it was more than a local story to anybody but it sure isn't relevant about Obama or today. and yet suddenly it's a big story in the right wing? if it was a criminal offense, Breitbart should have taken it to the police, don't you think?

Ingineer66 said...

You are right Rain it should have been a quick story and move on. I want to see about Health Care, Afghanistan and Obama cancelling the missile defense system in Europe. I am not saying it should be the top story every day. I am saying if it would have been a comparable thing done by a conservative based group or even a group with distant ties to any republican it would have been the top story on every outlet for 3 weeks. That is the bias I am talking about.

How many years did we hear that Dan Quayle was a moron because he misspelled potato. Yet Biden says something stupid at least once a month and the media just says Oh that is just Joe.

Rain Trueax said...

First of all, from what I read, he didn't cancel it, he redirected it to be specifically against Iran, the only ones threatening to use them so far as I know. What did you expect would pay for doing the whole thing since you disapprove of the debt (which your president created).

I can see why people begin to never give the other side a break. You cannot see anything but the wrong from the left and you ignore all of the nutty things that Bush did and the right still does. So far as I am concerned it means there is no dialogue. It's just one accusation after another. It means people who see things as I do better donate heavily to the left because heaven help us if what you want gets into power now.

The Acorn story that concerns you so much was a nothing story and deserved no time anywhere. It looks like they have done other things that earned them a loss of government contracts but they were not a story to the right until they thought they could link Obama to them.

Breitbart being so obsessed with sleazy stories makes me wonder what he's really hiding. He was with Drudge a long time before he began his own site. I try to keep an eye on the right but he's a step too far for me to stand.

The right controls/owns all of the media and all you can do is worry about a story about acorn that didn't amount to anything. Typical

Rain Trueax said...

and the right was more prone to all Quayle a moron than the left! and they still do. Pardon me but when you turn a war hero into a coward as you did to kerry, you have no ground to walk on. The media went into that over and over. You are blind to what really happens because you listen to the wrong places for your information