I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Exactly, Atrios.
Now hit 'em with the other chair.
Well whores have standard too.
Excellent post. Dead-on.
We need the Fairness Doctrine back. Without it the ethics of the media are wholly decided by those who own it.
As I commented at Steve Gillard's blog the other day (I think it was there....)
Doctor's can lose their license, Lawyers can lose their license, Professional Engineers can lose their license. This carries consequences of job, money, reputation and peer recognition.
Journalism is an occupation, not a profession.
If they want to make it a profession, fine, then we can talk about repercusions other than the rare reporter being fired for misdeeds....
It's like how everyone wears scrubs now at a hospital and are mistaken for doctors and nurses.
Indeed. If you allow them to select the field, eliminate the refs and hand-pick the players, you've already lost.
Oh, and my Uncle Sam Gravatar sez: Fuck Traitors!
-
And how about not sleeping and partying with the people you're supposed to be reporting on? That, to me, seems reasonable...
I'm all for individual outlets raising their own standards.
What I find hilarious, though, are those who think that the history of journalism is independent objective guardianship. They should read a biography of William Randolph Hearst.
We had a brief, mostly illusory time of self-governance by some of our best media outlets. It would be wonderful to return to that, but I'm not holding my breath.
Bingo. That's why I've stopped listening to Diane Rheme et al. when they have Tony Blankley-esque types on with regular reporters. The right wings hacks are never held accountable by the hosts or by the real journalists. It's all a game to them.
But if being a reporter has some journalistic standards attached to it, then only those upholding such standards should qualify for the title.
So take a weekend course in journalism and join the vaunted Washington Press Corps.
Yesterday a used car salesman. Today a journalist. Tomorrow you can sell real estate.
Man, thread fatigue!
.
The problem here is an unclear definition of what the New York Times called "participatory journalism, or civic or citizen journalism." For starters, pick a name!
Why does there have to be one specific label for what is going on before she feels able to wrap her mind around it?
I think there is an overall phenomenon here composed of the breakdown of respect for the traditional, top-down structure of journalism, the new-found ability of the average person to choose what they believe is important, the increasing ability of the average person to collect and widely disseminate information, and the ability to capture the immediacy of world events, to name just a few forces.
It defies the kind of easy, one-word or phrase labeling that the media seems so desperate to use to force events into their frame of reference.
I agree wholehearted, except for this part...
To America, Bill O'Reilly is a journalist.
To this and millions of other Americans, Bill O'Reilly is nothing more than an Asshole.
Attaturk: To this and millions of other Americans, Bill O'Reilly is nothing more than an Asshole.
... with a 30-million watt video megaphone. But yeah, other than that, he's still nothing more than an asshole.
.
To America, Bill O'Reilly is a journalist.
To this and millions of other Americans, Bill O'Reilly is nothing more than an Asshole.
Attaturk
Yes, I think that was a typo.
It should have read: To America[n assholes], Bill O'Reilly is a journalist.
journalistic standards - right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fai...irness_doctrine
I like this:
"The fairness doctrine helped reinforce a politics of moderation and inclusiveness. The collapse of the fairness doctrine and its corollary rules blurred the distinctions between news, political advocacy, and political advertising, and helped lead to the polarizing cacophony of strident talking heads that we have today."
-- State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia
Obviously, this blog - er, online magazine - cannot be considered true modern journalism because it contains almost no "he said, she said", false equivalency two-sides to-every-story quotations especially those from senior anonymous administration officials. If some more of those were added then it would be more relevant and journalistic and everything and the quality would be up to the standards that the New York Times and Washington Post have been setting for the last several years.
And while we are at it, can we do something about he-said, she-said journalism as well? If someone is bullshitting, report it and then simply say it is bullshit and give reasons.
The popular myth in our culture is that the "standards" of journalism are an internal set of ethics that every journalist adheres to. Henning is wrong if this is true, because a blogger can easily become a journalist by adhering to those self-imposed ethics.
If that's not the case then there needs to be some agent that enforces journalist standards on the reporters. That would seem to be the likely role for editors. They are supposed to act as the gatekeepers of what gets printed and how the story is sourced. But editors have egos and corporate masters and in too many cases their own agenda. Maybe that doesn't work so well anymore, if it ever did.
Judith Miller has brought into focus for me that in reality she is no better a journalist than Jeff Gannon. And the NY Times, keeping her on staff even after all of the documented atrocities, is about as ethical as Talon News.
qewrghlkwtg;rlhkrt'hhsrtjtjdtyktk
I'm soon off to the condo for a brunch of Aldi club sammiches (made with turkey meat substitutes!). Anyone wanna join?
.
Appearing on TV is so seductive....
Carl Nyberg: Appearing on TV is so seductive....
Good Nyberg, maaaaan...
.
Aldi club sammiches (made with turkey meat substitutes!)
meat related program activities? Have any good old fashioned roast beast?
"Standards of Journalism"...hmmm...you mean like not asking softball questions or not writing up the WH Talking Points verbatim?
Wow....alot of folks would be losing their jobs if that were so.
Very interesting smackdown of Miller by GMT, by the way. Tiny excerpt and link on my blog. Full thing here.
Quote:
" Nine years into her tenure at the New York Times, she participated in John Poindexter's disinformation campaign against Libya for the Reagan administration. As Bob Woodward later revealed in the Washington Post, Miller planted Poindexter's propaganda in her own writings: claiming that el-Khadaffi was being betrayed from within his own country, that he had sunk into depression, and had turned to drugs. Miller went on to claim Khadaffi had tried to have sex with her, but lost interest when she claimed Jewish heritage."
matthew: meat related program activities?
Yes, indeed! Hey, for under $2.50/lb., turkey meat can't be beat! Well, perhaps that is some rather unfortunate phraseology...
Have any good old fashioned roast beast?
No sir -- me and the beast have parted ways. I simply cannot digest beef anymore. 12 hours of heartburn is guaranteed if I ingest it.
.
I started to get the hint that journalism was a JOB, not a profession, when I met someone who had graduated college with a journalism degree, and described copy editing classes (!) that were exactly like the stuff that I had learned in 9th grade English class.
Well, shit, I say. If that is the training that is required for a journalism career, I guess the National Press Club should start handing out membership cards to everyone who owns "The Elements of Style."
If you've never seen Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media,, directed by Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, you should give it a try.
It's a nearly 3-hour documentary, but well worth your time.
If you've never seen Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media,, directed by Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, you should give it a try.
It's a nearly 3-hour documentary, but well worth your time.
Uncle Smokes
Yep. Also, read the book.
Jeffraham--you've got mail.
OT: Squeaky "Chuckster" Johnson is whining about how MyDD attacks Little Green Footballs for being a racist, genocide-loving blog, which of course it is.
It's amazing how thin-skinned the ponytailed asshole it.
The problem, as I see it, is that in an age of corporate controlled government, the journalists who work for the corporate controlled media outlets have a decided disincentive to speak truth to power.This leaves us ordinary citizens trying to read between the lines to see what is really going on, much like the citizens of the former Soviet Union had to do when reading Pravda, although probably to a lesser extent.
There are two basic standards:
Don't make shit up.
Don't fuck, do favors for, accept favors or gifts from, the people you cover. If you feel bad about doing something, you probably shouldn't do it.
All the rest of it is just pointless horseshit navel gazing designed to employ "journalism ethics" professors whose words have less than no impact in the real world.
There are far bigger problems in journalism than this. Corporate ownership and the deterioration of the usual career track, for example. Shitty salaries at mid-level dailies, draconian family/maternity leave policies that encourage young reporters to quit rather than stick with the trade, the lack of career development (ie you have to leave to go to a larger paper instead of staying at the one you're at to advance anywhere but a boring soul-sucking desk editor job), no training for management so that somebody who was a great reporter gets made an editor and sucks at it because they're different skills, pettiness, lousy benefits, lack of support for taking risks, etc.
All these things should be dealt with long before we get into stupid debates about standards. But it's easier for some asshole at Harvard who hasn't been in a newsroom in four decades to yack on about the Internet than it is to start taking apart the system.
Not that I'm bitter or anything.
A.
If you've never seen Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media,, directed by Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, you should give it a try.
It's a nearly 3-hour documentary, but well worth your time.
Uncle Smokes
Most of Chomsky is worth the time. I don't agree with everything he says but there are some treasures in his writings. I'm not talking about his linguistics writings, of course, though they are probably great. But ignoring Chomsky or labeling him as an extremist omits certain questions from the debate. He's very good at bringing those questions out.
This leaves us ordinary citizens trying to read between the lines to see what is really going on, much like the citizens of the former Soviet Union had to do when reading Pravda, although probably to a lesser extent.
sandiaman
Interesting parallel, but allow me to complete it:
And, the Soviet citizens filled in the blanks between the lines with the self-published Samizdat, much the same way Westerners (and others) have turned to blogging and online-magazining.
The media is only as good as its writers and where/from whom they source their material. I'm afraid, Atrios, that even you fell into this trap last night when you became outraged at Dobson's group being able to pull ABC's "Welcome to the Neighborhood" off their schedule.
What would you have said if the news article sourced had said instead:
"The Nat'l Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) & the Nat'l Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) combined forces today to request ABC withdraw a potentially harmful program off the air. This request was made because the show violates the spirit and intent of the federal Fair Housing Act. The show is based on 3 families (white, traditional christians supporting Pres. Bush) being allowed to choose their new neighbors based on race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference."
If the article had been written thusly, would you have been so outraged that it was cancelled? Unfortunately, the media took its spin from Dobson's group, who also also were trying to ban the show, without mentioning that there was a concerted effort from the left to do the same thing, but with a different slant in mind.
In fact, on June 29, I asked on an open thread if anyone was willing to call ABC and bring up the fair housing issue. I don't know if anyone did, but by the end of that day, ABC did pull the program. I did it from the left, but the show also appeared to offend the right too. When it can offend both sides, there is something seriously wrong.
Doctor's can lose their license, Lawyers can lose their license, Professional Engineers can lose their license. This carries consequences of job, money, reputation and peer recognition.
If journalism is an 'occupation' - or a vocation as we used to say - is the goal then to professionalise it by insisting it be licensed?
And if so, what does this say about the nature of a licensing authority in relation to a free society? Shall all vocations that wish to speak on behalf of something then be licensed? Shall I, as an historian be licensed? Or is the acquisition of other credentials sufficient? Or shall we insist that only with the license or equivalent thereto may any individual 'speak on behalf of....'?
A small reminder of course, that in the longstanding class structure which in the United States we misunderstand very well indeed, the professional has always been ranked below those who pursue a vocation. Professional certification is parlously close to acquiring a trade certificate.
Miller went on to claim Khadaffi had tried to have sex with her, but lost interest when she claimed Jewish heritage."
Miller went on to claim...
Miller claimed...
Miller claimed....
Miller claimed...
The woman must have been right about something as important as the stuff she claimed to be true.
Correct?
Echidne--
It seems to me that saying, "I'm not Chomsky" has become some sort of bizarre ritual of legitimation on the American "left." (see Alterman, et al)
And I honestly have yet to see one person who strikes the "Chomsky is crazy" pose actually demonstrate an error in his thinking.
It's a very interesting phenomenon. And one which serves to prove many of Chomsky's own points about media and discourse.
His linguistics are impressive, though I think Saussure has it more on the money...
Diane@ 12:24- excellent. Thank you for finishing my thougts. (more coffee, STAT)
jeffraham--responded to your email. Thanks.
GWPDA, journalism was once looked on as a trade, a craft. The best, in my opinion, still do look at it that way, or as a former boss of mine said once, "A journalist is a reporter who worries about his clothes." There's a certain bunch of overeducated twits in the trade who want to believe they're just like doctors and lawyers and they're not.
It is, at its heart, a very simple job. Somebody says something. You write it down. You tell everybody else what they said. Every once in a while at my college paper I'd overhear an editor yelling, "A monkey could do this! Why can't you?!" Ah, the good old days.
As to the licensing issue, I don't want government I'd have to cover granting me a license to cover it, but when you get into the whole credential issue, you are getting into licenses so I'm not sure where you draw the line.
A.
GWPDA-Absolutely correct. Licensing often serves to guard jobs. For example, in NYS, the hours required to get licensed as a barber are more than an order of magnitude more than for becoming an EMT-D. They are about equivalent for Paramedic, roughly somewhere around 1000 hours.
Years ago, when I was an undergrad at the University of North Carolina, a famous journalist visited and spoke at the j-school. I was otherwise occupied (ahem), and don't remember who it was, but I remember one graf from the story in the Daily Tar Heel where the speaker had urged students who wanted to become journalists to major in some field, like political science or economics, so they would be experts in something besides producing copy, then minor in journalism for the requisite skills.
I can't recall the exact person or quotes, but it's an idea worth considering.
I missed where I complained about welcome to the neighborhood being taken off the air.
It seems to me that saying, "I'm not Chomsky" has become some sort of bizarre ritual of legitimation on the American "left." (see Alterman, et al)
Yes. It's the labeling stuff, again. The wingnuts have been so successful at making all sorts of terms and names swearwords. Now we can't even look at the ideas or concepts without being called names.
It should be possible to look at what Chomsky says, and to separate things which deserve further discussion from the idiosyncracies of Chomsky's way of writing, and it should be possible to address the issues he raises.
Ridicule and fear instead of looking at ideas. That's what we have, largely, these days. This isn't as much OT as I thought!
GWPDA, journalism was once looked on as a trade, a craft.
That Miller can still be considered a journalist reminds me of the very last scene of Naked Lunch, in which the Burroughs character is trying to cross the border, and identifies himself as a writer.
Asked for proof, he pulls out a pen and says, "I have a writing device."
If you think most viewers understand the difference between "reporter for the Washington Post" and "senior editor of the National Review" you're wrong, and if you want them to understand the difference you have to stop allowing yourselves to be placed on equal footing with them.
but...but...but, if i don't hang around with 'em, i won't be famous... and if i'm not famous, then i won't be able to get taht really great salary...and my kids will have to got public school...and my neighbors won't defer to me in line...and ...and...and...
.
when you became outraged at Dobson's group being able to pull ABC's "Welcome to the Neighborhood" off their schedule.
What?
Chomsky himself has diavowed much of his work on the cognitive structure of language, e.g., some of the particulars concerning deep structure. This is not to disavow his general message, wresting language research away from the behaviorists. That is sheer genius, especially the famous debate with Skinner.
Hey, anyone here using Verizon DSL in the Boston area? I may be in need of your wisdom.
Its going to be switched on Tuesday evening. However, the all the software on the CD is for Mac OS X only. I'm currently using OS 9 and cannot upgrade for a variety of reasons, mainly hardware.
I'm pretty sure I can get online and whatnot, but if anyone is willing to field a few questions from me, I'd be grateful for your help.
Thanks in advance!
We now return to our regularly scheduled Citizen Journalismatic related activities.
Chomsky himself has diavowed much of his work on the cognitive structure of language, e.g., some of the particulars concerning deep structure. This is not to disavow his general message, wresting language research away from the behaviorists. That is sheer genius, especially the famous debate with Skinner.
spinoza
True. And agreed!
...the speaker had urged students who wanted to become journalists to major in some field, like political science or economics, so they would be experts in something besides producing copy, then minor in journalism for the requisite skills.
Out of curiosity, I looked up Edward R. Murrow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murrow
He majored in speech in college.
When did "journalism" itself become a major?
Was it like computer science at my college: first a sub-category under mathemetics, then under electric enginerring, and finally becoming a department of its own?
Sorry for the typos: Although "enginerring" strikes the geek in me as funny.
"When did 'journalism' itself become a major?"
--Uncle Smokes
Reminds me of getting a major in education.
To this and millions of other Americans, Bill O'Reilly is nothing more than an Asshole.
Bill O'Reilly is a paid propagandist, working for what is essentially the world's largest privately-owned and -operated Ministry of Propaganda, and pretty much everybody knows it.
But someone in the thread below mentioned the Armstrong Williams scandal - anyone want to bet that he's the tip of a very large iceberg, and that quite a few of his fellow "payola-whores" work not for Fox or Talon but for nice, respectable "mainstream" outfits like CNN and Time and the Washington Post?
I can't recall the exact person or quotes, but it's an idea worth considering.
Doc | Email | 07.09.05 - 12:32 pm |
20 years ago, when i taught journalism at LSU, i offered my students the same advice: Major in something real; minor in journalism.
i had by then known a lot of pretty fair journalists, had worked with some of them, and i had realized that NONE of them had had Journalism degrees... neither had i had a journalism degree when i was working as a journalist...double major in Amrican Lit and Philosophy
the majority of city desk reporters and editors i knew had ben humanites majors in school: history, literature, philosophy, primarily. some were psych or soc. majors...
my advice was not often followed by the students, nor was it much admired by the J'school's leadership, who were more conscious of the value of enrolled heads than of the practical values of their 'craft, and sullen art.'
the specialization, accreditation, credentialization of 'journalism' has proceeded apace with the same treatment of other 'professions.' these processes function to make membership in the profession more and more exclusive, and privileged for the members admitted. it becomes a matter of erecting barriers to entry into the field...
that is the fundamental source of the opposition to the recognition of the serious journalistic intent and purpose of 'blogging.' Carol Darr is the current avatar of that technology of control...
or so it seems to me...
.
Much of the problem is that many "journalists" seem to think they're much smarter than the people they are supposedly informing, which is very clearly not true. Nobody on say a Sunday wankfest-show has ever said anything anyone with a brain at home didn't already know or ever made a point that was devastatingly insightful.
the value of enrolled heads
Are you implying that journo students are all pot smokers? That would explain a lot.
I think the media and the Bushies are keenly aware that they are framing reality for the consuming public.
He's a bold, resolute leader, blah, blah, and we're in the fight of our lives against the mongol hordes. But whatever you do, don't stop shopping folks, for then THEY will have won.
It drives me nuts when people talk about having "some" _______________ (fill in the profession of choice) standards. Standards are specific, measurable, agreed-upon criteria for establishing authenticity. Standards aren't a smorgasbord from which would-be practitioners pick and choose; they're a fixed menu.
What standards do current journalist now have?
And what standards are being taught in journalism schools?
Is there any recognised, published set of journalist ethics?
Are you implying that journo students are all pot smokers? That would explain a lot.
rorschach -12:52 pm
i never met a j.school grad student who didn't ingest thc in some form pretty regularly...most of my profs had sampled pot, many still indulged...
i usually didn't encourage that kind of open revelation among my undergrads...consumption and possession is discouraged in law and (some) custom...
.
.
It drives me nuts when people talk about having "some" _______________ (fill in the profession of choice) standards. Standards are specific, measurable, agreed-upon criteria for establishing authenticity. Standards aren't a smorgasbord from which would-be practitioners pick and choose; they're a fixed menu.
cs
I accept certain parts of your post, but not others.
rorschach: I accept certain parts of your post, but not others.
I only accept those words in posts which end in "ay."
.
Is there any recognised, published set of journalist ethics?
Doug | Email | Homepage | 07.09.05 - 1:01 pm
yup: the society of professional journalists publishes one.
but as a critrical reading of the thing makes clear, it is not a code of ethical behavior, but a litany of suggestions. journalists 'should', not 'journalists MUST,' because of course any set of prohibitions would be effectively impossible to enforce...
.
rorschach -- How would you define them then?
I only accept those words in posts which end in "ay."
.
Jeffraham Prestonian
May I just say, okay, in order to defray your desire to play today?
Remember a few days ago, that talking head on CNN was called for contrasting "protesters" to "patriotic" audience members? And someone got an e-mail from her saying, "no, that's not what I was saying," and yet IT IS EXACTLY WHAT SHE SAID.
when someone can rise to that level (if you can still consider if rising), make a major editorial gaffe on the air, get called on it, and still not even get that she was editorializing, things have come to a pretty pass. You could beat her about the head and body with the concepts of integrity and objectivity, and it wouldn't make one bit of difference.
I think all we have left (don't want Athenae to jump off any bridges, but . . .) is knowing in advance what the particular bias of our sources is, and deciding how much backgrounding we have to do for ourselves to judge the truth. And when you think about the level of intellectual curiousity evidenced in popular culture, well: Move over, A.
"yup: the society of professional journalists publishes one."
thanks!
rorschach: May I just say, okay, in order to defray your desire to play today?
Now there's a post with which I can agree -- 70%, anyway. 
.
rorschach -- How would you define them then?
cs
My comment was just a joke.
But, to answer: Journalists are and always have been ink-pushers. And, yes, there must be some standards for the various strands of inkpushers. I expect and demand nothing of the Enquirer. I expect and demand a lot of The Nation. Of the mainstream media, I expect a good deal and am daily disappointed, and until massive corporations cease to own weapons companies and oil companies and news companies, I will continue to be.
rorschach -- Oh. I just got that.
and if you want them to understand the difference you have to stop allowing yourselves to be placed on equal footing with them.
Now, now, Atrios. If they can't be stars, too, then what fun is it.
.
yup: the society of professional journalists publishes one."
thanks!
Doug=- 1:11 pm
the thing is more than anything else a compendium of all the things we could wish journalists would honor in the practice of their craft.
but nobody gets fired for violating any tenet of the code...no journalist ever gets a pay cut; no editor ever gets fired; no publisher ever loses advertizers for violations of the specific items...
...
rorschach -- Well, my point was that standards can't be personal in the way you describe, at least not from the standpoint of demarking professional status. A profession either sets them and has mechanisms for enforcing them among practitioners or the professional status doesn't exist. There can't be a difference between reporters and journalists without a measurable criteria for making the distinction.
Oh, and from the schadenfreude department:
Evangelist Billy Graham's daughter was arrested and charged with domestic abuse after witnesses told police she choked her husband in a parking lot, authorities said.
rorschach -- Well, my point was that standards can't be personal in the way you describe, at least not from the standpoint of demarking professional status. A profession either sets them and has mechanisms for enforcing them among practitioners or the professional status doesn't exist. There can't be a difference between reporters and journalists without a measurable criteria for making the distinction.
cs
I know. I was just commenting on the range of printpushers that must be demarcated. And the standards that adhere to each stratum.
How can a shield law protect a journalist if the standards of the profession go undefined? Is Judy Fucking Miller a journalist just because she picks one standard -- protecting a confidence -- and defines herself as upholding it?
This is a little angry and over the top, but ...
I want a be a professional journalist. How? Easy, first Just say it, it's done. Whether I am published or not I am a professional.
Not so with the licensed and regulated professions. You can't just pronounce yourself a professional, say, lawyer, doctor, tattoo artist. No, you have to be certified in some form. ANYONE can be a journalist. ANYONE. No wonder you take your ethics and standards seriously, you have to, you have nothing else to make you respectable.
Time and time again it is shown that you can get away with almost anything as a journalist. And....like Aaron Brown always does... you can blame your audience for your own behavior. And when you do that, you are not a journalist, you are a marketeer, a business person in a business running a business. If it wasn't for the fact that journalists provide the substance that appears in print, over airwaves, cable, and the internet, we wouldn't have to witness all this hand wringing about your ethics and your unique role in a democracy.
It’s not a profession, it's a job. It's just like politics: some of you know how to be good and ethical and yes professional, but really you don't have to be and it's not such a long fall to the gutter once a handful of you decide you don't need to adhere to any sense of ethics or responsibility.
Blame the audience, it's what they want. Bullshit. That's a business, that's propaganda, advertising, marketing, it's not a profession.
MH -- Exactly.
Finally. Thank you.
Even Josh over at TalkingPoints has this holier-than-thou attitude about the rights of journalist to protect sources under any scenario.
Bullshit.
Not when there are no standards or ethics reviews or any of the other controls we place on other professions. If they want to organize and oversee themselves, then we can talk about some protections, but until then, there is nothing to differentiate the true professionals from the hacks.
Per Randi Rhodes in the (previous) Conyers-sponsored hearing: "The news has been canceled." A functioning democracy needs an informed electorate. We don't have that. Randi Rhodes continues (paraphrase) "We need some sort of standards (of relevance, veracity, balance, atributability, ethics, etc) to which media must be held, if they want to call something news." Right on.
Here are some examples for a sort of comparison game. We may not realize just how bad some of these folks are today, if we judge them by current journalistic standards
Compare R. Novak to H.L. Mencken
Compare O'Reilly to E.R. Murrow
Compare Russert to Rather
Compare Judith Miller to Ernie Pyle
Compare Heraldo to Peter Arnett (what did they do with him?)
Compare Thomas Friedman to Walter Lippmann
There are two basic standards:
Don't make shit up.
Don't fuck, do favors for, accept favors or gifts from, the people you cover.
Amen, Athenae. That really is all there is to it.
Back after Lou Grant was spun off from the Mary Tyler Moore show, Lou is explaining this concept to a callow young reporter.
"I don't care if you date elephants," Lou sez, with a bit of a wink to indicate "date" is a euphemism, "as long as you're not on the circus beat."
If you think most viewers understand the difference between "reporter for the Washington Post" and "senior editor of the National Review" you're wrong, and if you want them to understand the difference you have to stop allowing yourselves to be placed on equal footing with them.
Exactly. Why, why, why are the only people who seem to understand this bloggers?
according to the history that I've read, back in those days of 1776 and such, free lance rabble rousers printed up all manner of broadsheets and distributed them. seems to me that blogs are the modern equivalent. the 1st amendment was intended to protect all political speech.
most "journalists" I've met are pretty dim bulbs. and no matter what "journalists" believe, they do not have a monopoly on the first amendment right to publish political speech.
Oh my. Where to begin?
Reporters and editors can be, and are frequently, fired for violating journalistic standards. In fact, they can be fired if the publisher just decides he/she wants to.
Licensing would mean official governmental control of the press. Is that what we want?
Yes, there are many media whores and nonsense-spewing pundits out there. It's come about to a great extent as part and parcel of the concentration of media ownership in fewer and fewer corporate hands. The networks and 24-hour cable news channels have to have "celebrity" anchors and commentators in order to keep their numbers up and their shareholders happy, just like any other business. This is why there is more infotainment that actual news on TV anymore.
Where do bloggers get their news information? Many I've seen link to front-page articles from the New York Times, the Washington Post, or stories from AP or Reuters that are reprinted on Yahoo.com news and other online news roundup services. Someone has gathered this information which others comment upon and blog about. Do we take the straightforward relating of facts to be credible news reporting? Yes, editorial decision-making occurs in the gatekeeping function of WHETHER something is reported at all. But is there a source to which you regularly go to get the unvarnished "real story"? If so, then you're probably reading the work of a journalist.
Journalists are people like Michael Kelly, who died while covering the fall of Baghdad in 2003. Many journalists have endangered themselves for decades and decades to search for the "real story." This is why not "just anyone" could be a journalist. How many talking heads and insta-bloggers would put their lives on the line to cover a story?
Meanwhile, journalism schools fight a losing battle to keep communications majors interested in pursuing news reporting when they realize they can switch majors to public relations or advertising and make so much more money. To help those who are actually interested in journalism sort out fact from opinion is a daily classroom battle, when two-thirds of students say they think Fox news provides a "balance" to the "liberal" CBS news.
Just my Saturday-afternoon ramblings as I contemplate my next semester of trying to teach the next generation of America's journalists. Sometimes, if I can just get them to understand when to use "its" and when to use "it's," I consider it a successful day.
The FRC came out and said that THEIR objection to the "Welcome to the Neighborhood" show was that batshit crazy fundie twits were portrayed, accurately, as batshit crazy fundie twits.
Fuck them.
Kind of like how the heteros changed the meaning of marriage long before homosexuals started agitating for their equal right to participate in it.
I don't find it comforting that the FEC will now start defining who is a 'journalist' and who isn't.
This is way, way, way, down the slippery slope that 1st Amendment absolutists (like me) gripe about.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
