I spent almost half my life as a proud journalist, who believed I was in a noble profession and had a responsibility to get people the information they needed to be good citizens. Most of that time was with The Associated Press, which counts among its historical achievements the idea of objectivity in reporting, tracing all they way back to the mid-19th Century. Although, as a journalism professor I once knew and respected said it wasn't really "objectivity" that was needed, but "neutrality."
Unfortunately, today I cringe at much of the news. Here's an example that I just can't get over: In an interview prior to the South Carolina primary, Nikki Haley said, "America has never been racist." No followup question to explain her position came. She's from a state which had one of the largest slave markets in the South in Charleston (as am I), she went to Clemson University (as did I) which has on its grounds the homestead of John C. Calhoun (one of the strongest defenders of slavery). And yet she says that! (Thomas Greene Clemson was Calhoun's son-in-law). Clemson's signature building is Tillman Hall, named after "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman, a notorious racist. And NO push back to justify her statement.
Journalists are not supposed to be merely transcribers, regurgitating what is given them. There was a time no so long ago when at the AP we were strongly encouraged to provide context and background. We said that was part of accurate and being fair.
It too many places now, that idea has become lost. I knew we were in trouble when -- as far back as the early 2000s -- we were often judged on how many "clicks" our stories generated. If a story generated a ton of clicks, it didn't matter if was about Britney Spears or about the Middle East.
I used to believe, along Thomas Jefferson, that the "people" would eventually get it right. I'm not sure that's true anymore as the "people" don't get the information they need.
If only it were as simple as it seems. You forget how the "noble" occupation ushered in yellow journalism in the mid to late 1800s up to the1950s. And the rivalry and fake news supported by Hearst and Pulitzer, and perhaps the most egregious example of all: Walter Duranty, the Times' Moscow bureau chief whose positive opinions of communist Russia and Joseph Stalin "played a key role in perpetrating some of the greatest lies history has ever known", according to the book "Stalin's Apologist". The media has long been compliant to the ruling classes. Tim Russert once noted that virtually all reporters in Washington go relatively light on certain politicos because not doing so risks their not being invited to parties and dinners where their competitors might get the scoop on them. I might say about the current state of the media is that it can and has been be worse. Sad to say, but people don't get the information they "need" (and who decides that?) because they are willing only to pay for the information they want. I was a journo for 12 years at The Cleveland Press (R.I.P. 1982) and I learned early on to lean left in my work, the editorial board leaned right, so I guess that was somewhat of a balance.
it might not go back to the invention of the printing press, but certainly when parties had their own papers. I think one of the problems is that new organizations have been beholden to their advertisers. There are other problems of course.
when the internet and social media appeared and scrambled the media landscape, news was affected most, and political reporting the most. news divisions at the tv networks hadn't been expected to turn a profit; they were prestige, the place that wasn't about entertainment, that took itself and us and their mission to inform us dead seriously. but when the newspapers lost their business model (classified ads, thanks to Craig's List), and tv started hemorrhaging viewers as young people didn't tune in bc getting news and entertainment via streaming, the dominant media model of the previous half a century got blowed up real good.
so everything was up for grabs, and the goal was now simply survival. so no departments/divisions would be spared, everything had to contribute to the bottom line. and so news became entertainment.
I know a lot of things have led us to this place, but this one is important and doesn't seem to get discussed: when news suddenly had to become a profit center, get clicks and views, subs, etc., this is where we ended up. and it is literally threatening the future of the republic.
It's maddening beyond reason, which is one reason why segments like this one from Lawrence O'Donnell's program last week are important to see and share: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9vsivYrC4U
TL/DR: "As ugly and chaotic as Trump and his eventual accomplice make the months leading up to November, a strong turnout of Democrats and independents and the sliver of college-educated Republicans who can’t abide a felonious nominee can help ensure this dark chapter in our history is only a temporary nightmare." Please, God, make it so!
On a related topic, before the primary, all the polls showed Nikki Haley getting thirty percent of the vote in South Carolina. She got forty percent. So forty percent of Republican primary voters in a very very red state reject Trump. Either the polls were off by ten percent (!!!) or Haley gained ten percent in the actual vote after her intense campaign. As has been pointed out elsewhere, if forty percent of Democratic voters rejected Biden in a primary, he would be toast. Not sure why MSM is so invested in a Trump-Biden rematch.
Well, Mark, you and I were in mainstream media long enough to know that herd mentality rules. Frankly, I believe NYT and others are afraid to offend “readers” who don’t actually read their publications or watch their broadcasts. So many of us who had a parent who lost their mind to dementia recognize the symptoms in DJT, especially the repetition IN THE SAME CONVERSATION of the same stories over and over, word for word. This is very seldom reported or commented on. I had to go to The Guardian to find video of Trump calling his wife “Mercedes”; Biden calling his wife “Joan” would be a national scandal.
I spent almost half my life as a proud journalist, who believed I was in a noble profession and had a responsibility to get people the information they needed to be good citizens. Most of that time was with The Associated Press, which counts among its historical achievements the idea of objectivity in reporting, tracing all they way back to the mid-19th Century. Although, as a journalism professor I once knew and respected said it wasn't really "objectivity" that was needed, but "neutrality."
Unfortunately, today I cringe at much of the news. Here's an example that I just can't get over: In an interview prior to the South Carolina primary, Nikki Haley said, "America has never been racist." No followup question to explain her position came. She's from a state which had one of the largest slave markets in the South in Charleston (as am I), she went to Clemson University (as did I) which has on its grounds the homestead of John C. Calhoun (one of the strongest defenders of slavery). And yet she says that! (Thomas Greene Clemson was Calhoun's son-in-law). Clemson's signature building is Tillman Hall, named after "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman, a notorious racist. And NO push back to justify her statement.
Journalists are not supposed to be merely transcribers, regurgitating what is given them. There was a time no so long ago when at the AP we were strongly encouraged to provide context and background. We said that was part of accurate and being fair.
It too many places now, that idea has become lost. I knew we were in trouble when -- as far back as the early 2000s -- we were often judged on how many "clicks" our stories generated. If a story generated a ton of clicks, it didn't matter if was about Britney Spears or about the Middle East.
I used to believe, along Thomas Jefferson, that the "people" would eventually get it right. I'm not sure that's true anymore as the "people" don't get the information they need.
The Haley example is a good one. Too many journalists think fairness means you have to let people lie without confronting them.
Too few journalists chasing too much information.,
If only it were as simple as it seems. You forget how the "noble" occupation ushered in yellow journalism in the mid to late 1800s up to the1950s. And the rivalry and fake news supported by Hearst and Pulitzer, and perhaps the most egregious example of all: Walter Duranty, the Times' Moscow bureau chief whose positive opinions of communist Russia and Joseph Stalin "played a key role in perpetrating some of the greatest lies history has ever known", according to the book "Stalin's Apologist". The media has long been compliant to the ruling classes. Tim Russert once noted that virtually all reporters in Washington go relatively light on certain politicos because not doing so risks their not being invited to parties and dinners where their competitors might get the scoop on them. I might say about the current state of the media is that it can and has been be worse. Sad to say, but people don't get the information they "need" (and who decides that?) because they are willing only to pay for the information they want. I was a journo for 12 years at The Cleveland Press (R.I.P. 1982) and I learned early on to lean left in my work, the editorial board leaned right, so I guess that was somewhat of a balance.
it might not go back to the invention of the printing press, but certainly when parties had their own papers. I think one of the problems is that new organizations have been beholden to their advertisers. There are other problems of course.
thanks for this, Mark.
when the internet and social media appeared and scrambled the media landscape, news was affected most, and political reporting the most. news divisions at the tv networks hadn't been expected to turn a profit; they were prestige, the place that wasn't about entertainment, that took itself and us and their mission to inform us dead seriously. but when the newspapers lost their business model (classified ads, thanks to Craig's List), and tv started hemorrhaging viewers as young people didn't tune in bc getting news and entertainment via streaming, the dominant media model of the previous half a century got blowed up real good.
so everything was up for grabs, and the goal was now simply survival. so no departments/divisions would be spared, everything had to contribute to the bottom line. and so news became entertainment.
I know a lot of things have led us to this place, but this one is important and doesn't seem to get discussed: when news suddenly had to become a profit center, get clicks and views, subs, etc., this is where we ended up. and it is literally threatening the future of the republic.
It's maddening beyond reason, which is one reason why segments like this one from Lawrence O'Donnell's program last week are important to see and share: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9vsivYrC4U
Have watched & shared with others a lot - thank you, Lawrence O'Donnell!
I wish he'd go on tears like this more often—and also that others on MSNBC would watch him and take some lessons (*cough* Kristen Welker *cough*).
Kristen is nauseating🤢
Naïve ol' me didn't think it could get much worse than Chuck Todd ...
I honestly didn't think it was possible either😕
Hey free press, how's it gonna go in a theocracy/autocracy/dictatorship for you?
TL/DR: "As ugly and chaotic as Trump and his eventual accomplice make the months leading up to November, a strong turnout of Democrats and independents and the sliver of college-educated Republicans who can’t abide a felonious nominee can help ensure this dark chapter in our history is only a temporary nightmare." Please, God, make it so!
Agree! We need a "blue tsunami!"
On a related topic, before the primary, all the polls showed Nikki Haley getting thirty percent of the vote in South Carolina. She got forty percent. So forty percent of Republican primary voters in a very very red state reject Trump. Either the polls were off by ten percent (!!!) or Haley gained ten percent in the actual vote after her intense campaign. As has been pointed out elsewhere, if forty percent of Democratic voters rejected Biden in a primary, he would be toast. Not sure why MSM is so invested in a Trump-Biden rematch.
Well, Mark, you and I were in mainstream media long enough to know that herd mentality rules. Frankly, I believe NYT and others are afraid to offend “readers” who don’t actually read their publications or watch their broadcasts. So many of us who had a parent who lost their mind to dementia recognize the symptoms in DJT, especially the repetition IN THE SAME CONVERSATION of the same stories over and over, word for word. This is very seldom reported or commented on. I had to go to The Guardian to find video of Trump calling his wife “Mercedes”; Biden calling his wife “Joan” would be a national scandal.