Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

curiouso

(57 posts)
Fri Aug 26, 2016, 05:45 PM Aug 2016

You call that journalism?

For 35 years, I was a journalist and educator and I don’t think I ever practiced my craft or taught students to perform the way so-called journalists do it these days.
It has been at least four years since George Stephanopoulos let Rudy Giuliano get away with claiming on national TV that there were no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during the George W. Bush administration. Former members of the W administration have repeated the same absurd claim in the intervening years. But it’s only recently that the media have ridiculed them for it … after the fact, of course.
Never have I seen a so-called journalist challenge such assertions when they’re being made – let alone heard an interviewer ask, “Are you out of your goddamned mind?”
As a result, viewers whose grasp of reality is as frail as Donald Trump’s walk away convinced that, “Yep, W kept us safe – it’s Barack Obama that’s responsible for the sad state of affairs we find ourselves in today.”
Let’s stop calling people who seem to care more about how they look on camera and how they’re perceived by readers than about informing the public journalists. Call them what they are, men and women who are paid large sums to carry around microphones and ask chicken-shit questions so conservatives won’t accuse them of being liberal and men and women who carry around notebooks who are afraid to dig for the truth because a source’s feelings might get hurt and the source may refuse to talk to them anymore.
Journalists who are afraid to burn their sources are nothing more than a conduit for what those sources want the public to believe.
I don’t mean to suggest that the pursuit of truth requires those seeking it to be rude or unnecessarily combative – it does mean, however, that they should know what their source is talking about and recognize when that source is prevaricating, obfuscating or simply being unclear.

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
You call that journalism? (Original Post) curiouso Aug 2016 OP
Agreed jayschool Aug 2016 #1
Unfortunately, show biz moves the electorate Wednesdays Aug 2016 #3
But M$M is top down. ffr Aug 2016 #2
Local newspaper journalist said stories now have to be click-bait online. ErikJ Aug 2016 #4

jayschool

(180 posts)
1. Agreed
Fri Aug 26, 2016, 05:49 PM
Aug 2016

Or as one of my journalism professors, 35 years ago, told a classmate when she said she wanted to be a television news anchor:

"Honey, that's not journalism. That's show business."

ffr

(22,649 posts)
2. But M$M is top down.
Fri Aug 26, 2016, 05:54 PM
Aug 2016

So "journalism" today means abiding by what management dictates from above. And corporate dollars keep the office parties buttered up, while hard hitting journalism gets trampled and sent with walking papers.

It's the truth of the matter at the moment. It'll change only after we replace the liars in power with people deserved of respect.

 

ErikJ

(6,335 posts)
4. Local newspaper journalist said stories now have to be click-bait online.
Fri Aug 26, 2016, 08:16 PM
Aug 2016

The mighty Oregonian has been downsized 100 fold. Tiny newspapers 3 times a week now. Online they have to make their stories as click-bait as possible to get readers.
The TV news have always got most of their hard-hitting local news from the newspapers. They will have to have their own news investigators because the newspapers dont have the resources anymore.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»You call that journalism?