As a kid growing up, I remember my dad watching Walter Cronkite on the news every night, signing off with that line that seemed to define an era in which journalism had integrity. Walter Cronkite's passing seems symbolic of an end to that era. Journalism as my dad knew it doesn't exist anymore, now that most of the bigger news media corporations are biased in favor of some political agenda, and the real news seems to get buried in the tabloids. It's no wonder newspapers are going under, they're no longer worth the paper they're printed on. And sure, you can get it on the internet, and subscribe to get the full blown version, but what's the point when so much of it is bullshit anyway?
Now, there's TOO much info and it takes a lot of skill to sort out the solid reality from the opinions. No matter what you set out to prove, you can find all kinds of info that agrees with your stance. And if you are actually trying to find out something, there are so many sides to the story that it doesn't even sound like the SAME story.... There ARE some really credible news sources, or at least trying with all their might to be. It's DAMN hard for a journalist of any merit these days to be taken seriously because they are in the minority and they are not just echoing something the majority is saying. We have an issue locally right now that is a perfect example of some of the problems journalists face. There are the mainstream town papers, and they stay pretty much comfortably "in the box" and mostly away from too much controversy, with an enormous readership. Then there is an online alternative news source, extremely credible and also with a huge readership, which has a habit of printing stories even if they may not be too popular with some folks. Which has happened lately in regards to the police confiscating a camera belonging to the press... Then there are the "fringe" element of bloggers who either take the "news" and add their own angle to it, or print stories that the mainstream media dares not touch. Now, in the current situation problems arise, as there are SOME people with a vested interest in some of the PARTICULAR controversies that are in the news, and their goal is to discredit the CREDIBLE news source by trying to associate them with the "fringe" element. The end result is that the editor has to try so hard NOT to associate himself with the others so as to NOT lose his credibility that there are things that even HE dares not print... Which in the long run, as a reader, makes it where you can never sort it out. Or even get a clear picture of "what happened".
Walter Cronkite was once considered the most trusted man in America, but was journalism really all that more accurate back then, or is that just our perception? I don't think Walter Cronkite's stories were tailored to suit any given political agenda, or serve the interests of the rich, that's one big difference. It seems our capitalist model has failed us when it comes to journalism. Report what the people wanna hear, and you'll get paid. Report the truth, and you won't have a job. I heard that folks who get their news exclusively from Fox are more ignorant of what's really happening than those who watch The Daily Show, a pretty sad statement about the quality of their journalism. One of their reporters was slamming Private Bergdahl for his capture, claiming he was a deserter, and the Taliban could do the tax payers a favor by executing him, even though his chain of command denies this. I'd like to see what that asshole reporter would've done in the hands of the Taliban, we'd do the tax payers a bigger favor sending his ass over there. Mother Jones had an article about a Mexican journalist who escaped the Mexican army for reporting the truth about corruption, fearing for his life, so I guess it could be worse (or could it? I'm not an American journalist, thank God, so I wouldn't know). His story is that the Mexican army is in cahoots with the drug cartels, and they use the drug cartels as scape goats for their pattern of murders, rapes, and violence against their countrymen. You won't read that in the main stream news. This blog is a fine example of journalism taken to the fringes. The author's parents were next-door neighbors of mine when we moved here back in the late '60's. He even gave us my first pet dog, which he picked up as a stray on his road trip back to visit his folks from Berkley, where he was going to school to be a journalist.
I thought that was pretty tame compared to the blogs here in these parts. Seriously. But the ones here are more about LOCAL news and politics. There are two issues that caused a HUGE controversy lately that put the heat on the REAL (Hur Herald) media... One involved a murder of some folks for (?) reason, depending on which cop made the statement...(County population 7300) And the other was when the most infamous State Trooper in these parts (same one in charge of the murder investigation) "wrestled the camera from the hands of the editor of the Hur Herald", and told him he was "obstructing" and that he was not allowed to photograph an unused old armory building (which he actually never got the chance to photograph...) These guys are not strangers, but rather on a first name basis, due to the same trooper pulling that sort of horse pucky before.... I think that the news that our parents listened to MAY have been pretty skewed actually. After all, only 3 channels, 4 if you were lucky. The news was definitely presented in a certain way... I discovered this because my dad was a political writer right around the Viet Nam war era, and I still have a huge collection of the writings he got published in the big local newspapers. Makes it easy to see that some things that were seen a certain way back then are seen completely differently today. Interesting reading...
No doubt, I'm sure it is, but then this is the blog of a journalist who's still employed, lol, I'll bet he holds back a bit. From my personal experiences and your account of the lawlessness of those who supposed to be enforcing it, it's no wonder folks are outraged and blogging. I used to be nervous driving through the south, particularly some of those smaller towns where the cops pulled over anyone they didn't know. Luckily I was in the military, so I could show them the ID, and the hair cut didn't hurt either. I wouldn't wanna try it nowadays. That's what I figured, which is why I asked, thanks for sharing that. We trusted the news more, but maybe we were naive. In some ways journalism is dead, at least in the form it used to be, but in some ways the internet has taken it to a new level. The truth's out there, but you gotta dig for it.
I checked out that Calhoun Underground blog on the link you posted on the other thread, 'looks like an interesting read. By contrast local politics where I live is tame (like Dave's blog, lol, though he lives in Philly now). Like-minded intellectual liberals mostly, but everyone's so damned civilized it's boring. We twiddle our thumbs at ACLU meetings 'cause there's nothing to do but talk about how screwed up our federal government is.
This is editorial, not journalism. Don't confuse the two - editorialists can say whatever they want. Reporters have to have standards. A lot of what drives people crazy about Fox is not the reporting, it is the crackpot editorialists who say dumb shit just to create scandal. I don't believe the press is worse today, I think it is better. TV is not a good example - there may have been few TV stations before, and no websites, but there were always hundreds if not thousands of newspapers and magazines. We have seen electronic media explode, but print media has been a diverse world for a long time. And you can definitely make money telling the truth.
You're right, the distinction between journalism and opinion is key, the danger being when folks can't make that distinction, when the opinions are repeated on network "news" so many times they become facts.
