It would be tempting to mourn the passing of the golden age of journalism.
In the 1960s the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University initiated me into a quasi-priesthood of accuracy, fairness and balance. It was a reporters’ boot camp where crusty, ex-editor professors like the legendary Richard Hainey unleashed withering scorn on any unchecked fact or unattributed source. It was drummed into us that our first responsibility was to our readers and our stories were bigger than we were.
In my first job as a reporter for a community newspaper I was delighted when my stories angered people on both sides of an issue. Later, as a corporate media spokesman in Chicago, I encountered occasional bias and sloppy reporting but found the vast majority of reporters to be straight shooters. In those days we venerated Walter Cronkite and cheered the meticulous digging of Woodward and Bernstein.
The media landscape that nourished a couple of generations of great journalism has been paved over by economics and technology. Metropolitan newspapers and news magazines are withering: Those that have survived declining advertising revenue have downsized their editorial staffs. The major television networks have lost chunks of their audience to cable TV and can no longer afford blue-ribbon news operations. And both print and broadcast media face growing competition from the Internet.
At a time when nobody can afford to hire reporters, technology has put the news cycle on steroids. Stories that went unreported until the evening newscast or morning paper now go viral on the Internet and are quickly picked up by multiple cable news outlets to fill 24 hours of airtime.
One result is the tabloidization of news. Local police stories such as missing toddlers or hostage situations are now national news because they build ratings and are cheaper to cover than the economy or the nuances of foreign relations. The media herd instinct means that a sensational but trivial story such as the Casey Anthony trial sucks the oxygen out of the news schedule for weeks at a time. For a news junkie like me, it’s a helpless feeling to get on the treadmill at the gym and realize that there will be no actual news on any of the TV news channels for at least half an hour… so it’s either the sports channel or the Home Shopping Network.
Think of the great news coverage we could have seen if the media had assigned all the reporters who covered Michael Jackson’s death to develop stories on the economy instead. But would anyone have watched it?
Another trend is the breakdown of boundaries between news, entertainment and opinion. Network news anchors are chosen for celebrity appeal rather than reporting skill, and political operatives double as news magazine columnists and television news show hosts. One result is that political coverage – fueled by today’s climate of hyper-partisanship and the celebrity appeal of President Obama – has become more overtly partisan. Wonder what my journalism professors would think of Al Sharpton hosting a TV news show one day and leading a demonstration the next?
It had never occurred to me to watch Fox News until I saw Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin on ABC News during the 2008 campaign. I’m no fan of Palin, but Gibson’s interview was a textbook display of bias: the raised eyebrow, patronizing tone and “gotcha” questions, especially compared with his fawning interview of candidate Obama. So I now channel-surf between CNN and Fox in the hope that the truth will be somewhere in the middle.
This year’s presidential campaign is a bonanza for media-watchers. Was there a connection between political-operative-turned-newscaster George Stephanopoulos’ unexpected question about birth control during a Republican debate and the Obama administration’s birth-control mandate a few weeks later? One wonders. Why does the Washington Post do a front-page story about Mitt Romney’s high-school pranks when polls show voters are most concerned about the economy? Does anyone outside network newsrooms really believe that gay marriage, free birth control and student loans are the most important issues to the electorate?
Amid all the controversy there’s not much reporting going on. National TV news programs are more likely to rely on pundit panels than reporters, and the Washington Post “expose” on Romney’s antics 50 years ago appears to be flunking the Woodward-Bernstein test.
It’s hard to tell whether this is a vast, left-wing media conspiracy, as Fox News claims, or merely a half-vast effort to boost ratings and circulation by grabbing the easy headline. Either way, it’s going to be a nasty campaign that may further tarnish the credibility of the national news media, especially if they fail to re-elect President Obama.
I don’t see partisan news media as a threat to democracy. We’ve survived worse. The fulminations of Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann and, for that matter, the SuperPAC attack ads, are tame compared to what newspapers of yore published about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.
The silver lining is that the Internet has democratized newsgathering and put it into a fishbowl. Everything that happens anywhere is going to be reported on somebody’s blog, everyone with a cell phone is a photojournalist and the whole world is watching. The traditional news media no longer have a monopoly on news coverage. Anything they decline to report, or that their thin-spread news staffs miss, will inevitably pop up on the web and quickly go public. A growing number of national stories now originate in blogs and are picked up by the media.
If you’re as addicted to news and opinion as I am, today’s media scene is hog heaven. I channel-surf several news networks and read a local newspaper, a couple of news magazines, the Wall Street Journal website and selected blogs. My consumption of news and information is limited only by my desire to get a life.
One can argue that more obvious media bias may help citizens become the thoughtful voters the framers of the Constitution had in mind. It’s easy to tell where MSNBC, Fox News, the Huffington Post and the Daily Caller are coming from, and consumers can weigh the alternative viewpoints of multiple sources. Everybody trusted Walter Cronkite a generation ago but today’s viewers are more skeptical, as evidenced by the rapid growth of cable news and the decline of the major networks. Some folks will flock to media that mirror their political views, but the diversity of media outlets means that issues will be raised and opposing viewpoints will be heard.
What has not changed is that the hardcore journalism is I learned is still alive and well in local newsrooms. Local newspapers and TV stations, even in a secondary market such as Albuquerque, are doing superb investigative reporting and earning Pulitzer prizes the old-fashioned way. Last week a local TV station followed city employees around with camera crews and sifted through records to expose illegal use of handicapped parking passes. The TV networks may be giving President Obama a pass, but the mayor had better watch out.
Whatever happened to journalism?
It would be tempting to mourn the passing of the golden age of journalism.
In the 1960s the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University initiated me into a quasi-priesthood of accuracy, fairness and balance. It was a reporters’ boot camp where crusty, ex-editor professors like the legendary Richard Hainey unleashed withering scorn on any unchecked fact or unattributed source. It was drummed into us that our first responsibility was to our readers and our stories were bigger than we were.
In my first job as a reporter for a community newspaper I was delighted when my stories angered people on both sides of an issue. Later, as a corporate media spokesman in Chicago, I encountered occasional bias and sloppy reporting but found the vast majority of reporters to be straight shooters. In those days we venerated Walter Cronkite and cheered the meticulous digging of Woodward and Bernstein.
The media landscape that nourished a couple of generations of great journalism has been paved over by economics and technology. Metropolitan newspapers and news magazines are withering: Those that have survived declining advertising revenue have downsized their editorial staffs. The major television networks have lost chunks of their audience to cable TV and can no longer afford blue-ribbon news operations. And both print and broadcast media face growing competition from the Internet.
At a time when nobody can afford to hire reporters, technology has put the news cycle on steroids. Stories that went unreported until the evening newscast or morning paper now go viral on the Internet and are quickly picked up by multiple cable news outlets to fill 24 hours of airtime.
One result is the tabloidization of news. Local police stories such as missing toddlers or hostage situations are now national news because they build ratings and are cheaper to cover than the economy or the nuances of foreign relations. The media herd instinct means that a sensational but trivial story such as the Casey Anthony trial sucks the oxygen out of the news schedule for weeks at a time. For a news junkie like me, it’s a helpless feeling to get on the treadmill at the gym and realize that there will be no actual news on any of the TV news channels for at least half an hour… so it’s either the sports channel or the Home Shopping Network.
Think of the great news coverage we could have seen if the media had assigned all the reporters who covered Michael Jackson’s death to develop stories on the economy instead. But would anyone have watched it?
Another trend is the breakdown of boundaries between news, entertainment and opinion. Network news anchors are chosen for celebrity appeal rather than reporting skill, and political operatives double as news magazine columnists and television news show hosts. One result is that political coverage – fueled by today’s climate of hyper-partisanship and the celebrity appeal of President Obama – has become more overtly partisan. Wonder what my journalism professors would think of Al Sharpton hosting a TV news show one day and leading a demonstration the next?
It had never occurred to me to watch Fox News until I saw Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin on ABC News during the 2008 campaign. I’m no fan of Palin, but Gibson’s interview was a textbook display of bias: the raised eyebrow, patronizing tone and “gotcha” questions, especially compared with his fawning interview of candidate Obama. So I now channel-surf between CNN and Fox in the hope that the truth will be somewhere in the middle.
This year’s presidential campaign is a bonanza for media-watchers. Was there a connection between political-operative-turned-newscaster George Stephanopoulos’ unexpected question about birth control during a Republican debate and the Obama administration’s birth-control mandate a few weeks later? One wonders. Why does the Washington Post do a front-page story about Mitt Romney’s high-school pranks when polls show voters are most concerned about the economy? Does anyone outside network newsrooms really believe that gay marriage, free birth control and student loans are the most important issues to the electorate?
Amid all the controversy there’s not much reporting going on. National TV news programs are more likely to rely on pundit panels than reporters, and the Washington Post “expose” on Romney’s antics 50 years ago appears to be flunking the Woodward-Bernstein test.
It’s hard to tell whether this is a vast, left-wing media conspiracy, as Fox News claims, or merely a half-vast effort to boost ratings and circulation by grabbing the easy headline. Either way, it’s going to be a nasty campaign that may further tarnish the credibility of the national news media, especially if they fail to re-elect President Obama.
I don’t see partisan news media as a threat to democracy. We’ve survived worse. The fulminations of Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann and, for that matter, the SuperPAC attack ads, are tame compared to what newspapers of yore published about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.
The silver lining is that the Internet has democratized newsgathering and put it into a fishbowl. Everything that happens anywhere is going to be reported on somebody’s blog, everyone with a cell phone is a photojournalist and the whole world is watching. The traditional news media no longer have a monopoly on news coverage. Anything they decline to report, or that their thin-spread news staffs miss, will inevitably pop up on the web and quickly go public. A growing number of national stories now originate in blogs and are picked up by the media.
If you’re as addicted to news and opinion as I am, today’s media scene is hog heaven. I channel-surf several news networks and read a local newspaper, a couple of news magazines, the Wall Street Journal website and selected blogs. My consumption of news and information is limited only by my desire to get a life.
One can argue that more obvious media bias may help citizens become the thoughtful voters the framers of the Constitution had in mind. It’s easy to tell where MSNBC, Fox News, the Huffington Post and the Daily Caller are coming from, and consumers can weigh the alternative viewpoints of multiple sources. Everybody trusted Walter Cronkite a generation ago but today’s viewers are more skeptical, as evidenced by the rapid growth of cable news and the decline of the major networks. Some folks will flock to media that mirror their political views, but the diversity of media outlets means that issues will be raised and opposing viewpoints will be heard.
What has not changed is that the hardcore journalism is I learned is still alive and well in local newsrooms. Local newspapers and TV stations, even in a secondary market such as Albuquerque, are doing superb investigative reporting and earning Pulitzer prizes the old-fashioned way. Last week a local TV station followed city employees around with camera crews and sifted through records to expose illegal use of handicapped parking passes. The TV networks may be giving President Obama a pass, but the mayor had better watch out.