As a former newspaper reporter, it seems peculiar to me that there are several ‘watchdog’ groups with the mission of keeping journalists honest. A real deal reporter does not write lies or innuendos in news stories or in columns for that matter. However, the less honorable reporter and print tabloid would not only pay sources but accept money to not write the truth or print a story. This fact known to everyone is part of the reason why journalists and the journalism profession are under severe public scrutiny. Most Americans do not believe what they read in newspapers, even as staunch as The New York Times and Washington Post. Because the public perceives journalists as inclined to lie, they believe their articles need to be monitored for truth. But it’s the public not the reporters who are mistaken when it comes to fake news. Many Americans do not know the difference between news and views. Thank you Fox News.
When asked, journalists always rate their profession as most admirable and certainly worth the public’s respect and trust. Yet the American public, more now than ever, distrusts the media, the press, what some country’s honorably call the Fourth Estate. Did you know the Fourth Estate was considered to be a fourth branch of our federal government, with the responsibility and power of ‘watchdog’ to ensure equality among the executive, legislative and judicial branches?
Our nation was created by 18th century hell raisers, brave men willing to put their money where their mouth was. They paid to own and operate and distribute newspapers. Why? To voice their opinions against tyranny and for liberty. In other words, the United States of America never would have organized to rebel against British rule and authority if not for numerous publications read by residents of colonies, towns and communities. The self-styled editors and reporters used their words, their printed words, to spark the American Revolution. And they put their names on their self-published articles.
Contrast our journalist forefathers to modern Americans. Thousands of internet bloggers often do not reveal their real identities, and hundreds of local ‘reporter’ wannabes attend court trials, government meetings and community gatherings and write about their impressions for their online news reports—and they compete with long-established community newspapers. The internet being what it is, fast and convenient and monetarily free, these alleged reporters get noticed, read and believed; create a buzz by playing fast and loose with the facts; and advertisers support the new journalists in their online effort to keep the public informed—though in the most lackadaisical and uneducated ways. [I’d add ‘uninformed,’ but they do follow a reporter’s beat.]
In the beginning was the word
When I first searched the internet for pictures of American journalists, guess who popped up first? Diane Sawyer, followed by Oprah Winfrey, Katie Couric, Barbara Walters, etc. … These are not journalists as I knew the profession—and I grew up with TV. Think of the word ‘journaling,’ you know like ‘writing.’ I was hoping to see Ben Franklin, Ida Tarbell, Ernie Pyle, Ernest Hemingway, Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and Gloria Steinem.
Indeed there are a plethora of well-known, and to the public better known, broadcast journalists because of the very fact they’re in TV land. I, too, grew up watching the news: key word ‘watching’ and maybe key phrase ‘watching the news.’ But I also grew up reading a daily newspaper, more importantly seeing my parents read the paper. For Americans, just watching the news never was intended to be how we get the full story. With the advent of television and now the internet, citizens living in free democracies, like we do, must seek all media to learn the full story, not just overhear 20-second sound bites over breakfast or during dinner. We have to spend more time, not less, to gain full knowledge of a story.
Along with confusion between print and broadcast journalism is the growing need for emotional appeal. A great writer uses precise words and language to grip readers. That still remains a talent and craft any renowned author and poet know, and along with readers have known for centuries. TV newscasters, which in my day were sarcastically dubbed ‘talking heads,’ must rely on evoking an emotional response by viewers through voice, appearance, and technology. What a lot of fluff just to present the news. In the end, the news is just the facts. And we as a society have lost track of that: to know or to want to know the cold hard facts without being entertained or persuaded. But humans are moved more by what we see than what we read. Reading takes time. But it never should have stopped being important to Americans. We have failed our nation in this regard.
Then Fox News came along, singing a song, and broadcast journalism has never been the same. Hand in hand with the World Wide Web, news and views became politically mixed with Fox blatantly slanted to the right. But when it comes to political internet bloggers, it’s not more conservatives than liberals. Liberal blogs have a slight edge, about 53/47. But most Americans would never think that, given political radio and internet talk shows, most of which are loudly right wing with hardly a peep of left-wing counterpoint.
Emotional rescue
What to do with the state of journalism today? Does anything need to be done with journalism today? I can tell you that real reporters are out getting the story, getting the facts straight, and writing the news—while keeping it separate from their own views or opinions. This is their sacred duty whether the public believes it or not.
Today’s journalists are not kicking themselves for the state of the newspaper industry. In fact, every newspaper’s online. Maybe that is the future: no more paper and ink. With strong photo images and even video reports, journalists are showing they are made of stronger stuff than fluff. Some local reporters may give the talking heads competition. After all, a reporter can write and tell a story. That’s not necessarily true among broadcast journalists.
Our society feels the need to monitor journalists from newspapers to magazines, TV broadcasts to online news. If anything in the media needs monitoring, it should be advertising dollars. How much for a full-page ad in a major daily? In a monthly magazine? On an online newspaper edition? For 30 seconds during TV news? Get the picture? Bottom line, it’s a lot of money. Again, why?
Our emotions are being bought. We are being manipulated by glitz and glamour that comes with watching TV news—the big guys more so than the mid-size and small markets, of course. But the visual counts, and it comes with a hefty price. Our major broadcast journalists are treated like movie stars or TV stars. And they are. That is the point and our problem with trusting journalists.
Good journalists are not like most people. In pursuing truth, they won’t be swayed by money, power or prestige. They are intense and take their jobs seriously. They report facts; if they are lucky, they write with a sparkle; and while everyone else is busy gossiping about what was read in the news, journalists are on to the next story. They don’t need monitoring. They monitor themselves. As our democracy depends on accurate news along with the equal but separate right to express views, there are aspects of the modern media business that need scrutiny. When it comes to finding the truth, any good journalist would tell you: Follow the money.