JOURNALISM 2.014

Politicians of both parties heap extensive criticism on the “media” for causing problems in our current noxious political climate.  Personally, I believe the political parties are at fault but there is no doubt the media exacerbates the situation by distorting, misleading and lying when reporting the “news.”  Here is an example from the venerable New York Times (October 16, 2014) which was once believed to be an example of high journalistic standards.  This illustrates how the supposedly liberal Times also participates in the current media trend go to any length to denigrate and criticize government in general and the Obama Administration in particular.  Here is what the Times reporter wrote regarding the second nurse contracting Ebola:

“Hours after Dr. Frieden spoke, a federal health official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk publicly, said that because it was thought that Ms. Vinson’s protective gear would have kept her safe and because her temperature was only mildly elevated, she fell into a category not covered by C.D.C. guidelines.

“I don’t think we actually said she could fly, but they didn’t tell her she couldn’t fly,” the official said. He said the error was on the part of the C.D.C., not the nurse. “She called us,” he said. “I really think this one is on us.”

Examine this passage.  It quotes an anonymous federal health official who was not authorized to speak.  This immediately puts into question the official’s credibility since he knows he is violating one of his organization’s rules and violates it anyway.  Conceivably there was a reason he was not authorized perhaps because he was not privy to all the information regarding the incident. Then the “official” states that technically the C.D.C. was not wrong in allowing her to fly since she was in a category not covered by C.D.C. guidelines.  Then he adds that the C.D.C didn’t say she could fly but also did not say that she couldn’t.  This is an absolutely, senseless, stupid, and meaningless statement reinforcing the suspicion that the “official” did not really know what he was talking about.  And then he concludes, “I really think this one is on us,” which is purely his opinion and not a fact but effectively places the blame on the government which, I can assume, was both the source’s and the reporter’s objective. 

I have a personal reason for deploring the state of journalism today—both print and broadcast.  When I studied journalism at the University of Pennsylvania in the 1950s we were taught that reporters must stick to verifiable facts using the venerable 5Ws formula—Who, What, When, Where, Why and sometimes How.  Any opinion or political statements by reporters was forbidden. Speculation and opinion was the purview of editorial writers and columnists.  Reporters were required to be apolitical.

The above example is totally devoid of fact and is merely an opinion detrimental to the source’s own employer, and presumably shared by the reporter or he would not have included it.  In other words, I conclude both the source and the reporter had what we now call a “political agenda.”

When I was a correspondent for Fairchild Publications in Paris in the 60s I was assigned to NATO which at the time was headquartered there.  I got hold of a lot of sensitive information.  Of course we used terms like “informed sources” to shield our contacts but we did not have to justify why they were anonymous with excuses like “not authorized to speak,” “ongoing investigation” etc.  But what I reported from an “informed source” had to be actual facts and not opinions.  In those days, editors were more conscientious and if they had any doubts about the veracity of my source’s quote, I had to justify it or it was cut. Or, if I expressed an opinion or a personal political position it was automatically deleted. In those days there was some integrity in journalism. 

My discussion on the deplorable state of journalism could go on to include the damaging effects of the blogosphere, social networking, cell phones, cable television and all the current usual subjects. Trashing the government for anything and everything now seems to be the fashionable thing for both the liberal and conservative press.  It gets “eyeballs” as they like to say.

Delving into the past I could also acknowledge that journalists did not always hit above the belt citing H. L. Menken, Lincoln Steffens, Muckrakers, Yellow Journalism, tabloids, etc.  But we live in 2014 and I suppose in these times where conflict, hatred, fear, vicious partisanship, terrorism, and mass shootings grab all the headlines, it means the more confrontational, sensational and opinionated the news the more the public likes it whether it’s the truth or not.  Newspapers, like the Times, are desperately trying to reinvent themselves in order to survive.  Broadcast news is graded on ratings not content. That means they must whip up public emotions, and, to do that, fiction has proved to be much more effective than truth.   Ultimately, considering the mentality of the public today, we are getting the journalism we deserve.