Journalists in this country have lost their way. They have become staid and predictable, something none of them would ever admit to being. They are all after the story, and once it is found they pounce on it trying to outdo one another in its telling. Don’t bother trying to tell them there are other stories of more import. You are a mere civilian, incapable of passing judgement.
Many people believe they are now simply out to make sure George W. Bush isn’t reelected this year. There may be some of that, but I don’t think it is simple politicking. They definitely don’t like the military, and will report anything that puts soldiers in a bad light. They know they’re doing it, and try to make nice by posting “hero pictures” from time to time. “Must show we support the troops!”
What has really put them in this situation is the lack of any real contrasting voice. They all say pretty much the same thing, with variations only in word choice. Often, even that is no different. When any voice speaks up contrarlily, it is condemned as being far right wing. I’ve never heard anyone who disagrees with our journalistic professionals called far left wing. Is there any better indicator of where they stand as a group?
This all started with the decline in the number of independent daily newspapers. Fair and balanced went out the door as fewer and fewer daily newspapers were available throughout the country. Cities lost conflicting viewpoints in newspaper reading, and citizens got less and less information. There was no longer any need for a paper owner or editor to ever concern himself with offering opposing views.
This expanded into television. I’ve quit watching local “news” on television, and haven’t missed anything. Most local newscasts are rehash of national news, interspersed with a local video or two and the weather. They’ve become parrots, and spend their intellectual capital on a few Big Weeks each year. It is accepted today that the main network newscasts are mirrors of the leftist vision of events.
I reach back to the days of newspapers as a time when journalism was a real profession because Mark Twain’s story, Journalism in Tennessee, sheds a light on how news was once a mission. Of course, the story is humor in understatement regarding Clemens’ short (imaginary) tour of duty as associate editor for the Morning Glory and Johnson County War-Whoop. It is also an exaggerated essay on how journalism took root in newspapers across the country.
In short, the chief editor of the War-Whoop is in conflict with editors of other papers, and these conflicts inflict physical damage on the associate editor as a bystander. There is little of this editorial violence today. And the only question being asked is, “Why are the media biased?” Rather, the question should be “Why are they not?”
News has always had a bias. Hearst made his fortune on bias. So did Luce. Fortunately, the bias was split betwen sides–The Arizona Republic and The Arkansas Democrat proudly displayed their particular bias–and readers knew the tone to expect from a paper. The morning paper carried one perspective, and the afternoon paper countered. Not as violently as the War-Whoop and competitors, but contrary just the same. Americans were allowed to read and decide for themselves. Newspapers, along with television news, have always wanted to influence readers, listeners, and viewers. Yet they had no monopoly in the past and couldn’t impose their views. Today’s news is no different on CBS, NBC, or ABC, and local stations take their feeds from them. This loss is due to template journalism in the remaining papers of the country, where every story from AP, UPI, or Reuter’s is used as-is or simply fleshed out. Most cities now have only one newspaper, so readers get only one perspective. I know people who are considered knowlegeable of current events because they read their paper cover-to-cover. Unfortunately, they read nothing else, so they are limited and not really knowlegeable.
The process of learning the news business has changed. In the “good ol’ days”, reporters came up through the system at a paper. They may not even have what we now call an education. Today, colleges turn out thousands of graduates each year with a degree in journalism. The same degree. It matters little which college they attended, the curricula for all schools is mandated by accrediting boards which don’t much care for excursions from the norm. Each of these graduates who actually gets a job in journalism is surrounded by people with the same coursework, who’ve been taught by professors with the same outlook. Their horizons are, understandably narrow. They then must come up with a different slant on the same story that everyone else is covering. The competition based on being first rather than being different, and having a fresh point of view.
Offering a conflicting view is no longer a journalistic imperative. Oh, they do want to be in conflict with the government, but don’t want to chance being in conflict with each other. It’s much more difficult to carry your own argument than it is to go along with your fellow reporters. So why not take the intellectually easy route. And if you question the judgement of your peers, they may one day come back and question yours. Then your self-esteem might get damaged. Milk toast rules.
Twain’s associate editor had his ear shot off. I’m not sure which damage would be more frightening to today’s reporters.
UPDATE: Jay Rosen and his readers have more on this topic over at PressThink. As a group, they believe this has more to do with striving to appear objective, when that is a real impossibility.
