Time For a REAL Change? Brietbart / Sharrod

[eb]

Television Journalism has hit bottom. Again.

Is it time for a change? I am home on vacation, watching TV news. It is gone beyond embarrassing, now it is damaging. (And pathetically a waste of time...watching competing news networks chew each other up and spit each other out) when serious things are happening in this country.

The case of Shirley Sharrod has highlighted what we have known for a long time.... that journalism - television journalism -- on the so called "News Networks" has crossed the ethical lines so clearly and blatently... that everyone sees and knows it. And now it actually harmed a woman. And it harmed journalism, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and us all.

Is it time for a change?

Here are some specific ideas for change: Journalism Associations must act now or become totally irrelevent. All news outlets need to label "Journalism" from "Opinion." Separate facts from speculation. Journalism associations need to set up voluntary system for reliablity verification (voluntary, as in voluntary, not government controlled.) Create certification... "Certified by the RTNDA" or SPJ, or NPPA, or whatever. Journalism on television needs to give the public reliable facts - based on ethics codes. And let the public know which is which - facts or opinions.

Any violation of those ethics codes would result in decertification (voluntary membership).

Ethics are being breached.

The blogger Andrew Brietbart was the first to publish the edited version of Sharrod's speech, which painted her as a racist. Was Brietbart the original "editor" of the video? Or did someone send it to him as a set up? I don't know. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...n_coulter.html

The bottom line is: Brietbart failed as a "journalist." So he should be reprimanded publically by journalism associations. Take away his certification as an ethical, fair journalist. Perhaps he was never intending to be a journalist. Then his work should never be cited by a "news" network -- without a label distinquishing that it was not "reliable."

Journalists are to serve the public, which ethically means to present facts in "context." He failed. And Breitbart has not apologized. This video (apparantly) led the NAACP, the AG Deptartment, and the White House, to fire her as a racist. (Unless they knew of this ahead of time.)

O'Reilly has apologized for not reviewing the entire transcript before he ran with it. He works at Fox "News" but clearly presents an entertaining Opinion program. I understand (from CNN) that Fox News VP of News did send out a memo warning Fox staff to delve deeper into the Sharrod story before reporting it in their "newscasts." That is great..... EXCEPT THAT.... Fox News "Programming" (O'Reily, Beck, Hannity) is NOT NEWS/Journalism. It is entertaining, "opnion programming." Yet the public views it as "news." Because it is on a network called "FOX NEWS." The same with MSNBC (Maddow, Olbermann) and all the other news casts which do the same sort of things daily. News networks have COMBINED News , and journalism, with entertainment, opinion, and programming.... which is a poisonous combination. It is not only destroying television journalism... this time it has damaged someone's life (Sharrod.)

SHAME.

Certainly, I spread the blame for this unprofessional operation... on Breitbart, Fox News, and also on MSNBC, CNN, and all television news networks. And I lay the blame on the journalism associations - who hand out awards... but do nothing to rectify this blatent cancer on television journalism. They CAN CERTIFY CODES OF ETHICS. And hold members, or non member, accountable for unethical breeches of those CODES of ethics.
Is it time for a real change?

Is it time to consider the certification of journalists -voluntary membership - by journalism associations that have Ethics Codes.

Label journalism as "Journalism" and opinion as "Opinion" or "Entertainment" as entertainment.

 

[Chicago Dog]

I certainly don't like discussing politics and don't agree with everything you said, but a lot of thought went into this article.

I, for one, appreciate the efforts and wish I had more time to reply to it. Well done.

 

[eb]

A lot of thought has been put into it. I have brought these ideas up before, and I probably will continue to. The academics brush it off.. They will say "you can never, ever, ever, certify journalists." Never. Ever?

But think about it.

What can you certify? Codes of ethics. And when those are breeched - then you LOSE.

Simple.

Factual, ethical journalism is something to be strived for - and there ARE ways to measure. There are levels of acceptance. There are violations. There is fairness. There is balance.

Although the last time I brougt this up, I backpeddled and thought ... who would be in charge of certification? Then I thought, o ****, I wouldn't want some dip**** in charge of certifying me.

But then again, I work hard to practice ethical journalism.

But there are some who don't (bloggers) including some network "infotainment" program hosts. And they have programs on CNN NEWS, and MSNBC News and FOX News.

Causing confusion, and damage.

So I want to bring the topic up again, but know both sides.

 

[Teddy]

Certification of journalists is a terrible idea. Stop and think about what you are advocating for.

The free market works. Newspapers, tv newsrooms and network newscasts are failing. People recognize crap. It takes time but the market will correct the problems. One of the great faults of recent journalism across all mediums is that we dumb it down because we assume that the viewers are stupid. The viewers aren't stupid. They don't need an organization to tell them what to watch and not to watch. They are figuring it out for themselves.

Perhaps we should spend less time coming up with schemes to keep people out of the marketplace and work to ensure that our own product is still relevant.

 

[eb]

Good point Teddy,

But how do you reconcile Fox News "programming" and MSNBC News "programming."

Is it news? Is it Journalism? Is it Opinion?

At least newspapers make the effort... to have opinion pages clearly labeled. Right? That is the analogy. That's a good example? Right?

 

[Teddy]

Good point Teddy,

But how do you reconcile Fox News "programming" and MSNBC News "programming."

Is it news? Is it Journalism? Is it Opinion?

At least newspapers make the effort... to have opinion pages clearly labeled. Right? That is the analogy. That's a good example? Right?

Not to be too jaded, but that stuff's all inside baseball. We care about labels because we are in the business. Viewers to a great degree don't care. Some people get their news from TMZ. If people find it relevant they will watch. We're not likely to shame them back to our lacking products.

 

[eb]

Inside baseball... or is it very public?
This story is getting a Lot of airtime on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. And a ton of people are watching them eat each other up.

Also, a lot of "Faux News Haters" and those on the other side who hate the Liberal Established News MSNBC, etc... A lot of those viewers watch and are getting one sided information - again, unethical journalism.

I think much can be done to make things better. Or we can all sit around and watch this country eat itself from the inside... and journalists are taking the first bites.

 

[Tom Servo]

Certification of journalists is a terrible idea. Stop and think about what you are advocating for.

The free market works. Newspapers, tv newsrooms and network newscasts are failing. People recognize crap. It takes time but the market will correct the problems. One of the great faults of recent journalism across all mediums is that we dumb it down because we assume that the viewers are stupid. The viewers aren't stupid. They don't need an organization to tell them what to watch and not to watch. They are figuring it out for themselves.

Perhaps we should spend less time coming up with schemes to keep people out of the marketplace and work to ensure that our own product is still relevant.

I don't think the market is going to correct the problems. The idea that the market always ends up with the best outcome is a false one. If that were true, the Gulf wouldn't be full of oil, Chevrolet would be a fantastically built car made by a company that never even came close to needing massive government bailouts, and the economy would never have crashed. All those disasters were examples of the unrestrained market charging headlong toward the inevitable outcome of a *free* market.

The people making the products in whatever market you want to talk about are just as dumb/greedy/evil/bad/spiteful as anyone else out there. If you took a snapshot of television today, you'd determine that news programming is a loser endeavor from a ratings standpoint, but televised talent shows and karaoke contests are a winner. So you'd scrap news altogether and replace it with American Idol Clone #34. And by the time the "market" told you that people don't want 34 copies of American Idol, anyone who knew anything about television journalism would have already gone on to other careers, since you were kind enough to fire all of them when you scrapped news, and that's even assuming that you figured out that news could be done well and be a ratings winner, instead of jumping from Idol-clone to some other harebrained notion as to what people will want to watch.

The market argument also assumes that what the people want is what they should get 100% of the time. I may enjoy entertainment media more than news media, but that doesn't mean that I should only get entertainment 100% of the time. Being an adult carries with it certain responsibilities, including knowing what the hell is going on in the world. I should be able to be responsible, even if I'd rather be entertained. But a pure market-driven system would discover that I prefer entertainment, and then feed me only entertainment.

The proof of that idea, btw, is in the 24 hour "news" networks, all of which dish up entertainment, be it entertainment-related news (Benifer! Octomom! Tom Cruise is nuts!) or entertainment disguised as news (just about every story the cable nets run). Even hard news has to be "told in an entertaining way," and if its "not visual" then we can't tell it, even if it's vital for people to know it.

No, the market isn't what's going to get us out of this mess, because the market is what got us into it. Once the idea of news as a prestigious loss-leader for the network went down the drain, the idea of news in general went down the drain.

If we want to get out of this mess, it's going to require a mature, adult approach to the issue, where whatever company owns the media outlet realizes that it has a societal responsibility to deliver good, honest, ethical journalism programming in addition to whatever mind-tranquilizer pablumatic entertainment drivel it wants to spoonfeed us. And that's not going to happen until society matures beyond the notion that profit is king, and everything else has to take a back seat to making more money.

 

[Teddy]

Tom, that was in interesting read. You seem to argue both sides of the issue very well. Your right, the market dictates winners and losers. Chevy had to be bailed out because their business model was failing. BP will take a major hit and probably fail as a company because of the golf coast disaster. And, tv news is failing because it's trying to compete in the entertainment market with game shows and fancy dancing contests.

 

[zac love]

if you want a cookie, you have to eat your veggies

a completely free market is anarchy, narcissism & distrust. whenever someone gives you a hug, they're really just trying to steal your wallet

over regulation is too much power. power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely


the solution is moderation. but defining what is moderate is extremely hard, if not impossible since nothing remains constant in this world.


The real challenge for journalists (and actually everyone on this planet too) is to be able to see the forest for the trees. It is too easy to get caught up in the small details to NOT see the big picture.

A few years ago I went to cover a rally. The speakers at the rally were saying things like "Gas prices are too high" "The handling of the Iraq war has been bad for America" & "We need more jobs for low income families & fewer jobs going overseas"

I think that there is a super majority of Americans who agree with those statements. Yet the crowd at the rally was screaming & pro-testing every syllable coming over the loud speakers. Why? Because it was a Nazi rally.

Less than 10% of what I heard those Nazi's saying was racist, anti-semitic or un-American. In my opinion this is how people like Hitler took power by having the general population lose the forest for the trees. If those Nazis at the rally stepped out from under the swastika & said the same things I wonder if there would still be people out there protesting.

Two things I took away from that day I find disturbing.

One: the Nazi spokes person said after every one of their rallies their websites see a massive increase in traffic. All those protesters are providing free PR to the group they oppose.

Two: I don't remember seeing anyone from the PD, swat team, sheriff's office or state police faced towards the Nazis. Law enforcement was watching the anti-Nazi protesters since they were the ones who were posing a threat of violence.

 

[eb]

If we want to get out of this mess, it's going to require a mature, adult approach to the issue, where whatever company owns the media outlet realizes that it has a societal responsibility to deliver good, honest, ethical journalism programming in addition to whatever mind-tranquilizer pablumatic entertainment drivel it wants to spoonfeed us. And that's not going to happen until society matures beyond the notion that profit is king, and everything else has to take a back seat to making more money.

Great post. But your last sentence....."that's not going to happen UNTIL..." It would be great if society suddenly became mature. But it won't happen.

Parents look at disobedient children, and see they are not mature. So parents enact rules. Parents are responsible for teaching and enforcement of strict rules.

Journalism / TV has problem children. And nothing is done about it. Those problem children have influence on a lot of other neighborhood kids. Pretty soon the neighborhood is filled with crack and graffiti. And crime. Those kids grow up, and become city councilmen. The city becomes a corrupt city. And there aren't any ethical journalists left to inform the massively misinformed and ignorant citizens.

TV News has had the chance to mature, yet there are real problems still. As Theodore pointed out, you make a good case for both sides. Failure is upon us. The country is in trouble, financially, governmentally, and as many see...journalistically.

People do not read newspapers, or serious magazines discussing issues in an indepth way. They get their news in bits and pieces... more and more from bloggers and the internet. Sure, its always been this way, but we live in a new digital world. Simply saying "it's always been this way" does not deal with the new changes in communications.

I am not worried for myself. I am worried for the country. Journalism in the U.S.A. is different than journalism in most other countries. Instead of other countries... where journalism is controlled by the government.. in the USA... government is controlled by journalism.

In other countries, the government controls power and money. Government controls the message. In the US, it is the opposite. The people / media have the power and the money. Journalism is the foundation of what this country is ALL about. When journalism goes bad, the country will follow. And that is what we are seeing more and more of... I think.

Journalism associations are journlaists' parents.
Journalism associations are silent. Their codes of ethics are not enforced. The distinction between fact and opinion / news and entertainment / corporate paid public relations/marketing/advertising / out of context blog postings / senstationalism / infotainment / self promotions / etc... is rampant.


Rampant.

I hate to sound like an alarmist. Not all is bad. There is plenty of good - most of what we do as journalists is (hopefully) good....

But the bad... is for some reason... a non issue to those of us who think this is "inside baseball."

Inside baseball, like steroids.

 

[Tom Servo]

eb, you and I agree completely. When I said "until," it was in a similar vein to when my dad used to say "until you're rich and famous, I can't retire." We both knew damn well that I wasn't ever gonna get rich and famous. And I know damn well that this isn't going to turn around until something disastrous happens.

Where I have I think a bit more optimism than you, however, is that I do think eventually (assuming we don't blow ourselves up) we'll turn it around. After all, we've managed to get this far from rather inauspicious beginnings. Hell, the human race built a world-dominating civilization from roots of swinging in trees and hurling poo at one another. We've pulled ourselves up by much longer bootstraps than we face today.

 

[f11vid]

This is pretty simple stuff. Check your facts. Corroborate your sources.People in the business should know that a video clip can be taken out of context.Get your OWN copy of the ENTIRE event and double-check it. As they used to say here at Chicago's City News Service: " If your Mother says she loves you...check it out."