[lit-ideas] Re: Forged Documents
- From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:35:51 -0700
Below is an editorial by David Broder on the state of American media.
A friend is the Sunday editor of a large American newspaper; she says they are
well-aware
that the core readership has migrated to the web for news. Even though I read
the Sunday
papers, I still get my main news via the web: I use the Mozilla browser and
I've set up a
"one-click opens 12 newspapers" button. With one click, I read British, French,
and German
newspapers, along with several American newspapers, plus Google news and Yahoo
news. What
newspaper can compete with that?
I don't know if it's a symptom or a result: 20-somethings don't read the
newspapers anymore.
They won't even glance at a newspaper, not even to read the comics or the sales.
The newspapers and evening news (I don't know anyone who sits down to watch the
evening
news) are obsolete. The web has killed them off.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
The Media, Losing Their Way
By David S. Broder
We don't yet know who will win the 2004 election, but we know who has
lost it. The American news media have been clobbered.
In a year when war in Iraq, the threat of terrorism and looming
problems with the federal budget and the nation's health care system
cry out for serious debate, the news organizations on which people
should be able to depend have been diverted into chasing sham events: a
scurrilous and largely inaccurate attack on the Vietnam service of John
Kerry and a forged document charging President Bush with disobeying an
order for an Air National Guard physical.
With these events coming after the editors of two respected national
newspapers, the New York Times and USA Today, were forced to resign
because their organizations were duped by lying staff reporters, it is
hard to overcome the sense that the professional practices and code of
responsibility in journalism have suffered a body blow.
After almost a half-century in this business, I certainly feel a
sense of shame and embarrassment at our performance. The feeling is not
relieved by the awareness that others in journalism not only did fine
work on other stories but took the lead in exposing these instances of
gross malpractice.
The common feature -- and the disturbing fact -- is that none of
these damaging failures would have occurred had senior journalists not
been blind to the fact that the standards in their organizations were
being fatally compromised.
We need to be asking why this collapse has taken place.
My suspicion is that it stems from a widespread loss of confidence in
both the values of journalism and the economic viability of the news
business.
The first symptom of wavering confidence that I spotted came when
news organizations -- television particularly, but print as well --
began offering their most prestigious and visible jobs not to people
deeply imbued with the culture and values of newsrooms, but to stars
imported from the political world. Journalists learn to be skeptical --
of sources and of their own biases as well. If they are any good, they
are tough on themselves. Politicians learn something very different --
how to please the public. They try to satisfy others, not themselves.
As the path from the White House and political campaigns to the slots
as TV anchor or interviewer or op-ed columnist or editor was trod by
more and more people, the message to aspiring young journalists was
clear.
The way to the top of journalism was no longer to test yourself on
police beats and city hall assignments, under the skeptical gaze of
editors who demanded precision in writing and careful weighing of
evidence. It was to make a reputation as a clever wordsmith, a feisty
advocate, a belligerent or beguiling political personality, and then
market yourself to the media.
These hires were made by executives who themselves had little
commitment to the solid and steady journalistic values that come from
working a beat for a sustained period of time. They were looking for
quick fixes for their circulation or ratings -- and they thought the
star system or the "big story" would save them.
But to their dismay, TV news show ratings continued to decline,
newspaper circulations slumped and the fickle public -- whose wishes
editors now took as their command -- switched to even more sensational
outlets: the cable talk shows and infotainment formats that put
argument, gossip and amusement at the top.
When the Internet opened the door to scores of "journalists" who had
no allegiance at all to the skeptical and self-disciplined ethic of
professional news gathering, the bars were already down in many
old-line media organizations. That is how it happened that old pros
such as Dan Rather and former New York Times editor Howell Raines got
caught up in this fevered atmosphere and let their standards slip.
Time was when any outfit such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that
came around peddling an ad with implausible charges would have run into
a hard-nosed reporter whose first questions -- before he or she ran
with the story -- would have been, "Who the hell are you guys? What's
your angle? What's your proof?"
Any Texan with a grudge against George Bush and the National Guard
who suddenly produced a purported photocopy of an explosive 30-year-old
order signed by a dead man would have been treated with the deep
distrust he deserved by the reporters to whom he offered his wares. And
no professional journalist would have made a call to the Kerry campaign
encouraging a flack to contact this dubious source.
We've wandered a long way from safe ground in the news business.
Sometimes I wonder if we can find our way back.
davidbroder@xxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
