Why are Journalists an endangered species?

When at Syracuse University more than half a century ago, I wanted to be in Radio as a broadcaster.  One of the prerequisites for such a profession was the ability to write good news stories.  Syracuse at that time had, and perhaps still has, a Journalism School that was considered one of the best in the country...as well as a reputation for turning out folks ready to perform well in both Radio and Television.

At that time, "reporters" were looked up to by most (as long as they were not targeting you); they worked at being objective, thorough and factual.  At that time opinions and judgement was confined to the "Editorial" pages of a newspaper.  Even Radio and Television stations clearly announced and labeled "editorial commentary" as such before and often even upon the completion of that.  News anchors such as Walter Cronkite would finish the news portion of the broadcast, pause, and then offer some version of, "We'd like to offer this editorial (or opinion) about ...." indicating what the subject of the comment would be about, and closing with the clear statement that what you had just heard was an editorial offered by the news department (of whatever station or network the program appeared on).

You could pick up competing newspapers with different political or social agendas and get the same news with the only difference being if you read a morning or an afternoon paper, and that was just because there were more details in the afternoon papers on the morning "breaking" news.

Those professional journalist reporters would give you all the facts of a given story but leave it to each reader to decide for themselves whether the story was about "good" or "bad."  It was both the readers' right AND their obligation to decide on the worth, value and labeling about each and every story on the "news" pages.

I spent two semesters being shown and learning how to write a story about anything and everything by supplying the "5 'W's & the 'H' " ( Who, What, Where, Why, When, and How).  I've been asked why it would take two semesters, a whole year of classes and assignments, to learn to do that.  The answer is that you had to do this quickly and accurately without the use of adjectives.  Thank about doing that in your own life!  Most things we see happen around us we automatically "adjectivise" (my own made up word).  We see things as "funny" or "sad," or "good" or "bad."  Rarely do we say to another, "something happened to me today"...usually we say, a funny thing happened to me today."  And we rarely tell anyone anything with ALL the facts as I listed above.  So the time is spent developing the discipline to get the entire litiney of an event, and getting them accurately so the person hearing or reading your recital ends up with a Full, Accurate, and Complete understanding and stands ready to make their own individual judgment about what happened.

In the 1950's and 1960's a reporter who did not keep his or her stories objective and accurate became known as unreliable, and disrespected by his or her peers and, for as long as they remained employed, his or her editors...and usually assigned to unimportant stories where mistakes or missing information didn't hurt the newspaper very much.

Today I challenge anyone to pick up a newspaper, listen to a radio news program, or watch a television hard news program and not notice: 1. missing facts; 2. inaccurate assertions; 3. adjectives; and 4. even judgments thrown at you as a done deal.  You have been told in advance by the person providing the "story" what to think about it and what to feel and do as a response.  You are being indoctrinated; the value(s) have already been assigned and communicated to you.  If you are a busy person just checking in on what is going on, you may not even be aware of this "directive as to what to think and how to value" what you have just heard.

Aside from the natural annoyance and, perhaps, anger arising from this discovery of how you are being "talked down to," you may start to ask yourselves..."how did things change from what used to be...and why?"

May I suggest that there are two major (and I am certain there are other contributing elements) factors:

1. The Educational System as it exists today in America; and
2. The ubiquitous presence of the Internet.

Mass education in the United States has always been based on the Prussian model which taught basic arithmetic, reading and writing as well as teaching them group discipline so as to make children useful and governable employees and citizens when they reached their majority. Until the 1960's, this tendency toward indoctrination was offset and even defeated by the moderating effect of parents who would discuss what their children learned in school, adding the element of questioning what was taught and solving problems in a manner once described as "thinking outside the box,"  that is...looking at what was taught not for itself, but asking oneself, if not the teacher, why is this being taught.

After World War II this changed for two basic reasons: First, the "keep up with the Jones-es" attitude led to more mothers entering the work force for a second salary to pay for more and better "stuff" and also to pay for higher education for the children, eliminating much of the time and directing parents away from questioning their children about what they were learning.  Falsely, parents turned to presuming that the schools were teaching their children rather than indoctrinating them to accept commands, suggestions and governance instead of questioning and delving in the purposes of those commands, suggestions and governance; second, Progressives in the era of Teddy Roosevelt continuing from that period had slowly but inexorably taken virtual control of our entire educational system(s).

Formulated in Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," they had taken advantage of parental concern for earnings rather that their children's education to first shade their teaching and then to bring in texts that emphasized a preference for governmental and authoritarian direction as being in the interest of the entire country.  The largely unstated trade-off was individual freedom and thinking not aligned with what was taught (alternative label: indoctrinated).  This is now evident not only in grades 1 through 12, but in University and College settings, as non-progressive thinking, speaking and attitudes are virtually silenced if not expelled from campuses.

The second major factor for the disappearance of professional journalism is the Internet.  Combined with the laziness of the general public and their willingness to accept and not question what is presented, the competition for readership, ratings and/or viewership has resulted in speed at the expense of accuracy, and shear volume of noise over truth.

The editors who once looked at accuracy, depth, absence of adjectives and completeness as the qualifiers, and never considered putting out anything else are no more...replaced with those who hold the same title but value profit, speed and their own personal and business agenda(s) of political and societal nature, and see no fault in turning what we once looked upon as organizations that informed us to organizations dedicated to Public Relations and Propaganda.

We get the government that we deserve.  It doesn't matter is we knew what we were doing or choosing; consequences aren't voided because of stupidity, carelessness, or even saying, "I'm sorry."  That same reasoning applies to the media that still (falsely) claim to serve us; that we, like a drunk at a bar, demand more and more simply insure that the consequences are certain.

News has morphed into Entertainment

News has become today's entertainment.  It has the same snail's pace as the soap operas and, as long as on political party isn't in complete control or an attack using WMDs hasn't occurred, the same limited impact.  when EVERYTHING can be and is covered, it is like having too much of your favorite food or candy...you stop appreciating the finer points.

The big loser is, of course, the American People.  Journalism used to be about the story.  With no television, you read a paper or heard a radio report.  It was about what used to be revered by every professionally proud reporter: What, Where, When Why, Who, and How.  It wasn't about adjectives.  It wasn't about taking a position (which, if done in a news story, used to get your fired).  It was about telling your readers the facts and trusting...no, KNOWING...that they would interpret those facts for themselves; they would define what the appropriate reaction or judgment should be.

Reporters used to pride themselves on not having friends outside the business.  They has sources.  They had readers.  They were cynical, but they had a CALLING.  They were better than the Politicians that they covered.  They were of more service to the Republic than were all the laws, courts and politicians combined...because they and they alone trusted the American People with the facts...and they did not have a stake in the game except to tell everyone the facts.  Interpretation was beneath them.  They were dedicated to the Freedom of the Press and what it stood for...not power over others, not name recognition, not directing others...but telling the American People everything they could find out.  And even better to reveal what someone (anyone) wanted hidden.They BELIEVED that if all the people knew everything, the nation would survive.

Right or wrong, it was this attitude about the sanctity of their work and its purpose that preserved the ideal of Freedom of the Press for so many years.

Yes, the American People have largely lost their way.  There are many reasons: a growing narcissism, a sense of entitlement. victimization by unscrupulous politicians...  But lost in the many self-inflicted causes is the death of The Professional Journalist.

The last professional journalist died long, long ago.  Now the press is just a publicity agent.  Sometimes the client is clear.  Often it is not.  And so many times it changes in the middle of a "story."  But one thing is certain...the client is no longer ever the American People.

Did Internet Journalists instigate "slanted" stories?

CNN today includes an interesting article by Mr. Ferenstein that appears to find that slanted stories on Internet News sites are due to the pre-decided attitudes or interests of the writers. While, to the degree that he analyses the phenomenon, he makes some good points... he seriously errs in ignoring the origin of this tendency and leaves a reader with the impression that non-objective reporting sprang out of the internet of whole cloth.

It is the print media that led the way. As long as newspapers and news magazines were owned, and run by professional journalists, the public was well-served...with cautious, well-researched articles and stories that were professionally written to provide all the facts that were available absent judgment-proclaiming adjectives. The Reader was the judge, not the writer. But with ownership shifting to non-journalists, the pressure shifted from being a good source of information to being a good source of revenue. This often let to pressure from owners on editors to sensationalize both headlines and stories, utilizing and emphasizing adjectives for the sake of boosting readership. In essence, the editorial page now was the whole paper. If it were not for the internet, the public would have forced a correction of this abuse, but they could now get the facts from the internet, so they just stopped buying papers with whose editorial content they did not agree. And, of course, journalist who wished to remain employed quickly discarded their journalistic ethics in favor of the paycheck.

The internet phenomenon described in the article is just an extension of the fact that good, objective, straight news is no longer available in today's America.