I agree completely.
Posted by Jolly Sapper at March 27, 2008 07:42 AMEric Alterman has addressed this issue, too, in an article in the March 31 edition of “The New Yorker” called:
“Out of Print” [“The death and life of the American newspaper”].
Here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/31/080331fa_fact_alterman?currentPage=all
I also agree, but shouldn't you have included some of the Times multi-use capabilities such as wrapping fish, training puppies, and stuffing clothes with it to create submissive sex partners?
Posted by TIKI AL at March 27, 2008 08:09 AMI agree with you at many levels. I know the field well, having spent 30+ years in both alternative and megamedia.
However, it still seems to go recognized that, despite the huge failures of professional journalism, some of the leading revelations of even the Bush years have come journalists who still know the true purpose of their craft. Knight-Ridder, now McClatchy, did terrific Iraq coverage early on, but was ignored by most of wwwLand. The exposure of secret prisons and rendition came from journalists. As did the exposure of how veterans are being treated in places like Walter Reed.
Some journalists are finally learning that, if they pay attention, wwwLand offers the same kind of benefits to their telling of the story as difficult-to-cultivate inside sources once provided. They only need to exercise the same caution as they once were urged to do - but did not always remember - in dealing with those sources. Every has an agenda.
I'm not saying that all is mostly well, and the picture you describe is just at the margins. All is mostly not well. But there are bright spots. My big concern is that the growth of "citizen journalism" will not have the resources to consistantly do the kind of investigations that journalists once did.
A teensy nitpick: The majority of journalists, now and in the past, did not graduate from journalism school.
Posted by Meteor Blades at March 27, 2008 08:54 AMThank you, MeteorBlades, it's an honor to have you here.
I agree, journalists are vital and many have done great work. My family's full of 'em, if things had gone just a little diferently I would be a professional journalist today.
I've gone out of my way to say I'm sorry to all the people of the San Francisco Chronicle, and I sitll gratefully link their work when it's good.
There should have been more balance here, yes, but the nyt's pisses me off, they're one on the worst with all their hair columns and David Brooks and all the rest. Jesus.
Oh well. We shall do the best we can.
Posted by paradox at March 27, 2008 09:16 AMChristopher Simpson, in his book THE SCIENCE OF COERCION, did a good job in showing how mass media and government (usually the reactionary elements of government) worked together during the Cold War to sell fear of the Soviet Union and anything that threatened the status quo.
Congressional investigations in the wake of Watergate pointed out the hundreds of journalists who helped out intelligence agencies with their work here and abroad.
George W. Bush is the second generation of reactionary intelligence agency royalty (third, if you count Prescott's lifetime work). The system of what is called "journalism" is so corrupt that you can predict how the press will push down and submerge the next eruption of truth.
As George Seldes once wrote, "Tell the truth and run." After all, they can control reality.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 27, 2008 09:21 AMAh! George Seldes. A journalist in the spirit of Tom Paine and Frederick Douglass.
(By the way, paradox, I'm always here. I just don't comment often. It's a terrific site and ought to get more traffic.)
Posted by Meteor Blades at March 27, 2008 09:24 AMparadox,
you mean mo dowd's high school gossip column doesn't belong in the paper of record?
Posted by Turkana at March 27, 2008 09:38 AM"Seasoned journalists." Seasoned with what? Eau de skunk?
Posted by jwrjr at March 27, 2008 11:25 AMSeasoned with salt, as in "best taken with a grain of salt".
Posted by Sharon at March 27, 2008 12:58 PMHa. I can only add that there's a similar and related thing happening in the world of book publishing. The almighty publishers have lost their absolute control over what does and doesn't get into print, thanks to Print on Demand and the internet.
Posted by hitchhiker at March 27, 2008 12:59 PM'analysis of seasoned journalists '--the number of whom you can count on the fingers of one hand.
Please. 'Seasoned journalists' are a laughing stock and pretty much toadies to 'seasoned news corporations'.
Posted by gtash at March 27, 2008 02:59 PMAsk Dan Rather what happens to 'Seasoned Journalists' these days.
Posted by Judith at March 27, 2008 07:09 PM