"Look now and pay later" : Some thoughts on the current state of journalism

I've been mulling over the current state of journalism for a long time.  It's been a concern of mine that we are all notified of news in such manipulating, bombarding and self-serving ways by our media.  What were meant to be a tools of learning and communication (initially the radio, then the TV, and now the internet) are in so many cases polluted by the people who are supposed to be serving that profession we call journalism.

I do not mean that all journalists today are corrupt and lacking in moral scruples.  There are still people out there doing their job - for instance, David Simon (the creator of the tv show The Wire) began his career at the Baltimore Sun and is very much a journalist at heart.  I also think the BBC and PBS news are true contributors to journalism.  Also, I was recently watching a film called Live from Baghdad about a CNN crew who reported from there in the 90's during the Gulf War.  But it is the exception to the rule - and the BBC is British not American.  We shouldn't have to go outside our country's media to get worthwhile news.  

However, on the whole I think journalists have failed at their job.  Or perhaps we, the public, have failed to demand better of them.  I believe the outlook of Stieg Larsson, a Swedish journalist and author of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, was correct.  He believed that journalists are meant to be the watchdogs of society - they report the truth on corporate greed, shady politics, etc. because it is their job.  Then, in turn, anyone who is exposed of wrongdoing by those stories is made responsible for their actions and anyone who vies for any such public positions knows that they will be held accountable.  Then they will have to do their job and do it well.  It's not quite a symbiotic relationship, but if it is functioning well the health of society will improve.  In other words, the media is meant to be on the side of the public.

As evidenced in the recent US election, I think it is clear that the media doesn't consider itself as serving the public.  Instead, I think it serves its own agenda.  While I expect that of politicians and will always be skeptical of their motives, I do not expect that of the people meant to be reporting on them.  As awful as this election season was - to me, that was the greatest disappointment.  I'm also becoming convinced that the media is intimately responsible for the quality of the political candidates that the public has to chose from.  Why?  Because every candidate must follow the dictates of what it means to be a "media-friendly" candidate.  That should be irrelevant.  If a qualified candidate is ugly, occasionally awkward, disabled or whatever he/she should still be truly eligible for the position.  But what if by being very "un-media friendly" that candidate doesn't stand a chance?  For instance, I once heard that FDR would never be elected in our time because he was in a wheel-chair and no one would want to see a disabled president.  But since he communicated with the public via radio - a non-visual medium - it was irrelevant.  But it's upsetting just how true that conjecture might be.  Also, while watching one of the republican primary debates last fall I noticed that all the pushiest, loudest candidates were getting questions from the moderator.  But there was one candidate, Ben Carson, who was quiet and he was asked a total of 2 questions in 4o minutes.  Ben Carson even said  to the moderator something like, "Thanks for coming back to me."  So if you're not pushy or flashy you won't get a question from the moderator?  Then how are the people watching supposed to understand what you stand for as a potential leader?  And now we sure have a pushy, flashy president.  I doubt if that will make him a better leader though.  And therefore, I doubt if that moderator did his job by the public which he serves.  Or for that matter as a US citizen.  But perhaps, he served the interests of the media company who employs him. 

To report the truth is not necessarily glamorous and it's not necessarily easy.  And, most definitely, it's not necessarily something people will want to hear about.  Sometimes the truth is unsettling and scary and I question whether people really want to bear the burden of hearing it and knowing it.  I admit to sometimes feeling that way myself.  However, do you really want another group of people deciding what it is that you are prepared to know?  I'd rather they do their job well and let me make that decision for myself and let everyone else do the same.

In the 1950's, an employee of CBS Edward R. Murrow, delivered a speech at a RTNDA convention.  Murrow had been a reporter for many years beginning when radio was the only tool for delivering news.  The speech concerns the role of broadcasters and reporters and the changes brought on in the industry by the advent of television.  It doesn't even take into consideration the effects of the internet which I think has only vigorously exaggerated the problems Murrow mentions in his speech.

I think it is important that the person who delivered this speech was such a long-standing member in the industry.  The man knew the inner workings of the field and this speech is an eye-witness account delivered to the public of what he saw during his tenure.  Also it is an intelligent speech - so on both counts I do think its message should be heeded by our society.  

 Here is that speech: https://www.rtdna.org/content/edward_r_murrow_s_1958_wires_lights_in_a_box_speech 


I hope it is of interest to anyone who discovers it. 

P.S. I know that "fake news" is becoming a buzz phrase these days, but Falmouth Public Library in Massachusetts put on a good program about the media recently.  Some issues Edward Murrow touched upon are discussed. Below is a flyer that was distributed at the presentation. 

Courtesy of Falmouth Public Library (www.falmouthpubliclibrary.org)