(From the Janesville Messenger, 6-21-09)
On the editorial page of this newspaper last week, the Messenger gave its assessment of Keith Olbermann, ESPN SportsCenter anchor turned MSNBC political commentator. The editorial branded Olbermann as a “hate-monger” and called him “an affront to good journalism.”
I had two problems with the editorial. First of all, you could take every charge thrown at Olbermann and MSNBC and easily level them at someone like Bill O’Reilly on Fox News. In fact, if you changed the words “Olbermann,” “MSNBC” and “liberal” to “O’Reilly,” “Fox” and “conservative,” the editorial would have been just as valid.
But that’s totally subjective, depending on whose political viewpoints you prefer.
My bigger issue is in labeling Olbermann as a journalist. He, O’Reilly, and many of the other talking heads we see on television these days, are anything but.
If you look up “journalism” in the American Heritage Dictionary, you will find this definition: “The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of the direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.”
Straight news reporting - the presentation of facts - isn’t dead but it certainly smells funny. I would like to think that the big three TV networks continue in that tradition but it’s been so long since I’ve watched a network newscast that I couldn’t tell you. Besides the articles by the still-respected Associated Press that run in The Janesville Gazette, I get most of my national and international news from CNN. Since both sides of the political aisle criticize CNN, they must be doing something right. However, I’m a little dismayed by the increasing amount of crud they program, like Nancy Grace’s show.
But the fact is that many Americans, and maybe even a majority of them, primarily receive their news in a form that is spun to a certain political viewpoint. It’s not just TV networks like Fox News and MSNBC, but websites, magazines, or the opinionated microphones of people like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham or Al Franken. Fox may try to label themselves as “Fair and Balanced” and O’Reilly’s show as a “No-Spin Zone,” but frankly, that’s as truthful as putting a “T-Bone Steak” label on a can of dog food.
I guess that’s the beauty of a free country. We now have the freedom to choose how we want our news presented to us. Whatever your political persuasion, you can find a “news” source that appeals to you. The problem is, when your primary source of national and world events is biased, you tend to automatically discount any other presentation of the facts. You are not receiving news from news people; these folks are not journalists. They are commentators. There is a distinct difference.
For example, Helen Thomas, the veteran White House reporter for United Press International who traditionally had a major role in presidential press conferences, left that wire service in 2000 and became a syndicated columnist and author. As a UPI reporter, she was loved and feared by every president from Kennedy to Clinton, who knew she was not afraid to ask the tough questions. Once free of her role as a news reporter, however, she let her opinions fly, most notably revealing her total disdain for President George W. Bush. Whatever you think about her, you have to admit that Helen had old-school journalistic integrity. She waited until she had her own forum – when she had made the transition from reporter to commentator - to make those opinions known in print.
But the line that separates journalist and commentator gets blurrier each day. Even my local weekly paper, The Milton Courier, sometimes colors straight news stories like City Council meetings with the reporter’s own viewpoints.
Perhaps the most frightening development, however, is the number of e-mails that I receive that contain some sort of shocking news that turns out to be complete fabrication. Apparently, besides being a nation that accepts as face value everything we see on television, we are now a nation that believes everything that it reads in the form of an e-mail. I am amazed at the intelligent people I know that pass these e-mails along without checking their validity.
I wish I had a better solution than the way I have learned to deal with things – which is by being cynical about nearly everything I’m presented with. I take it all with a grain of salt.
But please keep in mind – I am a commentator and these are strictly my opinions.
1 comment:
Your points are on target and illuminating, as usual. Two other categories of "presenters of perspective are "political comedians" and "columnists." The comedidans, most notably Jon Stewart and Bill Mahr are really more fun to watch and listen to because they don't hide behind journalistic pretense. Unfortunately, a generation of kids (incuding mine) have grown up expecting to be entertained every minute of the day and therefore gravitate to this format. My fear is they lose their ability to separate thoughtful analysis from cynical political skewering. The columnist are the most thoughtful of the lot. Paul Samuelson has become my favorite economist because he not only tells it like he sees it, he also brings genuine intellectual heft to bear on important subjects. Fareed Zakaria is my pick for columnist of the decade for his insightful views on world affairs. Of course, Jim Lyke is my choice for local perspective.
Post a Comment