Journalists as Social Workers

I'm not sure what possessed me to go back and view Katie, Matt, Dan, Peter, Tom and the rest of the talking heads. Maybe I was simply feeling masochistic. No matter. All I can say for certain is the result of this video assault has left me with that less than fresh feeling. If you noticed Tylenol and Tagamet stock soaring over the past few weeks, it was thanks to my bulk purchases. Network news presentation is worse than I recalled. Bias doesn't even begin to cover it.

Perhaps it's because I've worked in the business for nearly 20 years, but I have little faith in the validity of information presented by the mainstream media, network and otherwise. In and of itself such is not an unusual feeling. Surveys over the last few years have reflected that much of the American public places journalists right up there with politicians, lawyers, professional wrestlers and TV evangelists in terms of honesty and objectivity. I find this a sad statement, all the more so because it is not without a large degree of accuracy.

Experience has given me an unusual perspective. I've had editors tell me flat-out that the thesis and conclusion of news stories should represent the perspective of management, rather than objectivity or truth. I've had stories canned or re-written when I refused to comply with these directives, watched editors substitute less experienced, more compliant sources for the nationally respected ones I'd spent days to obtain. I've read the exact same AP wire stories printed in liberal and conservative papers (yes...there are some conservative papers in America) and been amused to see quotes or pertinent facts removed in order to make the story better comply with the publisher's social or political beliefs. I've been hired to write personal opinion columns, and then fired for expressing a personal opinion. If I recall correctly, I have been on-staff at eight or nine different publications in the past two decades (I lost track of freelanced articles many years ago) doing everything from layout to design to sales to reporting (features, news, investigative and op-ed) to editing to publishing. Sometimes I was fired, sometimes I quit, sometimes the paper simply went out of business.

Now, this is not to say that all news organizations function in a wholly subjective manner. They don't. On the other hand, enough do operate unethically that all are tarred with the same brush. Looking back, I can pinpoint several reasons for the decline of the journalistic trade.

For starters, somewhere along the line many publishers, editors and reporters decided to forego a dedication to objectivity and re-invent themselves as social workers or public advocates. Rather than honestly seeking and revealing fact, they desired to become involved in cultural change. This would be fine and well if such activities were confined to the opinion page - after all, the purpose of an opinion page is to present opinions and stimulate thought - but somehow personal viewpoints and agendas began creeping into hard news. It may not be overt, but it's there. Oftentimes the effort is accomplished by omission. You don't actually castigate one side or the other, you simply quote the preferred agenda's words more heavily or print statements from your opposition that appear less than eloquent. You use inflammatory labels but never explain their meaning. You only reveal select portions of the full story.

A phrase popular in newsrooms for many years has read "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted."The first problem with this ideology is that it is not the job of a journalist to do either. If comforting and afflicting is your calling, become a preacher or change your name to Robin Hood. The second problem is that most newspaper management teams draw the line at afflicting the comfortable when the comfortable party in question happens to be an advertiser.

The biggest problem, I think, is that news gathering organizations have intermingled entertainment with news to such a degree that neither have any legitimacy. Our reporters are actors and our actors are reporters. The only difference between Stone Phillips and Carrot-Top is the brand of hair spray.

That we have accepted this practice, in fact paid for it and asked for more, suggests that our obsession with popular culture has far out-paced our desire for fact. Face it, we live in a time when the simplest utterance from a whacked out lard-ball like Michael Moore receives more network airtime than a live speech from the Secretary of State or Attorney General. We live in a time when the opinions of bi-polar actors and singers are immediately promoted as caring and compassionate, and the views of world leaders are immediately slandered with cynical derision. We live in a time where the general populace can sing the theme from Gilligan's Island but couldn't name Nixon's Vice President.

I'm going back to the internet....just as soon as I finish watching WWF Smackdown.

You see...I need less puff and more substance.