HOW BROADCAST JOURNALISM HAS BEEN DESTROYED

Over the weekend, a friend and I had a discussion on what has happened to the national news media. There was a time, he said, when the networks and the major newspapers would thoroughly pick the bones of political figures, bringing to light all manner of inconsistencies. Contradictions would be trotted out and explanations for them demanded. But not so now. Where, he asked, has the professionalism of the news media gone? Why is it no longer doing its job?

When I was in college, learning the craft of broadcast news, the prevailing emphasis was on ethics, propriety, and professionalism. Dean Drewry championed innovation, but still insisted the bulk of good journalism was detailed, pains-taking work. Facts needed to be confirmed, researched, and verified before they were poured into a story. The challenge of producing a good piece of news, whether in print or through the airwaves, was the publicly unseen portion of the work. That’s what separated the junk from the jewels.

The wire services, those often-caricatured reporters dashing for the phone booths, though conscious of the need for speed in their work, also understood the necessity of having substantiated their stories. Whether I read it or it was taught to me in a news class, my own mind latched on to the standard of an original and two independent sources for significant news beats. Long after I’d left typewriter, audio tape editing blocks and microphones that still anchored me in my evaluation of news. Since those days of 1971, I’ve been a witness to major historical events. In each case, I have personally adhered to the standard of “one original two confirming” as I evaluated reports.

Two of my journalistic heroes – Carl BernsteinCarl Bernstein and Bob WoodwardBob Woodward – fit the model I had in mind for excellent journalists. At least as they presented themselves in the book All the President’s Men. And, at that time, theirs was the benchmark against which others measured themselves. The veiled threats of Spiro Agnew against the news media giants forced a retreat from digging deep into political matters for fear of reprisal. An attitude of self-preservation prevailed. One may argue as to the soundness of this stance but it prevailed, at least until Mr. Agnew and Mr. Nixon both were driven from office.

Once the Watergate crisis passed, CBS, NBC, ABC, AP and UPI crept timidly out of their hastily dug foxholes and began to proclaim themselves as champions of righteousness. They had, so they felt, fearlessly exposed corruption. It was their demands for justice that brought about the collapse of the Nixon regime. As compensation, they therefore felt entitled to, and therefore demanded, unbridled access to anything and everything to which they were attracted. Any hesitation or reluctance the media translated into a sensitive ulterior motive.

Mike WallaceMike Wallace’s “foot-in-the-door” style on 60 Minutes became the vogue. Innocent (well, maybe not innocent but certainly not ragingly guilty – more like ill advised or misguided) politicians and public figures were “arrested, tried, and convicted” by the media. A denial became a “stonewalling.” A protestation of innocence became an “arrogance of denial.” An insistence on adherence to constitutional rights was made to appear a subversion of the legal system. There was no defense. And, the news organizations being top-heavy with liberal agenda began to crash down on those concepts, individuals, programs, and beliefs they felt needed to be removed from society.

Established traditions became targets. Responses of “just because” or “because it has always been that way” were made to sound lame and suspicious. If a topic’s “root system” was not deemed valid by those mantling themselves with the authority to make such pronouncements, then the entire matter could be construed as “inappropriate, ””out-dated,” or even “subversive.” Most definitely it would be deemed as to not be in keeping with the “American way of life” and not in the “best interest of American citizens.” Now, through the growing influence of globalism, replace “American” with the word “world’s.”

Technology is the blame for the next unraveling of journalism’s time-honored standards of professionalism. Twenty-four hour news broadcasting, Ted TurnerTed Turner’s dream for CNN, created instant access to news “as it happened.” I vividly recall the many frequent live remote broadcasts from South Florida during the summer of 1980 as the endless flotilla of boats from Cuba landed. For the first time in history, those upon whom a event would impact could witness it as it happened. And with that, suddenly “verification” became obsolete or at least unnecessary. The waves of that flotilla washed away the demand for substantiation. From that point on if it could be seen it was to be considered true.

Non-stop news also set the new norm of “speed.” Now, as it had in the early days of the wire services, second became precious. But while the AP. UP and INS had all adhered to a rule of being certain of facts before transmitting them, the news operations now sought to be first on the air, whether they would later have to retract or not. Such tossing to the wind caution cost the networks dearly in the 2000 election. An insane rush to be first to call states overrode the normal careful evaluation of raw data. Network executives tried to blame their mistakes on computer programming errors, but the whisper in the earpiece of the anchor to “Call it” was human. Once done, the domino effect brought all the news houses down in shame and embarrassment.

As insistence from producers that the “news” get on the air before the competition became a clamor in every newsroom, the “journalists” now became “performers.” The worth of their work became the rating points achieved, not its quality. Shrieking, screaming headline presentations replaced penetrating, thoughtful commentary. Newspapers, already dated when they rolled off the presses, seemed to be obsolete. Viewers now wanted to see things “as they happened” not to read about them later. The public wanted to assemble the details themselves, not have someone do selective gathering for them. Television touted itself as being an “eyewitness to history in the making.” It was a novelty for the public, and one not requiring a great deal of intellectual Seeing events unfold without having them put into perspective seemed to “right way” to watch the news.

But even in such open-ended coverage of events, there is a subtle editing being done. Not every camera can be on the screen at the same time. Someone is making value judgments as to which shot to air. Though it may seem trivial, unconscious prejudices can intervene. The producers and directors are determining what information the viewer receives, not the viewer making a cafeteria choice of their own. Through their choices the tone, the tenor, the very impression of the event is shaped and thus affects the public’s perception.

This sounds very paranoid and, if it were not now painfully obvious that it is being done, would be. The liberal bias of the East Coast media establishment now is the agenda of major newspapers, wire services, and television networks. Public opinion is re-directed to conform to what they determine to be the proper standards. The “press” is no longer “free,” but is a slave to the left-wing leadership determined to impose its plans on our nation, on the world. This is all done under the pretense of being for the “good of the people.” Liberals seem to think the common man has no brain and cannot think for himself; he needs to be told what to eat, how to eat it, how fast to drive, what kind of car to drive, what to consider worthy causes, what causes to be suspicious of. Never mind that the ideas make no sense. They are for the “welfare of everyone.”

So, Where has the professionalism of the news media gone? Why is it no longer doing its job? The professionalism has been replaced by a sense of mission, that gathering and reporting the news as a journalist is not a job, but a duty. Nothing is wrong with that view of being a journalist; what has changed is the purpose of that duty and mission In the days before the domination of the media by the leftist liberal mindset, the dissemination of the truth, unvarnished and balanced, was the goal. A broadcaster wanted to put the ideas out there for the public to make up its own mind. That truly served the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.” With the ascendancy of the narrow-minded intent of the liberals the purpose is to replace presentation with judgment. Every news item is to be designed so as to advance a particular agenda. People are too stupid to think for themselves, say these demigods. We need to tell them what to believe and we don’t have to tell them why. It is our divine right to do so.

And so the indoctrination marches on. It is pervasive and total. Themes and campaigns become the subjects of dramatic presentations as well as slanted news broadcasts. When the plight of victims of spouse abuse became the cèlèbre de jour there was a flood of made–for–TV movies on the topic, each of them carefully making the point the problem was all brought about by males. The poor victims faced unimaginable disgusting situations. The only viable help they received was from the characters championed by the liberal establishment. Even dramatic series, and some situation comedies, waded into the fray, taking swings at cherished societal standards, bringing them into scornful examination, to be replaced by a left-wing alternative.

The saddest thing in all this is those young people entering into the field of journalism believe they are following in the footsteps of the greats – Murrow, William Allen White, Theodore H. White, Morgan Beatty, Drew Pearson. They have the delusion their profession is still noble, still fair, still performing a vital service. But it is no longer. It has been replaced by the majestic purpose of propagandizing an agenda intended to bring this nation’s heritages down into the dust.