Published: Thursday, March 28 2013 4:10 p.m. MDT
Woodward epitomizes the death of journalism. When he exposed Nixon, he was a
hero to the mainstream press. When he uncovered Obama and the Benghazi fiasco
the mainstream press excoriated him and ignored the story. Journalism is
ideologically driven. Read the NYT or watch MSNBC and it is the liberal view on
everything. Fox News is the opposite. NPR presents a story followed by
"Conservatives say...." implying that NPR tells the truth, but
‘Is journalism dying?’======Journalism -
No.Established Corporate for mega-huge-profit Journalism - Yes.BTW - Jounalism didn't die when Gutenberg built the printing press.But, I'm sure millions of 15th century hand writing scribes felt the
exact the same way.
I think sometimes the best journalism comes from the grass roots level. As said
well above, journalism is both corporate and ideologically driven whether it is
Fox News on the right or MSNBC on the left. The print papers have gone these
paths as well. Journalism isn't dead but alive and well on the Internet
but requires more navigation to get through the garbage. But the best in-depth
journalism is done there. Local TV news is a joke, especially in
Utah. I have had to sit through minutes of drivel of local news stations taking
hard news time to promote shows like The Oscars, Dancing with the Stars,
American Idol, again showing that news takes a back seat to corporate
desires.Newspapers have downsized and real investigative journalism
has died (in the traditional vane). But if one can navigate and double and
triple check stories, this is where the real journalism is at.
“… the way for media outlets to survive and thrive is to engage in
what traditionally trained journalists would regard as lower quality, by
forsaking the objectivity genre and pandering to their readership’s
beliefs.”-------------------The quality lowering
of journalism has been a process that has been accelerating for at least 30
years. In fact, the word "objectivity" has taken on an almost negative
connotation amongst many "journalists" during that time.Far
too many "journalists" are little more than (mostly liberal) activists
whose language becomes more and more obviously slanted all the time. There is
very little difference between the talking head on "The View" and those
on the Sunday morning politically-oriented talk shows.However, it
should be mentioned that like politicians who are voted in by an electorate,
"journalists" are employed by networks/papers/magazines/web sites/etc.
who are kept alive by the funds garnered by the presence of their audience.Ultimately, the power is, has been and always will be with the people.
And that goes for politicians and "journalists". If you want better
reporters, only support the good ones with your attention.
Journalism is clearly dying. Make no mistake, it is not dying by accident.The public school system has been destroyed by left-wing doctrines of
political correctness and egalitarianism. Pursuant to these doctrines, both
expectations and requirements have been lowered to the level of the least common
denominator. In order to prevent hurt feelings on the part of less capable
students, schools force all students into an artificial equality.Because the public schools have been producing students that are becoming less
and less educated, there are fewer and fewer members of the public who are able
to read and understand news articles. This in turn creates a public that is
increasingly ignorant and gullible. It is no wonder that modern society is such
You need look no farther than your own paper in answer to your question.
Is journalism dying? I think so. For example, you just took a story about about
the decline of journalism and used it instead to op ed a bit about same sex
Historically, "journalism" has been difficult to distinguish from
propaganda. Yet some have tried to be objective. I'm afraid those people,
true journalists, are dying out--the DNews is too often evidence of that.
Selective, biased reporting? Please look in the mirror, DN.
One other thought...100 years ago, Newspapers sent out
reporters to gather information, try to understand what happened, and explain
it.News.Then can photographs, and radio, and television.Reporters were still sent out as quickly as possible to gather information,
and publish it.Journalism changed as a pictures says a thousand words.Fast Forward some more,2013 -- i-Phones, YouTube.Billions of people throughout the world carrying instant digital
video.We can all now pratically see landslide, tsumnamis, sporting
events, accidents, politics, weather events, and pratically witness for
ourselves the "news", real-time.orCan web search it
instantly.As for as I'm concerned, Journalism isn't
dying, it's just getting started.
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted
after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many
sorrows." 1 Timothy 6:10Journalism, like so many things that
were once pure and simple, has become consumed by the corporate world whose
primary motive is producing profits for their shareholders. I'm not
suggesting that making a profit is an evil thing but rather, that some things
should be shielded from the need to make a profit, otherwise they get tainted by
the powers that be. As long as newspapers, television stations and news
magazines are controlled by the profit interests of corporations, their ethics
will be compromised. Certainly newspapers and the others need to make a profit
to survive and to keep running but mega profits are not necessary.Thomas Jefferson famously said, "If I had to choose between government
without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate
to choose the latter." but I think he would not recognize what today is
passing as "newspapers" or journalism. Money seems to be the common
denominator that has corrupted a once honorable profession.
Part of the problem is that so many people these days don't know how to
read, write, or think. On the one hand, we have many journalists who can neither
write well nor think rationally; on the other hand, we have audiences who can
neither read well nor think rationally. It's no surprise that journalism
isn't what it once was.Yesterday I watched a fascinating
interview with an Englishman whom many consider to be well educated and
articulate. When asked how he got to be that way, his response was that he was
required to learn grammar, logic, and rhetoric before he could even consider
enrolling in the university. I think that goes to the heart of what we're
lacking today. Instead of teaching these most fundamental and basic skills of
language, thinking, and expressing oneself in a civil and rational manner, we
teach our children how to balance their checkbooks and use Microsoft Word. Yes,
they get some exposure to language, but what is needed is mastery of all three
I think there always been a political slant to say TV and print news. I
watching a movie called Salvador. I don't the journalist name but it was
based on a true story set in the early 1980's. Of course he had his bias,
why did he go to El Salvador in the first place? Whether you agree with him or
not, he went to uncover corruption in that government and in what ways the
United States was behind it. Bottom line, he was a liberal on a crusade.
Republicans or conservatives have their own crusaders too. I can deal with
that, but when I turn on the local news I would like to see news, not an
infomercial promoting Dancing with the Stars. I think in some sense
you have seen the birth of real journalism as people can do their own stories.
We don't have to rely on "traditional print and TV journalists" who
again have their hidden agendas cloaking themselves in their version of
"objectivity."I will say the reporting of TV news has
changed a lot. Though Kronkite was a liberal, he read the news straight--I
would say this has changed.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments