I spent most of an overheated afternoon watching Walter Cronkite's review of history during his time and his personal ties.
I came away with two very distinct visions of Cronkite. And a sadness welling up that those traits might not be around enough for the future.
The first was his seemingly innate feeling he served the general public, that it believed he knew that and therefore would do all he could to represent its interests and deserve its belief in him. Although he was personal friends with many powerful people upon whom he reported, the cornerstone was he would put aside his personal like or dislike of them to seek out reality. Where the cards fell after that was of no consequence because truth was the supreme goal.
The second trait was curiosity. He never seemed to be a political junkie or a war correspondent or an environmentalist. He was simply interested in knowing about a lot of widely varied things and people. This has always seemed to me the critical trait in journalists. It's what makes them informed enough to ask the right question. And the constant search is what leads them to what you want to, and need to, know.
I fear we've created a culture that doesn't have much use for those traits anymore. We've become so politically correct that offending anyone with an aggressive query or thinking outside the norm is considered wrong. We've become so cliquish and afraid of being alone, we do anything to avoid offending those around us. Plus, we don't respect differing opinions, but ostracize those who suggest there is another way.
And as for curiosity, it seems much more focused on Britney Spears' mental state or the machinations of some television sing off than what is going on in our world and, more importantly, why.
But simple statistics leave me with a glimmer of hope. As with Cronkite, the people who we have historically turned to to trust as our protectors of truth and providers of curiosity have been journalists.
Now that has faded over the last several years as what was once journalism has morphed into much more of a business seeking the highest profits and too often going to the highest bidder. Those curious people with a moral center of duty seemed likely to avoid this new journalism. There is also simply fewer of them around as reliable studies have estimated about 10,000 newspaper jobs have disappeared over the last few years, leaving a mere 47,000 such jobs in existence.
But I'm apparently wrong. Because in this time of useless journalism where people take their information too often from random blogs (such as this) and comics joking about daily affairs, journalism schools report enrollment skyrocketing, often in double digit percentages. In a world with such few jobs in the industry and the usual mediocre pay, something is driving students into building journalism skills.
Maybe they have Cronkiteitis.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Headline today, same as yesterday
In these dog days of summer (trust me, if you'd watch Sam the Wonder Dog start panting at 3 p.m. and go until 8 every night, you'd know dog days) I've come up with something that perplexes - why does the weather report need a third of every local broadcast?
Weather can obviously be news. In fact, people want to know about tomorrow. But let's be honest, particularly in Summer of 2009, tomorrow is a high of 101-103 and a low of 77. Again and again and again. Pretty much, until Sept. 15.
So why not take 30 seconds to say just that and give the other five of telling me for the 30th time why tomorrow is like yesterday is like today to some sort of reporting? Tell you what, just for folks with relatives elsewhere or traveling the next day, I'll give you another full minute for a national report and map.
The methodology of weather reporting seems weak to me too. It's all about the temperature numbers. But it's much more important to tell me how it feels. Right now, we're in a string of triple digits. Weathercasters are all gaga over the prediction we'll go only to the upper 90s soon. But that's because clouds are expected. Do those clouds arise because the humidity will increase? Then wouldn't I rather 103 and lower humidity?
So, here's the deal. Let's make the weather part of the news. If something is going to change dramatically, like a stray shower or even a front passing, we'll give you time at the beginning of the entire program. Then we can go straight from the City Council report to the Dallas Cowboys report (is Jessica in or out?). Except we'll ensure there's time at the end for the anchors who obviously have had enough of one another to stumble and snicker over the just finished video of the skiing squirrel.
Weather can obviously be news. In fact, people want to know about tomorrow. But let's be honest, particularly in Summer of 2009, tomorrow is a high of 101-103 and a low of 77. Again and again and again. Pretty much, until Sept. 15.
So why not take 30 seconds to say just that and give the other five of telling me for the 30th time why tomorrow is like yesterday is like today to some sort of reporting? Tell you what, just for folks with relatives elsewhere or traveling the next day, I'll give you another full minute for a national report and map.
The methodology of weather reporting seems weak to me too. It's all about the temperature numbers. But it's much more important to tell me how it feels. Right now, we're in a string of triple digits. Weathercasters are all gaga over the prediction we'll go only to the upper 90s soon. But that's because clouds are expected. Do those clouds arise because the humidity will increase? Then wouldn't I rather 103 and lower humidity?
So, here's the deal. Let's make the weather part of the news. If something is going to change dramatically, like a stray shower or even a front passing, we'll give you time at the beginning of the entire program. Then we can go straight from the City Council report to the Dallas Cowboys report (is Jessica in or out?). Except we'll ensure there's time at the end for the anchors who obviously have had enough of one another to stumble and snicker over the just finished video of the skiing squirrel.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Back talk
I was reading an acquaintance's blog which included a reference to a character trait.
"Bullshit," was my immediate reaction.
It's true I haven't spent time with the author in a few years. Prior to that, we were very close. That's the cause for the use of "acquaintance" as opposed to "friend."
Despite that gap, I found the self analysis misleading. I know people can grow and change, but believe in the philosophy there is a core that is built when you're still single digits in age. You can be cognizant of that base and try to consciously not act upon it. But in terms of who you are, it's always there. In natural reaction, that is what we will revert to.
Having thought that through probably even too much, I try to be aware of what I am, good and bad. I've fooled myself some in the past, but after having lived much longer than I actually expected, there is a history that forces me to review actions instead of just opinions.
But that's not enough. I also watch how others react to me. Sometimes, too much. I read more than is there quite often. In an example, my natural inclination is to closely examine what I think is a reaction and to question it. With a history of seeing how that blows up in my face too often, I try to just keep the questioning internal and to a limit. In terms of some philosophy, it is changing from feel, react and think to feel, think and react.
I wondered if the acquaintance drew the self character declaration from experience or thought. If it was only thought, I knew how an outsider calling bullshit would be helpful. But with my own experience, I also knew that is something that takes a trusting, extended relationship or an invitation.
But this is more about me than someone I haven't seen in four years. So it leads me to extend an invitation. I hope that those who have a view of me that isn't simply passing would call me out if need be. If they were to read something on this blog that they believe is false, they'd question it. Because I don't do this completely to yell into the empty forest and get a release. There's value in listening to the echo too.
"Bullshit," was my immediate reaction.
It's true I haven't spent time with the author in a few years. Prior to that, we were very close. That's the cause for the use of "acquaintance" as opposed to "friend."
Despite that gap, I found the self analysis misleading. I know people can grow and change, but believe in the philosophy there is a core that is built when you're still single digits in age. You can be cognizant of that base and try to consciously not act upon it. But in terms of who you are, it's always there. In natural reaction, that is what we will revert to.
Having thought that through probably even too much, I try to be aware of what I am, good and bad. I've fooled myself some in the past, but after having lived much longer than I actually expected, there is a history that forces me to review actions instead of just opinions.
But that's not enough. I also watch how others react to me. Sometimes, too much. I read more than is there quite often. In an example, my natural inclination is to closely examine what I think is a reaction and to question it. With a history of seeing how that blows up in my face too often, I try to just keep the questioning internal and to a limit. In terms of some philosophy, it is changing from feel, react and think to feel, think and react.
I wondered if the acquaintance drew the self character declaration from experience or thought. If it was only thought, I knew how an outsider calling bullshit would be helpful. But with my own experience, I also knew that is something that takes a trusting, extended relationship or an invitation.
But this is more about me than someone I haven't seen in four years. So it leads me to extend an invitation. I hope that those who have a view of me that isn't simply passing would call me out if need be. If they were to read something on this blog that they believe is false, they'd question it. Because I don't do this completely to yell into the empty forest and get a release. There's value in listening to the echo too.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Notable
I can't relate to all the Michael Jackson hysteria.
I don't deny he was a talented man, might even agree that he's an American icon thanks to a career that spans five decades (although the final decade might be more notoriety than fame). Yet I find a lot of what makes people go ga-ga derivative. I never had much respect or understanding for the gasps, squeaks and squeals he felt were part of songwriting. He was an excellent dancer, but his real talent was in creating an amalgamation of Gene Kelly, James Brown and some steps he picked up off the streets.
There's just nothing there I can see that should make people hold vigil or battle for the lottery chance to be part of a memorial service.
It made me ponder who I would consider American icons that I would miss. I came across names like Robert Duvall, Dustin Hoffman, Paul Simon and Willie Nelson. They would all cause me pause and realization something was gone, but nothing like creating a need for the barrage of information now created by Jackson.
I did stop to consider my off the cuff list was all white. Maybe it's a cultural thing, I thought. But here's the sadness I fear. If there were an African American who should be lionized in death, it should be someone like Sidney Poitier who created new career opportunities for American blacks and lived his personal life and used his fame to improve the lot of his entire race. I fear thousands of those who will push their way into the Jackson memorial will not even know who Poitier is.
That train of thought creates an even greater fear. Has our culture reached a point where we don't celebrate even fame anymore, but only infamy? We constantly seem to need to tear down what we build up. Do we need something lascivious to go with success to make those we note human?
I don't deny he was a talented man, might even agree that he's an American icon thanks to a career that spans five decades (although the final decade might be more notoriety than fame). Yet I find a lot of what makes people go ga-ga derivative. I never had much respect or understanding for the gasps, squeaks and squeals he felt were part of songwriting. He was an excellent dancer, but his real talent was in creating an amalgamation of Gene Kelly, James Brown and some steps he picked up off the streets.
There's just nothing there I can see that should make people hold vigil or battle for the lottery chance to be part of a memorial service.
It made me ponder who I would consider American icons that I would miss. I came across names like Robert Duvall, Dustin Hoffman, Paul Simon and Willie Nelson. They would all cause me pause and realization something was gone, but nothing like creating a need for the barrage of information now created by Jackson.
I did stop to consider my off the cuff list was all white. Maybe it's a cultural thing, I thought. But here's the sadness I fear. If there were an African American who should be lionized in death, it should be someone like Sidney Poitier who created new career opportunities for American blacks and lived his personal life and used his fame to improve the lot of his entire race. I fear thousands of those who will push their way into the Jackson memorial will not even know who Poitier is.
That train of thought creates an even greater fear. Has our culture reached a point where we don't celebrate even fame anymore, but only infamy? We constantly seem to need to tear down what we build up. Do we need something lascivious to go with success to make those we note human?
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Journalism must die
Recently the daily newspaper lauded one of its reporters for extended reporting on a local utility's financial abuses. About the same time, I reviewed the most recent Pulitzer prizes for journalism, and noted one for work on a local sheriffs department's focus on identifying and deporting illegal aliens and another for the Pentagon's recruitment of certain commentators for national news to bolster policy.
Although all those are properly lauded efforts, the truth is it's a miracle they happened at all. And reporting of that ilk is less and less likely - although tremendously important to the preservation of our society - as long as journalism is run by sales people and marketers.
Because you say you are very unlikely to read such reporting.
My case for what might seem mundane reporting is an open society needs watchdogs. Human behavior is there are those who will abuse freedom. But rather than limit it, there simply needs to be oversight to remind those same people there can be consequences to their actions. Be it misbehaving politicians or greedy businesspeople, there must be someone to represent the general masses, question actions and present them for judgement by the general public.
If you were to survey people, they'd tell you they mostly care less about such reporting. But when it doesn't occur, and economies collapse or the powerful run roughshod, they scream at the top of their lungs.
If the general public were completely in charge, a newspaper front page would be pictures of pretty girls and puppies followed quickly by the comics and football scores. I guess I'm calling the proper practice of journalism parenting in some ways. You can't offer a family a steady diet of candy. There must be vegetables even if they create grousing.
For the last several decades, those who made the decision to serve unpopular squash have had less and less influence in journalism. Those who say the way to make money in the business - and I would never deny it is a business - is to constantly give the majority what it says it wants. In addition, those folks hear most often from not only focus groups, but those who hand them a check for appearance in the bottom half of those newspapers. It has become imperative to not upset those advertisers.
While years and years of training and experience may lead some journalists to a mundane and potentially controversial coverage of government and budgets and influence, there is a Big Brother over the shoulder questioning if that coverage will have mass appeal and not generate that dreaded call from the major advertiser.
For the last few decades, that Big Brother has come to run the family. Look at the recent exposure of the internal workings at the Washington Post. The publisher offered access to journalism sources high in the White House and to the editors and reporters who keep an eye on those folks for a "sponsorship." Reporters are the representatives of millions of members of the general public when each of them can't question the White House Chief of Staff. Therefore, special access to the powerful. The Post publisher tried to sell that access to bolster the bottom line.
The result of all this print pandering and control by accountants instead of reporters is newspapers that don't really have a point in existence and have faded fast.
Ah, but you say, it's not bad business decisions, it's the Internet that is killing print. You're right. But not why you think. The Internet is even more skewed toward the lowest common denominator because you can actually count. It's way too often not the import of the story which justifies reporting, but the number of clicks it registers. Every newspaper Web site notes the most viewed stories right out front every day. Those who have the hands on the wheel also watch those closely and make the results the driving force.
An example is also in the most recent Pulitzers. Two other major stories that some might consider political malfeasance won. But they were for reporting on the use of prostitutes by the New York governor and the Detroit mayor's affair. Sex sells, baby.
My main point is journalism must die. It seems to me the marketers and sales people who have dominated the industry are causing that to happen. And no one cares not because this type of journalism isn't wanted, but it is not needed.
But journalism is a phoenix. Frustration at a lack of watchdogs will cause new forms to arise from the ashes. They will be extremely small, underfunded and provincial for quite some time. They will likely focus on subjects the man on the street would tell you beforehand he couldn't give a damn about. But when the watchdog has to bark, that same man will join the chorus with his angry yelling.
In the meantime, focus groups and advertiser conversations will have a major influence. There will be backlashes. Recently the same editors who lauded their reporter for the utility reporting stated it will build an investigative team and give it a special Web page to do the work. The folks down the hall will scoff at the few number of clicks it gets each year. But in that one week when its work is published and the social responsibility of journalism actually lives, people will scarf down their veggies ravenously. And then go back to the fast food offered in such huge quantities everywhere else.
Although all those are properly lauded efforts, the truth is it's a miracle they happened at all. And reporting of that ilk is less and less likely - although tremendously important to the preservation of our society - as long as journalism is run by sales people and marketers.
Because you say you are very unlikely to read such reporting.
My case for what might seem mundane reporting is an open society needs watchdogs. Human behavior is there are those who will abuse freedom. But rather than limit it, there simply needs to be oversight to remind those same people there can be consequences to their actions. Be it misbehaving politicians or greedy businesspeople, there must be someone to represent the general masses, question actions and present them for judgement by the general public.
If you were to survey people, they'd tell you they mostly care less about such reporting. But when it doesn't occur, and economies collapse or the powerful run roughshod, they scream at the top of their lungs.
If the general public were completely in charge, a newspaper front page would be pictures of pretty girls and puppies followed quickly by the comics and football scores. I guess I'm calling the proper practice of journalism parenting in some ways. You can't offer a family a steady diet of candy. There must be vegetables even if they create grousing.
For the last several decades, those who made the decision to serve unpopular squash have had less and less influence in journalism. Those who say the way to make money in the business - and I would never deny it is a business - is to constantly give the majority what it says it wants. In addition, those folks hear most often from not only focus groups, but those who hand them a check for appearance in the bottom half of those newspapers. It has become imperative to not upset those advertisers.
While years and years of training and experience may lead some journalists to a mundane and potentially controversial coverage of government and budgets and influence, there is a Big Brother over the shoulder questioning if that coverage will have mass appeal and not generate that dreaded call from the major advertiser.
For the last few decades, that Big Brother has come to run the family. Look at the recent exposure of the internal workings at the Washington Post. The publisher offered access to journalism sources high in the White House and to the editors and reporters who keep an eye on those folks for a "sponsorship." Reporters are the representatives of millions of members of the general public when each of them can't question the White House Chief of Staff. Therefore, special access to the powerful. The Post publisher tried to sell that access to bolster the bottom line.
The result of all this print pandering and control by accountants instead of reporters is newspapers that don't really have a point in existence and have faded fast.
Ah, but you say, it's not bad business decisions, it's the Internet that is killing print. You're right. But not why you think. The Internet is even more skewed toward the lowest common denominator because you can actually count. It's way too often not the import of the story which justifies reporting, but the number of clicks it registers. Every newspaper Web site notes the most viewed stories right out front every day. Those who have the hands on the wheel also watch those closely and make the results the driving force.
An example is also in the most recent Pulitzers. Two other major stories that some might consider political malfeasance won. But they were for reporting on the use of prostitutes by the New York governor and the Detroit mayor's affair. Sex sells, baby.
My main point is journalism must die. It seems to me the marketers and sales people who have dominated the industry are causing that to happen. And no one cares not because this type of journalism isn't wanted, but it is not needed.
But journalism is a phoenix. Frustration at a lack of watchdogs will cause new forms to arise from the ashes. They will be extremely small, underfunded and provincial for quite some time. They will likely focus on subjects the man on the street would tell you beforehand he couldn't give a damn about. But when the watchdog has to bark, that same man will join the chorus with his angry yelling.
In the meantime, focus groups and advertiser conversations will have a major influence. There will be backlashes. Recently the same editors who lauded their reporter for the utility reporting stated it will build an investigative team and give it a special Web page to do the work. The folks down the hall will scoff at the few number of clicks it gets each year. But in that one week when its work is published and the social responsibility of journalism actually lives, people will scarf down their veggies ravenously. And then go back to the fast food offered in such huge quantities everywhere else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)