Night Thoughts

A blog entry from July 16, 2009

I’ve been feeling like writing more lately, which isn’t to say I am jumping on the book treatments that have taken residence in my head, but I am finding that I “write” blogs in my thoughts. It’s time to get some of them on paper (or screen, as the case may be).

One of my growing passions is defending journalism as an industry and journalists as professionals. Some of this probably comes from teaching journalism for the last year and a half, and having to explain to students again and again why journalism and journalists are important. Once they begin to see how crucial journalists are, especially as watchdogs, these young people seem to have a whole new appreciation for the craft and its purpose. (By the way, this is a generation that, generally speaking, has never opened a newspaper and gets its news from Yahoo and perezhilton.com.)

The apathy toward journalism from the general public bothers me too. The media, who should be appreciated for what they bring to light, are instead vilified by folks like Sarah Palin, who want people to believe that the media portray her poorly as a way of dragging her down. And of course she does get many people to believe that—people who never have worked for media or known anyone who has, no doubt. Because if you’ve worked in media or talked to anyone who does, you know “the media” are not a thing. They are not one brain. There are no conference calls between newspapers or TV newsrooms or reporters to discuss how they will treat various topics. I know people who work in media all over the country and, shockingly, each of those people has his or her own ideas and works very hard to maintain neutrality.

I’ll never understand how someone like Palin (and I am just using her as an example—there are many others, obviously) can blame the media for covering what they put out there for them. Don’t want the media to talk about your daughter’s pregnancy? Then don’t parade her around during your campaign and later push her to be a spokesperson about abstinence. Wish the media would ease up on what you say? Learn to speak properly and stop the folksiness. Upset that goofy pictures from a runner’s magazine are all over the web? Don’t pose for them.

Anyway, I digress. Now look, I understand the media create their own problems. Bad reporting—or no reporting at all—sets them up for scrutiny and, at times, ridicule. Reduced budgets have resulted in fewer reporters covering more beats, which doesn’t allow for much in-depth reporting anymore. And the Internet has created a 24/7 instantaneous mentality that causes everyone in media to try to beat each other to the punch, leaving little time for editing or thoughtful writing. Plus there are some lazy and even untruthful reporters out there (thanks, Jayson Blair) who do the industry a great disservice.

But the point is, just because journalism is changing, needs to learn to adapt and sometimes messes up doesn’t mean it is any less vital. In some ways I think unbiased, skilled journalism is more important than ever because as the media circle grows larger and larger online (with “reporters” who have never darkened the halls of a journalism school, newspaper or broadcast outlet), the traditional media need to exploit the perception they are still the most reliable. If you don’t believe me, just think about what you do when there is a breaking news story. Do you go to Yahoo? No, you probably click on cnn.com or flip to a national news channel on TV. If the breaking news is local, do you go to one of your city's "alternative" newspaper's Web sites? No, you visit your local newspaper’s website or a local TV channel.

As for bias, I think it is nearly always in the eye of the beholder. I heard Carol Goodhue, the former reader’s rep for the Union-Tribune, say during her tenure she regularly would get a call blasting her about the newspaper being too liberal and not minutes later receive a call blathering about it being too conservative. She said this cycle continued day after day. I think this happens because people don’t understand how to read critically anymore. Just because a newspaper does a story about a city department’s spending practices, for instance, doesn’t mean the newspaper is against the city, that department or the people working there. It might seem ludicrous that anyone would actually think that, but reading the comments posted after online stories proves it. Instead of readers being happy that the newspaper is revealing what could be a misuse of taxpayer dollars, posters ask why the newspaper is using the city as a way to sell newspapers. Wow, really?

And this brings me to why I am blogging about this today. The UT has been locking horns with the City of San Diego recently over the newspaper’s rights to access public records. The city has taken to charging high fees (some of which are so high—we’re talking thousands of dollars here—that the stories can’t be pursued) and using vague explanations for the delays in providing records that are requested. Two reporters were so frustrated they allegedly got into a shouting match recently with a few city employees (click here for that story). Now today I read the latest excuse that city documents weren’t available because a high-placed city worker took them on his vacation on the other coast.

Reading the comments after today’s story found me disheartened again as most people posted derisively about the newspaper’s attempt to get these docs and/or the story about it. It can seem self-indulgent when a media outlet writes about itself, which is why the media rarely do that. But in this case, my gosh, don’t people think they have a right to know that their city is, it appears, purposefully blocking the newspaper from documents the courts say the newspaper (and, presumably, readers) has a right to view? What happens if governments get really good at this and the investigative media, what’s left of them, are unable to be the watchdogs they endeavor to be? Do you trust city, state or federal officials to always do the right thing? (Hello, Watergate?) I don’t, and I doubt many others do either, even the posters on today's UT story. They just don’t understand how the process works, but if they thought about it they’d be as incensed as those UT reporters who participated in the alleged shouting match.

Bottom line: if the public doesn’t support the media and their role in society, the government will have no one to keep them in check. As fewer stories are reported, we will know less and less about what our leaders are doing with our money and our city/state/country. We will become more ignorant as leaders gain strength. And then what happens? It’s called Nazi Germany.

0 Comments

| Add a Comment

Night Thoughts

A blog entry from July 16, 2009

0 Comments

Add a Comment

Journal Archive