Throughout this whole entire semester I’ve encountered people in just about every class, whether they be student on instructor who has to issue a complaint directed in some shape or form over the institute of journalism. Now, being a budding-journalist I fully understand the scrutiny, and have always accepted it as something that just comes along with the whole package. However, it’s incredibly frustrating to go to a class and join the “blood-sport” of accusing news outlets for their coverage of a topic, and then being assigned to find a way to encourage more people to pick up the journalism major in another class. In fact, I get a little disillusioned when I hear people like Dr. David Perlmutter<http://tinyurl.com/26ggrhc> of the school of journalism here at the University of Iowa suggesting the word has a stigma attached to it. However, I sometimes feel as though some people really just don’t get it, and wish to criticize simply because they can.
“People are quick to criticize what they see, but they have no clue about how difficult it is to get this whole thing running,” was what one of the production assistants said when I worked at KGAN/KFXA last year, and I agree completely with that statement as well.
I guess I’m writing this in response to all of the people rolling their eyes claiming journalism is dying, journalists are completely flawed in how they produce their stories, and corporate business and journalism are a match made in Hell.
First off, journalism IS NOT DYING! The institute, is simply reforming. True, newspapers are shrinking in certain locations, but according to a report from “The State of The Media,” it wasn’t that many papers that got the ax. The printed word isn’t going to simply vanish from the face of the Earth. Where would you clever bloggers get all of your information you need to make fun of us anyway? Television is not in any sad state right now either. As a matter of fact, Broadcast journalism did pretty well last year. (http://tinyurl.com/ylzym3h), And guess what? Election year is here, so if the whole nation will be glued to CNN, FOX News, or MSNBC watching coverage and commentary.
True, jobs in journalism aren’t being handed out like candy anymore, but the industry understands it must work smarter, not harder. As a news director or broadcast company, why should I have to pay the salaries of a team of people to set up a camera, shoot footage, report, and edit the video together, when this can all be done by a single person? Consolidation may seem like a scary word in a business sense, but it isn’t the kiss of death here.
The discussion in one of my classes today shifted to the media, and their portrayal of an event that occurred during the Civil Rights. The professor proceeded to compliment the efforts made by the media to expose the “other side” of the story regarding the killings of the Black Panther leader, Fred Hampton. For those of you not familiar with Hampton, he was a leading member of the Black Panthers during the late 60s in Chicago, IL. The Panthers were perceived as a threat by the government at the time, and police raided his apartment, and shot him to death. Law enforcement officials did a smear job on their report of what happened, claiming Hampton shot first, when really, almost every shot fired in the apartment was directed at Hampton’s room. This was exposed by investigative reporting.
After discussing this atrocity, my professor proceeded to compliment the investigative efforts of journalists on the story. He then proceeded to critique the Daily Iowan on their coverage of political issues.
Now, what happened next is probably what lead me to write this note. As a disclaimer, I’m doing this on a moderate amount of sleep, little food, and a boat load of caffeine. Thus I might be overreacting slightly but, here it goes.
The professor critiqued the Daily Iowan for “often times” taking an official’s perspective or word on a topic, and simply sticking with it, and not offering the other perspective against an “official’s” word. (I.E. The Provost speaking out about something.) Alright, I don’t work at the Daily Iowan, but come on. That’s a basic rule to journalism in how you even tell a story. I was borderline insulted, and started to just sit there, and think about this even more during class. I couldn’t care less what the discussion topic was, and just sat there in disbelief. The second professor that is typically there in class, tried to soften the blow being aware there could be Journalism majors in the room. (See Andrew Altenbern issues a death glare.)
They concluded their issue telling the class, or prospective political figures or journalists to “think about someone’s life before acting.”
Alright, let me just clear things up for you. I know sometimes, more often than I’m sure I’d like to think, we journalists look like heartless bastards who want to catch people red-handed in a sex scandal, and we just need to get the story to the presses, on the rundown for tonight’s broadcast, or linked on a trashy blog site. As journalists we do have, get this, ethical issues we talk about before we publish anything. Sometimes, people will have a full staff meeting in a news room to decide whether or not we should run with a story, or if the story is really all that necessary if it’s going to have a severe effect on someone. The rules are not black and white.
Finally, the argument that big business is bad for any news organizations, and journalists shouldn’t really have anything to do with the other side of the wall that deals with number crunching and sales is fallacious thinking. While journalists are responsible for delivering the news in an accurate, timely fashion. They should also be aware of what the sales department is doing as well. It’s understandable that the news room is wary of the people in suits upstairs, but those people in suits are also giving the reporters the money to be able to produce multi-media oriented information. It’s possible for news agencies to slip into lazy, sensationalized reporting, but if the journalists can stand their ground, both the marketing and reporting aspects of journalism can work together, and make money.
I frankly don’t care if anyone reads this, or understands it. I understand there are flaws in my own argument, but I just needed to lay some things to rest, even if it is just to a nebulous void on the net.