Then what's "Journalism"?
By matersfish
@matersfish (6306)
United States
April 9, 2011 8:33pm CST
Nothing of real substance here. No rants about Obama or politicians in general.
I just want to know what "journalism" is.
After catching an O'Reilly segment about the undercover O'Keefe guy who caught up some executives of NPR, I've been scratching my head.
A lot of people are picking at what they can to discredit these sorts of operations. (Yeah, no new news here, just fresh on my mind after watching the segment about 10 minutes ago).
Folks, a lot of liberals in MSM in particular, seem to be discrediting the material by simply citing that it's "not journalism."
Okay. So, what, that makes it pointless? More to that, what is journalism then?
I hear folks say that it's not journalism because O'Keefe pretends to be "someone he's not" and that there are no "real victims" or "criminals" in the scenario because the characters are fake.
So that's not what journalism is? Fine. But that type of smug nonsense, clinging to a particular version of something to cast something else aside, it straight-up dishonest.
The reason I'm writing a post about it is because I think about Chris Hansen with Dateline NBC in his To Catch a Predator stings.
If you ask me, that's great journalism! He's exposing the truth about Internet chat rooms and letting parents know to be careful because the pedos are out there and they're prominent members of society in a lot of cases!
But by the standards of the O'Keefe decriers, the pedophiles caught in their sting should be let go. They did nothing wrong and it certainly wasn't "journalism" to shone a light on them.
The young boys and girls the pedos are speaking to aren't really young boys and girls. They're actors, like O'Keefe.
The situations aren't real; they're set-ups by Dateline and Perverted Justice.
There are no real victims and thus no real criminals, because it's all an act.
The videos are also heavily edited, so that can't count.
Law sees it a different way. Just having the intent is enough to be charged. But per a lot mainstream "journalists'" opinions, this doesn't count.
Why?
I'm confused.
As far as I knew, someone seeking to get answers when no one else will, using all means necessarily, is what "journalism" was! Or does someone have a single definition of "journalism" they want to cling to while I roll my eyes and hope they don't respond here with it?
2 people like this
6 responses
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
10 Apr 11
That's pretty much what I thought! You have to be a j-school drone, willing to toe the expected line, tell the expected stories and keep your hands off the taboo topics - like ever placing right and left on an equal playing field.
Thanks for the response!
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
10 Apr 11
For the record, a lot of those people actually face no charges. What Dateline is doing qualifies as entrapment in many cases. The only reason they get any convictions out of that show is because a lot of the people they catch are morons who spill their guts instead of taking the 5th and waiting to talk to a lawyer.
Regardless, I agree with you, it's still journalism, just as O'Keefe's work is. The only problem with Dateline is that they are working with police which limits them and makes some of the evidence gathered inadmissible.
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
10 Apr 11
As far as how the charges work out on the whole, I'm not entirely sure. I'll take your word for it. But as far as putting the light on the problem, yeah, I also call it journalism. I'm not sure what else to call it (on a media level).
There were other Hansen specials where he basically does the "O'Keefe" to get the job done, but the Predator series is, in my opinion, the best because I'd rather these guys be exposed, even if the "victim" on the other end is baiting the trap.
Not sure if the charges stick in all cases. But that's what I thought journalism was. I guess we're not as enlightened as the j-schoolers.
Thanks for the response!
@laglen (19759)
• United States
10 Apr 11
Journalism today is reading the press brief that the White house gives you. Or reporting after the fact and only the facts deigned to be given you. I am floored by so called journalists just sucking it up and reporting what they are told to. In my opinion, there should be no opinion in reporting. Commentary, sure. Buty reporting facts should be just that.
AHH a perfect world. 
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
10 Apr 11
I cringe to think how bad it's going to be when Obama starts his real reelection campaign. Not that he's ever stopped campaigning, mind you, but the fists are gonna fly and the legs are gonna thrill once media gets its orders to climb back fully into the tank.
They've at least had their heads above water for a couple of years now, but it's time for some dunkin' now that it's game on.
I'm scared to find out just how bad it's going to be after the souls were already sold.
They got away--and are still getting away--with being a complete political machine. Now the cat's out of the bag and they don't have to pretend to have integrity anymore.
I don't even see them giving a fair shake to the Democrat who chooses to take Obama on. In fact, they may start shilling so hard in the coming months, all other Democrats might gracefully bow out completely.
Thanks for the response!
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 Apr 11
I don't know anything about the Dateline show, but I remember the "investigative journalism" of 60 Minutes. That show contained its share of "gotcha" moments from hidden cameras or cameras shoved in th faces of unwilling and unsuspecting people.
I remember Watergate - Woodward and Bernstein. Anonymous sources, secret meetings with the informer known as "Deep Throat"... that was also investigative journalism. It wasn't like any other story that came before it. Hos much of journalism depends on anonymous sources?
I remember that phone call from the fake Koch brother to Governor Walker of Wisconsin and the enormous attention it got. I didn't hear those who now call O'Keefe a punk objecting to the same tactics in this case.
Here's the way I look at it... There's nothing you can do about the stupid things you did on camera and they are now on film for all to see. The only thing you can do at that point is discredit the guy holding the camera. That's why they whine so much about O'Keefe, and that Lila Rose person as well. There's nothing that Planned Parenthood can do about the reality of what their employees did on camera, so they called the FBI and tried to play the victim.
This is why this form of investigative journalism is currently being dismissed by the mainstream media - it is only catching liberals behaving badly. But they shouldn't complain because look how many liberal bloggers and "journalists" make their living trying desperately to discredit people like O'Keefe and Lila Rose.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
10 Apr 11
Yeah, I forgot all about that blogger whose fake phone call to Walker got him exposure on MSNBC. He was carried around on shoulders through his Caesar triumph.
I find it incredibly sad that folks play politics with journalism. I expect it from the regular folks in America. I don't expect it from people who do the exact same thing but hold their end up to be journalism at its finest while dismissing something they don't agree with.
The dishonesty is worse to me than the partisanship. If they wanted to continue not talking about it, not giving the O'Keefe-like stories any play time, that's one thing. But to work to discredit something like that, while actually speaking in favor of NPR and PP and ACORN, is just a giant shill machine for liberal politicians.
So they can get up on stage and have folks bark that same crap out about any source on the "right," but you are what you are. The dishonesty in media is as much to blame for our country's direction as any politician, in my opinion.
Thanks for the response!
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
10 Apr 11
People often say something isn't journalism when it brings to light something they would rather ignore. I was taught that journalism is presenting the facts objectively without coloring them with your own opinion and answering the questions who, what, when, where and why.
What we have on the major networks now used to be called "yellow journalism", sifting through the facts to choose the ones you want in order to shape opinion a certain way.
Using the argument you cited above, we would have to say that Woodward and Bernstein weren't journalists because their source was mysterious and only came to light recently. But, because Nixon was so unpopular (and generally a loon), the uncovering of Watergate was lauded and honored. That's just one example, probably one of the more famous.
"Journalists" tend to leave out a lot of facts when reporting on controversial subjects or take quotes out of context in order to shore up their own opinion.
There is very little real journalism anymore, just opinion-shapers.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
10 Apr 11
I agree. There's opinion in damn near all of it. Still, I consider good reporting, taking on a tough topic and exposing something, to be journalism. Once it hits the editing floor, I do fully expect things to be edited. But that's also for the fact that TV has to be entertaining in the times we live in.
The lack of real journalism out there is nobody's fault, as far as I can tell, but the men and women toeing the exact line in media today and choosing to take their marching orders from politics instead of compelling honesty from politicians.
Thanks for the response!
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
10 Apr 11
masterfish,
We have basically five corporations that own most of our news.
Some of those company's actually have government contracts.
I have to laugh to myself about the NPR discussion because I find them more right leaning then left leaning and I have listened to them for decades, I will also piont out that I have only been able to debunk thier facts a couple of times in those years and they corrected it on the air. That is why I listen to them, they are nt devoted to any single organization so they do not have an agenda. (the institute for fair reporting also found them more right then left)
I find the network news just as bent as cable news. They are not giving us the story that matters regardless of the bent.
The rule in our house is, if the newscaster has an opinion then it is not news, if the words in the article have, "could have", "would have", "should have" in the report it is not news. I am not going to name names but when you have a daily talk segment and your staff consist of a couple of flunkies, you are not interested in giving the news, you are nothing but an instigator of miss-information.
It is astounding to me the difference in CNN and CNN international, which can be found on the internet. It is hard to believe that they are the same news agency.
I recently started watching Al Jazeera World. They had great coverage of the Japan Quake, not the same loop that ran for weeks on American News. I was astonished how balanced and professional they are. The babble heads in our news had been telling me they were not and I bought into it without checking for myself.
The protest in Bengahli recently were reported on heavily by Al Jazeera and they showed the thousands of protesters holding signs thanking the U.S. and France, asking for arms, blessing us for coming to their aid and saving their lives. Not on one single U.S. news station did I see that.. Why?
It is not what they are telling us it is the tone and what they are not talking about.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
10 Apr 11
Opinions fly out about NPR left and right, pun intended.
For every person saying they're this, another will step up to say they're that.
But what the undercover report showed was what it showed. Even though the person setting the sting up has a right bias, according to most I hear from, that doesn't change what was uncovered.
To me, that's what journalism is.
You don't have to be a down-the-middle person to report the news, you just have to report the news down the middle. No one is free of biases. But in the case of folks decrying O'Keefe's efforts as being not up to their journalist standards, I have to call BS on that.
His being a right winger didn't make those folks on tape say what they said at ACORN or Planned Parenthood or NPR or anywhere else. It's just how the cookie crumbles, since no admirer of those places, of which there are many in MSM, would dare go after them after years of reports of abuse, neglect and bias.
But I agree with your point that America's mainstream news channels are bent. They are. That's what sells in our culture of celebrity.
I don't watch enough international news to comment on it in detail.
Thanks for the response!
