Posted on 01/24/2017 9:22:54 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
"No one really listens or believes reporters anymore…low credibility and high bias have ruined the profession," says Rob in the comment section after a web piece on the "Sycophantic White House Press Corps." Obama's final press conference displayed the usual left wing bias complete with the familiar, slobbering adoration of the outgoing president. By contrast, President Trump met with cringe inducing screams, yelling, rude and disrespectful behavior at his first, pre-inauguration press conference in Trump Tower.
A rather cursory search of Wikipedia reveals that, of the recent election campaign's presidential debate moderators, not one presented an advanced academic journalism degree, two dropped out of academia, one never went, another carries an undergraduate degree in political science. Only the moderator of the vice presidential debate has an undergraduate journalism degree. Additionally, a random list of the following 28 current journalists shows that only ONE carries an advanced degree in journalism, namely Fox's Bill O'Reilly. Yes, I've long heard the derision that street reporters hurl at the academic reporters. "You have to know the street," I have heard them say. In the names listed below you will find quite a few English majors and graduates, but only four graduates of a School of Journalism. Having an English degree is most helpful to the pursuit of a career in journalism. However, sitting in a class in a university's English department used to be vastly different from sitting in a journalism classroom. This difference is magnified when one compares a law school class, a political science class, a history class, or even a visual studies class to hearing lectures in journalistic precepts. One thing an academic background could have imparted may include...
(Excerpt) Read more at thecoachsteam.com ...
Not hard to figure out why: the MSM is in effect the propaganda arm of the Democratic National Committee.
Sorry, but after listening to them (for as much as I can stand), I conclude that they’ve not studied anything at all.
When I, as a math/physics type evidently have learned more about history, the country, and the Constitution than they, there’s something seriously wrong with lib arts crappola departments these days.
But then again, we already knew that, didn’t we?
That gave us Jack Anderson, Woodward and Bernstein and Jeraldo Rivera (Jerry Rivers) as a legacy, among others.
They need to also check if these reporters have degrees in history or politics or engineering or nutrition or any of the topics these people talk about..I would guess that they have minimal education in these spheres. I think these people are hired for their looks on camera and their camera vocal and facial attractiveness and skill. Most people can read much faster than these performers can speak. Turn off the tv except for one of a kind events that are accurately shown.
The headline is misleading.
For example, Paul Krugman knows absolutely nothing about economics.
5.56mm
To study, and to learn, are two very different concepts.
We have a nation full of over-schooled, undereducated fools.
The “everyone must go to college” mentality has created the biggest bunch of fools the world has ever seen.
Diplomas and trophies for everyone.
One would think that the universities should be embarrassed for the subjects they teach such as “journalism”.
As “progressive” as they might think themselves however, there is “truth” in mathematics and physics that cannot be changed, regardless how loudly they scream.
I'm not sure that's the real problem, though. Replacing those with street smarts is a classic requirement for the journalism of fifty years ago and for a good reason. The difficulty is that modern journalists don't really have any. "Tell the People's story"? Don't make me laugh, none of them know any "people", which accounts for the nearly permanent expression of disdain and mystification on those rare occasions when they interview Bob at the feed store to find out what effect further EPA regulation is having on the pedestrian but vital activity of feeding livestock. Or, to be more precise, why Bob is always wrong about it.
There are several painfully visible problems with modern journalists that have only peripheral association with academic degrees: (1) they live in a bubble ("street smarts"? Really?); (2) they are imbued with an overweening sense of self-importance; (3) they are utterly submerged in the cult of celebrity; (4) they assume that a superficial familiarity with a topic makes them authorities, which in turn justifies advocacy (actors tend to have this problem as well); (5) they write, and speak, to The Narrative instead of to the facts.
That last point is vital because it is incorporated into the others, and it is why individual journalists who wish to depart this embarrassingly failed set of behaviors are swiftly corrected by editor and producer. A hard-bitten reporter with no college degree but a briefcase filled with "street smarts" is as subject to that ruthless throttling just as much as one with a resume full of summa cums. It's a cultural thing, not an academic one. Just my $0.02.
As a retired educator, I can assure you that the vast majority of them have NOT studied/learned history....particularly American History and Western Civilization.
Yup.
The first thing I do when someone posts an opinion piece as “news” is search the bio of the author. 9 times out of 10, if they are under 30 the only job they’ve had is “blogger” and typically have a degree in English, communications, or poli sci. No experience at anything real.
You're right. It's also why the press is dying and why they can't get traction with their on-line sites. What I don't understand is, 'Where Are The Publishers'? You would think someone with a financial incentive in the industry would insist on professionalism. But they don't.
This one really is a mystery...
“Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them... get them right, or they will get you wrong.”
Harry S Truman
You're right. It's also why the press is dying and why they can't get traction with their on-line sites. What I don't understand is, 'Where Are The Publishers'? You would think someone with a financial incentive in the industry would insist on professionalism. But they don't.Not hard to figure out why: the MSM is in effect the propaganda arm of the Democratic National Committee - RayChuang88
This one really is a mystery…
I’ve been cogitating on “bias in the media” for a generation and a half.I subscribed to Reed Irvine’s Accuracy In Media (AIM) Report, but that merely documented the fact of “bias in the media” over and over, without any hint as to why “the media” was “biased.” It soon became a twice-told tale, and I dropped my subscription.
My conclusion, after decades considering the matter, is that
- journalism is inherently cynical:
- for business reasons, journalism is negative - “If it Bleeds, it Leads” (and “‘Man Bites Dog,’ not ‘Dog Bites Man’” as well. This, because ‘Man Bites Dog’ emphatically includes failure of trusted persons to meet expectations).
- journalism claims objectivity, knowing that journalism is negative.
- claiming that negativity is objectivity is an excellent definition of cynicism. QED
- journalism’s cynicism is directed toward American society.
- journalism expects to influence, even to dominate, democratic government. Consequently journalism is not cynical but naive toward government.
- The combination of cynicism towards society and naïveté towards government is an exact characterization of “liberalism.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.