Posted on 09/13/2004 10:44:29 PM PDT by goldstategop
On May 6, 2004, Los Angeles Times editor John Carroll gave a hilariously self-serving speech about "the rise of pseudo-journalism in America" at the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication. It was properly and widely derided at the time, mostly because of its pathetic attempt to defend the Los Anegles Times against the proper and widely held view that the paper has fallen on very hard times quality-wise as ideology has taken over its newsroom, a condition most obvious in the paper's "coverage" of the California recall campaign of 2003, when Carroll and his troops did everything they could to beat back Arnold's challenge and were stunned when the California electorate treated the paper as the partisan swamp it had begun.
Time to revisit Carroll's thigh-slapper with CBS's meltdown in mind:
*"One reason I was drawn to my chosen career is its informality, in contrast to the real professions."
This informality has its drawbacks, however, when it extends to the thoroughness with which one checks out sources bearing gifts.
*"Indeed it is the Constitutional right of every citizen, no matter how ignorant or how depraved, to be a journalist. This wild liberty, this official laxity, is one of journalism’s appeals."
It was more appealing when the self-annointed were beyond reproach of widely read and instantly available critiques.
*"Here is something else I’ve come to realize: The looseness of the journalistic life, the seeming laxity of the newsroom, is an illusion. Yes, there’s informality and humor, but beneath the surface lies something deadly serious. It is a code. Sometimes the code is not even written down, but it is deeply believed in. And, when violated, it is enforced with tribal ferocity."
Oh? Where are the enforcers of the code this week and last? The Times' own Ronald Brownstein, appearing on CNN's Inside Politics today, twice refused Judy Woodruff's question about the authenticity of the TANG docs proffered by CBS as authentic. Some ferocity. Some tribe.
After referencing the Jayson Blair and Staples controversies at the New York Times and Los Angeles Times respectively, Carroll went on:
*"What does all this say about newspaper ethics? It says that certain beliefs are very deeply held. It says that a newspaper’s duty to the reader is at the core of those beliefs. And it says that those who transgress against the reader will pay dearly."
Of course CBS isn't a newspaper, but their co-conspirator in the fraudulent docs, the Boston Globe, is? The Globe isn't living up to Carroll's tsnadards quite obviously, as the paper is maintaining allegiance to the docs in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are doctored.
*"All across America, there are offices that resemble newsrooms, and in those offices there are people who resemble journalists, but they are not engaged in journalism. It is not journalism because it does not regard the reader – or, in the case of broadcasting, the listener, or the viewer – as a master to be served.
To the contrary, it regards its audience with a cold cynicism. In this realm of pseudo-journalism, the audience is something to be manipulated. And when the audience is misled, no one in the pseudo-newsroom ever offers a peep of protest."
Does that not sound like the bunkered-down Ratherites at CBS?
*"Last Halloween, I was stuck in traffic on a freeway in Los Angeles, punching the buttons on the car radio to alleviate the boredom. That’s pretty much the way we live in Los Angeles, but I’m not complaining because that night I came across a very interesting program. It was a rebroadcast, 65 years after the fact, of Orson Welles’ famous dramatization of War of the Worlds.
For those who don’t know the story, this radio drama portrayed a Martian invasion so realistically that it prompted hysteria. A study by a professor at Princeton calculated that the program had reached about six million people, of whom 1.2 million panicked, believing that creatures from Mars were actually invading the town of Grover’s Mill, New Jersey. Listeners ran out into the streets, jammed police switchboards and gathered in churches to pray for deliverance.
As I listened to the broadcast, it became obvious why people believed the Martians were at hand. It didn’t sound like fiction; it sounded like journalism. The actors who described the unfolding events at Grover’s Mill had the same stylized cadences and pronunciations as broadcast journalists of the time. Their voices quavered with dread, a sound they had learned by listening to tapes of the Hindenburg airship disaster from the previous year."
Carroll notes that Wells' broadcast "didn't sound like fiction." Rather's broadcast didn't sound like fiction either. It too had the "stylized cadences and pronunciations [of] broadcast jouranlists of the time." Indeed, this current fraud stars a man who used to be a broadcaster before he became a prop.
*"This is how the 23-year-old genius Orson Welles learned that journalism can be faked, and that people will react to something that sounds like journalism but isn’t.
Some of you may have guessed where I’m going with this anecdote. Yes, we’ll talking about Fox News. But not solely Fox News. Rather, I’d like to discuss a broader array of talk shows and web sites that have taken on the trappings of journalism but, when studied closely, are not journalism at all."
Of course Fox News has not fallen for the hoax, and has worked to expose it. Fox News also uncovered --ahead of all other television journalists though behind the blgoosphere and talk radio, the fraud of Kerry's "Christmas-Eve-in-Cambodia" stories, retold again and again to burnish his Vietnam resume.
What follwoed next was a sad and distorted recounting of the Arnold meltdown at the Times, including the charge, still widely believed to be true, that the Times sat on the story to influence the election:
*"The worst of it originated with a freelance columnist in Los Angeles, who claimed to have the inside story on unethical behavior at the Times . Specifically, she wrote, the paper had completed its Schwarzenegger story long before election day but maliciously held it for two weeks in order to wreak maximum damage."
No naming of the columnist so that the reader/listener could compare what had been written/said with Carroll's characterization, and no details on when reporters were dispatched and the specifics of which part of the story was done when.
But Carroll does seem to concede that holding a story for election cycle impact is ethically wrong. What's he think about Rather's admission against interest that CBS had been working the "story" for years, sitting on it until these documents came along? Was it not a story last month that "years" of effort had revealed no evidence that Bush had ever been derelict in his duty, especially during last spring's Terry McAuliffe-led campaign to discredit Bush's honorable service?
*Carroll then writes: "It is instructive to trace the path of this falsehood. Newspapers have always been magnets for crackpots."
Wouldn't it be instructive to follow the path of the falsehood of the forgeries, beginning with the revelation of the source? Of course most journalsist bridle at the thought of revealing a source, but not when the source itself becomes part of a story of fraud --then it isn't a source, but a perp. Would that Carroll would give us his opinion on this issue.
Carroll blasted FoxNews:
*"How could Fox have left its audience so deeply in the dark? I’m inspired to squeeze one last bit of mileage out of our river metaphor: If Fox News were a factory situated, say, in Minneapolis, it would be trailing a plume of rotting fish all the way to New Orleans."
Has FoxNews engineered exploding cars as Dateline did? Has FoxNews fallen for and then defended tricked up docs? Of course not. So if FoxNews is culpable, where is Carroll's denunciation of NBC or CBS then or now?
*"What we’re seeing is a difference between journalism and pseudo-journalism, between journalism and propaganda. The former seeks earnestly to serve the public. The latter seeks to manipulate it.
The propaganda technique that has invaded journalism is of a particular breed. It springs not from journalistic roots but from modern politics – specifically, that woeful subset known as attack politics."
What is CBS's story if not "attack politics?" What is the refusal to ask Kerry the questions about his Vietnam service that Kerry himself put into play except agenda-journalism? Can Carroll honestly not see how every example from Campaign 2004 is an indictment of old media for practicing pseudo-journalism, not FoxNews or new media?
*"It is the netherworld of attack politics that gave us Roger Ailes, the architect of Fox News. Having spent much of his career smearing politicians, he now refers to himself as a journalist, but his bag of tricks remains the same."
First, think about the characterization of anyone as coming from the "netherworld," followed by a condemnation of "attack politics." But then ask yourself if any episode involving Roger Ailes mirros the Rather meltdown presently underway?
*"Over time, I believe, the public will become increasingly aware of the discrepancy between what they’re told by pseudo-journalists and what turns out to be the truth. They may even grow weary of the talk show persona – the schoolyard bully we all know so well."
In fact, Carroll has stumbled onto something here, though he has the wrong names in mind. He's not thinking about Begala, Carville, and Rather, but the reason ratings for CNN and soon CBS have plummeted is the loss of trust in the product. FoxNews sees its rating soaring, and though John Carroll fancies himself wise and FoxNews viewers stupid, FoxNews circulation is rising because of trust, adn the Los Angeles Times' circulation is falling because of distrust.
*"Recently our newspaper had the good fortune of winning five Pulitzer Prizes. Between us, I’m not sure we’re worthy of all that, but we won’t turn them down. I wonder how the news of the awards struck the talk-show fans who know the Los Angeles Times only for its ethical outrages."
So, if CBS wins a Peabody for some program unrelated to the forgeries, does that redeem CBS? This is more guild-talk, of the most self-delusional variety. As though any reader cares about an award by clubmembers for clubmembers.
*"Surely they must have been scratching their heads over that one.
But they probably they didn’t worry about it long. My guess is that they sat back on their sofas and consoled themselves with more soothing thoughts, such as the way President Bush saved America from catastrophe by seizing those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq while the whole world cheered."
On our sofas. In pajamas.
This is the editor of the Los Angeles Times, quite clearly displaying his contempt for the president who will win a resounding victory, which folks like Carroll will somehow persuade himself was a product of propaganda. They can't be wrong. rather can't be wrong. Everyone else must be wrong.
*"Let us conclude by returning to the legacy of Robert Ruhl.
Surely Mr. Ruhl would be vexed by what journalism has become since his departure.
He would feel pained, I suspect, by the scandals in the traditional media. Yet I hope he would also take heart, as I do, from the spontaneous revulsion expressed in the newsrooms where they occurred.
He would be honored that his years in journalism at the Medford Mail Tribune are still being invoked on occasions such as this.
He would be pleased, I think, to see this crowd of young people headed forth into the world, equipped with good educations and high ideals.
And he would have hopes for you. He would hope – I feel certain – that you’ll take up his calling, the calling of journalism, and find it deeply rewarding. And he would hope, I believe, that you will choose the path of real journalism, not pseudo-journalism, and that you will forever regard the reader – or the listener, or the viewer – as a worthy sovereign who must always be served in good faith."
As many in Carroll's audience would call out Rather as a dupe and the docs as forgeries --that many are real journalists. How many understood the self-serving nature of Carroll's speech, his condescesion and his isolation? How many think old media has been serving "the reader, the listener, the viewer" in "good faith?" That many are real journalists.
How many are reading the blogs, sifting through them for leads and facts that must be accounted for, accounting for persuasive arguments from credentialed experts? These are the real "future journalists." And given the Los Angeles Times' coverage of the forged docs, and using Carroll's own standards, there are precious few "real" journalists at the Times these days, and thus far, the editors --speaking from their editorial page-- are not among them.
The LA TIMES is such a piece of garbage.....I wish I could subscribe again so that I could feel that satisfaction of canceling again!
John Carroll? He sounds more like Lewis Carroll.
There is no profession, in the old sense, among ANY of the professions. Teacher? Lawyer? Judge? Doctor? Statesman? All have been corrupted to some degree. Professions can't have or recognize ethics if their practioners have no ethics.
John Carroll should know a lot about "pseudo-journalism". It's his business.
Ah John Carroll maybe sober now but my god the man was a raving lunatic years ago when he was drinking....I think some of those black outs must have killed off too many brain cells
Hewitt BUMP
President Bush is always filtered on the broadcast networks and CNN... with the same loathing and contempt evidenced here. No respect, only hatred.
Fair? President Bush is an amazing President. He has had to deal with personal criticism that's unimaginable. He's a stong leader who I trust. Heaven knows the opposition watches his every move.
During the RNC convention, Larry King interviewed President Bush 41, his son (not Neil or Jeb.. the other) and his son.. he looked about 13. Larry King asked the young man if the things they say about his uncle bother him. He said "oh no, it's all part of the game'... I thought Larry and 41 were going to fall out of their seats! They quickly changed the subject.
Is it all really theater to manage their beliefs? Is it that deliberate and if so, is there someone someplace writing the script? Can someone like George Soros play with currency markets and the message on the news and profit? Is there a cabal of media giants who control left politics? Or are they united by their greed and hatred?
Groupthink defined:
A negative relational outcome of group decision making characterized by a group's failure to think critically about its decisions.
Symptoms of Groupthink:
The group overestimates its power and morality
The group becomes closed-minded
Group members experience pressure to conform
- Hmmm, sound like anyone you know?
My recollection is that, when reporting was still considered a "craft", it was more honest...
-----
By Weirdad, 9/14/2004
We all know about the distortion in Free Markets caused by excess government intervention. When the "invisible hand" of the free market is blocked the wrong things happen.
The Mainstream Media's relationship with a free market for news has become diseased and incongruent, distorting the product-customer relationship; The new "informal" media (blogs, the web, etc.) has a healthy and congruent relationship to free markets which makes it revolutionary.
The diseased state of the mainstream media is exemplified ironically by Carroll's self-incriminating statement, "All across America, there are offices that resemble newsrooms, and in those offices there are people who resemble journalists, but they are not engaged in journalism. It is not journalism because it does not regard the reader – or, in the case of broadcasting, the listener, or the viewer – as a master to be served." If the customer is not always right then you do not have a free market!
Carroll thought he was indicting the informal pajama media, but Hewitt could have written the exact same thing to indict Carroll and the Mainstream Media itself!
Going from abstract to concrete, here are three examples of diseased Free Markets:
(1) The American Medical Association exists to serve its membership and its members dreams for medicine. But some time ago it created what has become an annually mutating language called "CPT Codes" which through a fascist agreement with government and industry is required if physicians want to "speak" to government and insurance companies about any medical procedures that are billed. Rent-a-language! And even though AMA's codes are required by government, the AMA "owns" the "copyright" on the codes, and annually sells so many licenses for use of the mandated codes that the AMA no longer has to depend on income from its members' dues. As such, the question becomes, "Who are the customers of the AMA?" When the answer is not "its members" then you find that the members are no longer served. And in fact they are being served up! If the members are not the customers, then what are they? The PRODUCT! The AMA is now in the business of selling a captive collection of physicians to insurance and the government, while the sleeping physicians continue to be duped into thinking that they are the customers. And the same thing happens in the Mainstream media.
(2) The American public, whether watching free broadcast television or paying for cable, is narcotized into believing it is the customer of the television stations and networks. Of course this is only a delusion, an opiate of the people, because in fact, the American Public is the very PRODUCT the networks and stations sell to advertisers. The media only has to keep the masses sedated enough so that they can be fattened and served to the advertisers. They feed us, their livestock, only as much truth as is required to keep us from waking up to the real world and running off. Entertainment and "the news" hypnotizes us for market. And not only advertisers buy us. We are also sold to the politicians and the media's friends and the self-centered whims of the newspeople and to whoever or whatever provide the most self-esteem, back rubbing and warm fuzzies for the "professional journalists."
(3) The Print Media has the same disease. How many newspapers are out there which are financed by subscriptions? Basically zero. Newspapers are not financed by subscriptions but by advertising. Who is the customer? The advertisers. And what is the product? The readers. The readers are sold to the advertisers. And like TV viewers, many readers are duped into believing that they are the customers, when in fact they are just the PRODUCT being sold. The newspapers include just enough truth and value to keep their fattened audience penned up waiting for market.
It's a Free Republic and the media can do what it wants, but we all can choose whether to be products or customers. It is only when we the readers, and we the viewers, and we the listeners are paying for what we get that market pressures align fully with our needs and wants. It is only when our news sources don't have a built-in conflict of interest with us that the Media works for us as customers instead of selling us as products. And now a revolution is enabling us able to bear the cost of paying for news without selling ourselves into slavery.
Just as the industrial revolution brought made new and efficient commodities practical for the masses, the information revolution has made news a commodity that can be produced inexpensively. This new commodity is produced in a superior decentralized system that cannot be controlled or distorted by a few people. And the new commodities can be financed inexpensively--sometimes the payment is just the fun and fulfillment of having a voice.
As we readers and watchers and listeners "pay" our own way, we once again become customers and not products. Is it any wonder that the MSM is withering away? When you have an automobile in your garage, you no longer need steamships and railroads for basic day to day transportation. We might at times need an airplane or a semi-truck, and if the mainstream media can provide that kind of heavy lifting then we might become their customer or maybe even their product, but only if they regard us as "a master to be served."
The days of We the People needing the mainstream media for basic transportation are coming to an end. We are regaining a healthy and congruent marketplace for news. We are leaving the steamships to rust, and we are gathering together in places like Free Republic to help each other to drive our own cars wherever we want to go.
I had never heard of the example you provided of the AMA's diagnostic codes. It is certainly true about the economic calculations regarding how newspapers exist, and why it is so difficult to just start a competing conservative newspaper (primarily because, as I know from experience on a student newspaper in a left-wing area, the potential advertisers are afraid to have their name being seen by the vindictive left-wing (sorry for the redundancy) newspaper on the pages of a competing newspaper.
But you can start it on line a lot less expensively. The fact that business are afraid of the left wing can be your first story.
That is certainly true now, but I neglected to mention this was late 1960's in Boston before the DARPA Internet project was even begun in 1969. (Hey that was about back when Al Gore's mother was singing him that union song in the cradle!)
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.