Are Corp Media Reporters too Uneducated to cover Real Issues that Matter to Americans?

[FrenchieCat]

Because I'm starting to get suspicious that Reporters cover scandals (even if they have to make them up) and not much more, because they don't have the knowledge required to understand the issues that face Real Americans today.

After all, it takes relative minimum education to become a journalist (ask Sarah Palin). A BA in Communications or Journalism really doesn't provide any one reporter with enough background on any particular topic to have an appreciated knowledge in any real depth regarding important topics such as, the economy, education, energy, etc....

Additionally, a Corporate Reporter may simply not have the time, the patience, nor the inclination to read the background information required to write intelligently about any given important matters, and so, they write about nothing instead, and hope no one notices.

Perhaps, that is why they copy one another in reference to writing about gossip, speculations, rumors, and total non-issues....cause that is easy to do and doesn't require a large breadth of knowledge.

So yes, I believe that apart from a few, most Corporate Journalists really are above their heads in how to deal with an intelligent Administration, and are forced to drag the Administration down to their level of scandal and rumors in order to hide their own lack of knowledge on specific subjects.

I suggest that if these "journalists" are to be of any assistance to the people they claim to serve, that they start interviewing expert on the issues at hand, and instead of editorializing, simply report the Q&A without much opining. That way, the people can make their own conclusion based on expert information, instead of the real issues being ignored altogether.

[Armstead]

1. Yes

Simple answer.

It's easier to regurgitate what their peers say than actually do either research or to talk to people outside of the usual suspects in their Rolodexes.

[Jennicut]

2. Well, drive by journalism sells and people read/watch tabloids constantly

I read tabloid magazines AND read books about the brain, environment, and politics. Trash can be an escape but you have to have some good stuff to fill your brain up with too. I am proud that I have gotten my husband, who never reads books for leisure to actually pick a book and read it. He is reading about a man's battle with cancer and his life story. I am really proud of him. He barely looked at his books in college when I met him 10 years ago!

[firedupdem]

3. It's difficult to even find real journalistic qualities in any of these people..

they are either married to somebody, have a certain look or an extreme viewpoint to get on screen or in print. Most are just reading teleprompters (schuster)and catering to whoever is paying for that particular hour.

I just want the fucking facts....no spin...in most cases. I don't know where to find that anymore. You really have to fact find on your own. Sad but true. The media sucks and they also determine which scandals consume the day.

[Writer]

4. I'm sorry, but that's too far.

I used to work with so-called "corporate media reporters" in corporate media settings doing things that benefit corporate-media types, and everything you're implying above stems from what I read (not necessarily with you) but a deep feeling of powerlessness - a cynical reaction to not having direct control over what the media do.

They are very GOOD people, for the most part. Intelligent. Well-read. Informed. And who also have families and concerns that are outside of work just like you do. Trust me - there's no "behind the scenes" bullshit where they're trying to make a mess of the product they produce. Yes, they are market-driven, but what they bring to their decision-making processes are the many society-driven themes and influences that they measure and appeal to. But this is the reality we will not face: People do not want to take a society-centric approach to addressing media problems, because they do not want to believe that they may be a part of the problem. Instead, it's easy to blame a panoply of faceless journalists, many of whom don't earn anywhere near as much as you think they earn and actually love the jobs that they do.

I think that the perspective you're proposing is actually quite dangerous to democracy in terms that you're setting up a scenario where media = all powerful and people = interminably powerless. And that is not the case. The media are what they are because of who we are as a people.

I know I'm likely not going to convince many of this, but I'm working on my doctorate in media studies and I wish there was a way that I can communicate this to the public at large in a way that's not threatening to conventional wisdom. If the media are to change, we need to change first.

[firedupdem]

6. but..

don't you think that part of "who we are" is based on what we've been fed from the media?

[Writer]

7. No, I absolutely don't.

Look at it this way: The people who comprise the media industry are themselves products of society, and they operate using the many influences that they individually have experienced.

[FrenchieCat]

8. I believe that your view is a theory, not a fact.....

and that it is similar to asking which came first, the chicken or the egg.

When Barack Obama names his Secretary of Education, there should be follow ups on the topic of education.....and then a discussion on such on various television.

Instead we get "stuck on stupid" journalists asking the same questions that were asked the day before, and IMO, already answered.

You may believe that I don't give these journalists enough credit, and that they are really the good guys...but I'm from the mindset that Journalists are given way to much unearned credit and deference, while their product is shoddy most of the time.

My undergraduate degree is in Mass Communications, so I know the type of knowledge required, and it isn't much.

[Writer]

9. I have a BS in Radio-TV-Film and an MA in Media Studies, so I understand the journey

from a having dilettante perspective of the media to having one grounded in theory and study, as I'm now working on my doctorate. If you still believe in the long dead media effects model, where there's a one-way "injection" of media messages into "the masses," then I cannot help you. If you are willing to focus on the phenomenological, structuralist, political-economist, and the many schools of study that go into understanding the relationship between media and society, then we have a place to start.

[firedupdem]

10. Don't you think the relationship between the media and society

is ever changing? Seems to me that when I was younger the news was just that, the news. Maybe I believe that because I really wasn't concerned with the content because I was too young to understand it all. Now it seems to be more entertainment than news.

I guess we need to figure out if we're talking about the same thing...when I refer to the media I'm talking the CNN and MSNBC for example and even FOX. I don't think what they report is always news...it's more speculation and innuendo depending on who is doing the reporting. If they are deciding to tear someone down it's reported in a way that seeks to tear down. If they find favor with the person it's reported to build up or support that person and their position. Who still really looks deep and reports actually the facts there with no spin? 60mns? I'm not sure anymore.

on edit: Is Schuster for example a journalist? Or is he a teleprompter reader? I say that because of how he changes his tune depending on the program he's working. Who is a real journalist now a days?

[Writer]

13. I can tell you that just about anyone who studies this stuff will agree with your assessment...

of the condition of American journalist. The question this thread seems to be exploring is why we're witnessing this behavior. There are many issues surrounding the market and society at play here.

So I guess if we're looking for a starting point, let's start here: Why do you see "spin" in your media? How do you define "spin?" Where do you think the "spin" comes from, and what effect(s) do you think that spin has on American society?

[FrenchieCat]

11. I believe that whomever holds the microphones controls the content

of the conversation.

Obama to his credit is attempting to steer the conversation towards what really matters in the lives of Americans, but it appears that the media is pushing back on what they'd rather discuss, which isn't any of the topics that really make a difference in the lives of Americans. The consumers appear to be bystanders who are at the receiving end, and can only decide to hang in there or turn off.

What I am seeing is that audiences only hear about what the media decides is important, not the other way around. How many times have you witnessed the corporate media channels showing a 2 minute clip of an important hearing, and then announcing that they will let us know if anything of importance worth reporting develops throughout the rest of the 2 hours hearing, and then move on to something stupid that has no relevance to our lives?

It is those who do the talking to thousands on a daily basis that have the upper hand over what is to be covered, rather than those who have not much choice but to listen or turn off.

If you are thinking about the theory of demand and supply in the market place, and the fact that if there wasn't a demand for the garbage covered daily by Reporters, the media wouldn't be doing the supplying.....I do not buy it.

For example, I don't believe that there was a Hunger in the populace to hear about shark attacks day in day out at the time that it was the topic reporters were all covering a few years back. Certainly at some point, when enough viewers and readers turned off, the media got the message, but it was much too delayed for my liking. Meanwhile, topics that could have been discussed weren't.

I believe that the modern media sets the topic of conversation and the tone, and not those consumer of such.

[Writer]

15. Let me ask you this: Why do you believe reality shows are popular, and why are there so many? n/t

[Uncle Joe]

16. Because there is a hunger for reality of which the corporate media "news"

is either too afraid or too complicit to report on, so their masters try to fill this gap by giving micro reality programming instead of macro reality news.

[uponit7771]

26. Product of WHAT society? 95% of them are white & very very well off.

[Writer]

30. That's a question that brings in a whole host of other issues.

Even if they're white, they're still from some sort of social background. Whether it's bourgeois in nature, or if they were white and poor, who knows? But they're still a product of society.

However, what does it mean that many journalists are white? Does that make them less effective at their jobs, or does it mean that journalism is controlled by white bourgeois interests? Also, not all journalists are very well-off. Newspaper journalists earn as little as $25-$30K a year depending on where they're working. Not everyone is a flashy TV journalist with a six-figure salary.

[RufusEarl]

5. All of the above, and they'll tell you they have a mortgage to pay

and kids to get through school. What they fail to understand, is the fact that if they dig deep and work hard to get too the truth, their self worth will increase ten fold.

Peace!

[Kalyke]

19. No it won't.

They'll be ousted.

Google "Gary Webb" if you don't believe me.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Thank God for the Internet,

Because I believe that the corporate news have been programmed to manipulate, and not to inform....and I do not believe that the majority of the reporters hired by the larger corporate media are really competent or knowledgeable enough to steer the direction of the nation's debate into the direction that is required for these times.

[CrispyQ]

14. I disagree with you completely.

What they are doing is reporting on what their corporate masters tell them to. Media consolidation is the problem, not the journalists. Also, I think the 24x7 environment has led to a lower standard of what passes for news, but again, that is a corporate issue.

[RepublicanElephant]

31. bingo! nt

[ecstatic]

17. It's amusing that they can go from covering Madonna with great passion

in one segment, then have the audacity to try to discuss Obama seconds later.

Don't get me wrong, I too enjoy entertainment news; but it just seems that if someone is extremely knowledgeable in the latest gossip about Madonna, how would they have time to gather facts about Obama? :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

18. The Media Heathers cater to gossip and talking trash as their mission statement.

They seem to have an aversion to or at least no interest in actually reporting anything newsworthy.

[Uncle Joe]

20. I'm glad to see you kicking around,

I heard you were ill.:)

[AtomicKitten]

22. thank you

The pneumonia kicked my butt. I thought I was feeling well enough to conquer Macy's Union Square, but my body disagreed and I fainted. Sticking close to home for now.

Cheers. :hi:

[Kalyke]

21. I disagree.

Most people who go into journalism do so because they are well-read and have an appreciated knowledge of a variety of interests.

The problem is both media consolidation and the fact that so many people who are currently serving you the news do not have J-School backgrounds (they were politicians or wealthy socialites or actors or something).

Look at Keith Olbermann - he has an actual journalism degree from a good school and he asks tough questions. Then, take a look at Joe Scarborough. He was an lawyer and then a politician and his limitations are obvious.

[zulchzulu]

23. As one who was involved in television news, the ones who succeed best...

... are the ones who are "pretty" and don't make waves. Even small TV newsrooms have corporate sellouts that know not to do a story that makes a sponsor look bad. By the time the "journalist" makes it to the cable news, they have left behind anything that would appear to be "questionable".

As an example, I worked with Tom Foreman in New Orleans at WWL. He actually was a pretty good reporter who was going for the corruption story mostly. You think Chicago politics is bad... Anyway, as he now is on CNN, he has jettisoned all of his former "liberal" self and is obviously directed by a news producer who knows the boundaries and will shoot from the right rather than get any watchful corporatist management dweeb upset.

You will find that most of the reporters on cable news got their break from crap like the OJ trial or Clinton blowjob stories. None of them went up against a GE, a GM or a pharmaceutical and bagged the CEO. They probably have a dozen really great puppy "kicker" stories or perhaps a soldier tearjerker story or two in their reel.

[uponit7771]

24. I've heard they're not as smart as the look, they're group thinkers and run in clans...

...that tend to go one direction no matter what

[SoCalDem]

25. Look for World Focus, Mosaic & BBC... also Jim Lehrer Report

If you have Dish, you can also watch Deutshe Welle (in English).. It's amazing to see news reporters covering stuff from all over the world..:)

I'd love to have the option of CNN-I instead of the drivel they spoonfeed Americans on CNN

[slackmaster]

27. Yes, and covering "Real Issues that Matter to Americans" is not their job

Their job is to capture attention through any and all available means, in order to increase audience share which in turn leads to higher advertising revenues.

That goes for every last one of them, even the few that get praised for being "on our side".

[ieoeja]

28. I always joke that ...

Democracy is the form of government wherein the people select their leaders based on what those who majored in reading & writing (journalism) tell us about those who majored in winning popularity contests (poli sci).


But it still beats everything else.

[sohndrsmith]

29. I think it's called Opinion Journalism... which - is fine - as infotainment, but

it's pretty inappropriate if it attempts to offer itself under the guise of real news/reporting... it's really often presented as the latter more often than it should, seems these days.

I enjoy opinion journalism, especially when it is blatantly, unrepentantly luxuriating in it's bias (as long there's a sense of humor somewhere too). But when it's deliberately vague... that's just a violation on a few different levels.

[old mark]

32. It seems most of them are more interested in hairstyles and appearance

than in anything more substantial.
Some of them evidently find it hard to read the teleprompter.
mark

[Igel]

33. Sure.

They're not grounded well in other cultures, they're innumerate, they can't get over their own biases and prejudices.

On the other hand, when they do try to explain other cultures or delve into the numbers behind a proposal with sufficient clarity for decent comprehension typically they lose just about everybody in their audience, esp. those for whom the news is politically or economically or socially unpalatable.

I watch my mother watching a news-type program--one with a big-mouthed host trying to make a narrow, sensationalistic point to boost ratings, but with "guests" that actually do care about accuracy and such niceties--and marvel. She's not stupid, my mother, but not well educated. And she can't believe that her suspicions and beliefs aren't facts, and has a hard time distinguishing between them; she can't distinguish between the interpretation of something observed and an inference based on such interpretations; she can't make heads or tails of the argument that while her view of what happened is certainly in accord with the facts, the facts may also be in accord with other possible views; or that an unlikely scenario may be true, and a very likely scenario untrue. The very idea that more information may undermine her views is anathema to her. And that's just a murder case, a sensational one, but ultimately nothing more than trivia.

Try to explain the bailout to her, and it's worse. She can ask what happened to the $700 billion in bailout money, and speculate that * et al. probably have already pocketed every cent of it ... seconds after watching a CNN report that Paulson's not going to ask for $350 billion of it to be released, and that a lot of it hasn't been released. $700 billion = less than $350 billion, in her math.

First, all facts have to pass her "Do I like this?" filter. Then, "Does it agree with what I already believe?" Thirdly, "Is it something I want to believe?" "Is it likely to be true?" is not up for consideration. Indeed, her reality *is* socially constructed, by a society of one. Husserl would be proud.

Pretty much everybody I know is like this (I'm probably like this). The people that work in my apt. complex office. Parents. In-laws. The university professors my wife works with. Most of the grad students are better than the faculty in this regard, but the undergrads are no better or worse than the faculty.

Reporters, bad. Public, no better.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

34. Erin Burnett - the MSNBC "financial" reporter

I have yet to be convinced that she has even a rudimentary understanding of what is going on currently.

Another example is the countless times we saw various people using the $78 an hour figure in relation to the UAW and how it went unchallenged over and over by the reporters even though it had already been thoroughly debunked as being a valid figure for comparison.

I often find myself better informed than the people doing the reporting and I think, "Geesh, do you think you could spend an hour in the morning reading various newspapers and blogs so that you might even have a little bit of a handle on things?"

[formercia]

35. A pretty face does not a beautiful mind make.

The dumbing down of American Journalism. Even in the dark days of the Cold War, it has never been as bad as it is today in the M$M.

[mitchum]

36. It is their job to manipulate those who are even dumber

Can you imagine being dumber than a contemporary journalist?
Sad, but true.

[Gregorian]

37. From my limited observation, our journalists are taught to follow, not lead.

This comes from years of listening to the UC Berkeley journalist students getting their airtime on the radio station there. So it's limited. Very limited. I know not of what goes on behind the scenes. But if this is where they are supposedly getting their finishing touches, then I may be correct in assuming. I listened to parroting. I listened to supposed graduate students doing nothing more than reading talking points. Long before I was at DU I was compelled to write several scathing letters to the journalism department at UC Berkeley (of all places!), telling them to please at least use their medium as a place to offer the students an opportunity to exercise investigative journalism. I never got a reply. What passed as journalism was nothing more than students with a microphone repeating mainstream media talking points. For all I know they may be highly educated investigative journalists, but are only using the Berkeley radio station for exercise in how to use a microphone. I can't believe that would be the case.

I was so offended that I eventually stopped listening to what I considered to be one of the greatest college radio stations on the planet.

They seem to have tapered down the rabid repetition since Bush took office. I have to give them credit.

However, my point remains. I think we're a nation of universities teaching students how to fulfill job positions. Not independent thinking people who can create.

And I have gone a step further, if I may get myself in even more trouble if I'm incorrect. And that is, for one unmentionable reason, which has lead to higher prices of housing, and as a result job wages, we cannot afford to do what Benjamin Franklin, Tesla, Newton, Leibniz did. They had time. We no longer have time. It's worth too much money. So we hit the road with a resume, all in the name of landing a JOB.

[Festivito]

38. That's part of the problem. Beholding to bosses is another.

If the owner wants Republicans to make him money by helping a war, if the board over the CEO are in companies that want war, media consolidation, whatever,...

The worker knows where is future promotions, pay raises and continued employment arise, in not saying anything nice about Dems and not saying anything bad about Pubbies.

[Hawkowl]

39. Absolutely

Who do you think hires these news "models"? Look at any of these people and it is obvious they are hired for their looks. Now, just because you are attractive doesn't make you an idiot. However, the corporate MSM doesn't want smart, curious, investigative people as anchors or "reporters". I think they toss a lot or resumes on the "overqualified" pile.

[ErinBerin84]

40. the press only cares about what happens to THEM

not what happens to us.

[Kber]

41. Well, that would explain a thing or two.