Clark Kent. That was my hero when I was a very small child. Not Superman, oh no. Superman was cool, all right. Being able to fly would be neat, eat bullets, pick up cars, walk through walls . . . Didn't they have doors on Krypton?
But it was Clark Kent who was the crusading journalist. He, along with Lois Lane and that little twerp Olson, exposed corruption and dragged it kicking and screaming out into the light. He was the one who rooted out the evidence that put the bad guys behind bars. He was the one who stood up for truth, justice, and the American way. Superman just mopped up the mess when the two dough-heads got into trouble.
That's why I wanted to be a journalist. I was, and am, idealistic, and I saw that as a way to fight for my ideals. Too bad it didn't work out that way. Oh, well.
What disappointed me was the real world of journalism. And, to be honest, it continues to do so. There are no Clark Kents, but there are many who see themselves that way. To be fair, corruption is a lot more complicated than it was for George Reeves.
One problem is the illusion of an unbiased source of news. There simply is no such thing. Truth, simple pure truth, nothing-but-the-facts truth, can be packaged and shaped in so many ways. This was questioned once by a friend of mine, who insisted that the newspaper that he preferred was unbiased. At that time, we happened to each have a copy of our favorite newspapers for that day on hand. There was a story that appeared in both, regarding what was seen as a congressional victory for President Bush. Both papers ran the exact same story, reprinting word for word what had been sent to them over the Associated Press wire. But, the paper that was perceived as more conservative ran the story on page 1, above the fold, with a rather large photo of Mr. Bush, smiling. The more liberal paper ran it on the back page of the first section, with no photo and a much smaller headline. You can draw your own conclusions.
Again, if journalism is supposed to be about reporting the truth, why not report the truth about the journalist? Why doesn't the New York Times come right out and say what their editorial stance is? Or the Washington times? CNN and Fox News should both shout their biases from the highest sattelite dish. It's not like nobody knows already, fer hevvin's sake.
One of the most celebrated journalists in American history was William Lloyd Garrison. He was one of the heroes of the emancipation, and is almost always referred to as the publisher of an "Abolitionist Newspaper." What does that mean? Was there nothing but abolitionist diatribes printed on its pages? They had no other stories? No court reports? No sports section? No funnies? If something happened in Boston, or Washington DC, they only reported the abolitionist aspects of the story? I would guess it was a newspaper much like any other newspaper. It was probably read by people who could have cared less about the abolition of slavery, and just wanted to know what was going on in the world. After all, a newspaper is a business that has to attract readers, or it will go out of business.
That brings us to the other major problem that I have with modern journalism; the lengths that a news source will go to in order to make money. The worst offenders are television journalists, and most of all the 24-hour news channels. When CNN was the only game in town, they actually did a very good job of showing the broader picture, and keeping their own fingers out of the mix. For the most part, I will admit that I like Fox News Channel, and certainly prefer their point of view, but there's a lot of times they fall far short of the mark.
The latest example is the death of Anna Nichole Smith. I agree that it is a significant event, especially considering all the controversy surrounding the circumstances, the estate, and the young child she left behind. Still, the facts would be easy to report, and updates even moreso. So why do CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC insist on talking about it practically all the time? Isn't there any other news in the world? Do these people know that there was a coup in Thailand recently? The only way I knew was that a friend of mine who's a missionary there told me in an email.
Trouble is, there isn't much money to be made talking about the Thailand coup. CNN tried an all-international-news channel a while ago, and it bombed. It was good, but not glamorous. Sometimes I think I learned more back when we saw the news for a half hour every evening. Back in the day, there were three networks, and we lived in a very rural area, and could only get two of them. The news would come on right about dinnertime, and Howard K. Smith or Frank Reynolds would run through the main stories of the day. If you wanted more detail, you picked up a paper.
It's why I continue to listen regularly to National Public Radio. They cover a wide range of topics, and do it in depth, and even leave out the commercials. There is a certain pattern that you have to get used to, though. It's rather annoying, really, but you have to put up with it if you want to hear about anything besides Anna Nichole Smith. It goes kind of like this:
1) There's a problem somewhere.
2) Several people tell heartfelt stories about the problem, and how it affects them.
3) It turns out that the government knows about the problem, and somebody is trying to get them to spend money to solve it.
4) Heinous, selfish, power-mad people in the government don't want to spend the money. Their side of the story is told by people who are fat, rich, old, and white. You can tell, even on the radio.
5) If you're really lucky, you'll get to hear how desperate the people with the problem are again.
But don't you DARE imply that National Public Radio is biased. Oh, no. Not Superman. Or CNN, or the Washington Times, or Manchester Union Leader, or Fox News, or the New York Times, or . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment