Remember the good ol' days when all journalists talked like Al Capone, kept bottles of whiskey in their desk drawers and had little cards that said "PRESS" in their hats? That's not the case anymore (except maybe the whiskey in the desk part).Another thing that has changed for journalists: They're not the only sources of information anymore. Not by a long shot. Any idiot kan strt up a Blog or @twitter acct. in a matter of mins theese daze. And for every person who has built a successful blog without any formal journalism training, or used Twitter to advance their career, there are many more who end up making themselves look silly.
Cases in point: Texas Gov. Rick Perry and economics researcher Barry Ritholtz.
Let's take the Texas governor first. Mediabistro's All Twitter blog reports that Perry has blocked Texas journalists from following his Twitter account, @GovernorPerry.
Access to social media has, in some circles, made the mainstream media less necessary. Why bother pitching a story to the local paper or TV station, the thinking goes, when we can just write about it ourselves on our blog? This line of thought leads some public officials to believe they don't have to answer to the press anymore, and Perry's Twitter actions are just one example.
This philosophy is not a good one for politicians or the people they serve. It diminishes the media's role as a watchdog and makes it look like government is trying to hide something. Furthermore, it shows just how technologically stupid some people are. Perry apparently doesn't realize that anyone -- including the journalists he blocked -- can still go to his Twitter page and see everything he has posted.
Ritholtz's case is far more egregious. As Salon reports, he blogged that Fox News' Roger Ailes would soon be indicted for telling a colleague to lie to federal investigators. It turned out that the source of the Roger Ailes indictment post was a man that Ritholtz had run into at a Barbados airport, who had no direct connection to the feds' investigation.
That doesn't mean what he said isn't true, but most journalists would need some more concrete evidence. When asked about his sourcing, however, Ritholtz said, "If it's true we'll find out. If it's not, no big deal."
I'm sorry, was I out
That rant got me all worked up. If only I had something to calm me down. Let me check my desk drawer...
2 comments:
You're right on target with how journalism has lost sight of the importance of credible sources. The pressure to keep up with and/or break news is stronger than their commitment to accuracy, sadly. I'm not so sure that politicians should ever feel like they need to answer to journalists first or that journalism should serve as a watchdog. Rather I would hope that in our country accountability would come first from the populace and that journalists simply be a transmission medium. Journalism has become too much of a creative art and less of a reporting channel.
There are many journalists doing really good, meaningful work, but More often then not these days journalists are creating stories as fast they can because the first mover advantage is much greater than the consequence.
Thanks for your comment.
Journalism should definitely serve as a watchdog. That's why they call it the Fourth Estate, because it plays into the system of checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
And I agree with what you said about the government being accountable to the people THROUGH the media; that's a more accurate reflection of what I meant to say.
Post a Comment