Responsible News Media

I really love Rachel Maddow's show. She has to be one of the more responsible journalists out there. Toward the end of her show she shows the news clips of Glenn Beck and Shawn Hannity (examples of not so responsible reporting), where Blenn Beck carries on a mantra of paranoia saying that the Islamic Brotherhood is the implementation of the Obama Administration. Another news clip of Shawn Hannity saying that the Obama Administration is in "cahoots" with the Muslim Brotherhood. Hannity goes on to name names claiming that John Brenan, and Jim Clapper Director of National Intelligence, and Janet Napolitano Head of the Department of Homeland Security, are all employing people from the Muslim Brotherhood, and using information as a vehicle source for them.

(The linked show is about 30 minutes long, and there are brief commercial breaks that have been edited out (black screen briefly) in between segments. So to see the entire interview just wait for the 3 seconds or so of the black screen her show pops back up and continues. The part that I am speaking of is actually toward the tail end of her show if you want to speed up to that part).

See Link below for the show:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#41418056

Responsible media is a dinosaur - and it's a damn shame. People refuse to pay for content, and there are fewer viewers and newspaper readers to justify to advertisers why they should be spending their money.

So instead of real journalism we see alarmist propaganda that will hopefully grab eyeballs and ear drums - they aren't just aiming for people who agree, but count on people who loath what is being said and can't help but pay attention. Very much the same success strategy Howard Stern worked with.

If we want responsible journalism to come back, we have to financially support the people and institutions who do the hard work. If no one can earn a living doing it, then the media will continue acting like the National Inquirer.

Good topic, thanks Bebe

The term "responsible media" was useful about 50-75 years ago. Nowadays, it is an oxymoron. As much as I like Rachel Maddow (and I do), she has fallen prey to sloppy/easy journalism just like her knee-jerk reactionary counterparts.

I fear the days are long gone when a journalist attempted to gather facts (yes, facts), analyze and report them regardless of where the road led. Today, journalists report "breaking news" (regardless of whether or not it is news) and whatever they can show "live" (regardless of whether or not it is appropriate/relevant.

The reporters today are so self-absorbed, they'll start a broadcast of the President (or someone else) making a speech, but then break in after a couple of minutes to give their own opinion while the person speaking live is still speaking. WHAT THE FUCK, AND HOW RUDE!!! I don't want to hear Wolf Blitzer or some other numnut!!! I want to hear the person making the speech. So shut up already, and keep broadcasting the speech.

What these reporters are doing is nothing more than sloppy journalism. They report the obvious. Gone are the days of in-depth reporting when the journalist digs and digs for information and to analyze.

Don't expect any more Watergates. The days of investigative journalism are over with. It's not that the subjects aren't there. It's that the journalists have become sooooooooo lazy. I don't happen to think Clinton got off Scott free, but if you do, it's likely because the journalists these days suck, suck, suck at their jobs. They're a joke.

I really love Rachel Maddow's show. She has to be one of the more responsible journalists out there. Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

you do understand the difference between hard news and commentary?

you do understand the difference between hard news and commentary? Originally Posted by TexRich

Yeah, I understand the difference. And there isn't anyone doing hard news. Not anywhere. On any station. In any print media either. It's all fluff.

Yeah, I understand the difference. And there isn't anyone doing hard news. Not anywhere. On any station. In any print media either. It's all fluff. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

You have to get the new somewhere, but one must be leery of journalists presenting opinion as fact. And I’m not sure TV journalism knows there is a difference. Print media is all right; again, you have to get the news somewhere. My preference is the WSJ and a few various and sundry magazines: Saudi Aramco World (Believe it or not), the Economist, Scientific American and the like.

I don’t watch TV and haven’t for years. But, now-a-days it seems every restaurant in the world has a TV in it. Yuck! One time I was somewhere and the news was on. The first six stories were blood, murder, fires or other examples of human misery. Who wants to see that? I don’t.

You have to get the new somewhere, but one must be leery of journalists presenting opinion as fact. And I’m not sure TV journalism knows there is a difference. Print media is all right; again, you have to get the news somewhere. My preference is the WSJ and a few various and sundry magazines: Saudi Aramco World (Believe it or not), the Economist, Scientific American and the like.

I don’t watch TV and haven’t for years. But, now-a-days it seems every restaurant in the world has a TV in it. Yuck! One time I was somewhere and the news was on. The first six stories were blood, murder, fires or other examples of human misery. Who wants to see that? I don’t. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

No, TV journalists don't know the difference between opinion and fact. And you have to be really of print media. It slips off the opinion page and into the stories. I canceled my Time subscription during the Nixon administration. I hated Nixon, but I thought they had, in their stories, presented opinion that should have been excluded from the NEWS stories.

And the same is true now. I think WSJ is OK (but I think PJ thinks of it as a leftist paper). I hate its opinion page, but it seems to have the best journalism out there. I haven't looked at the others you mention.

As far as broadcast is concerned, the rule of thumb is: if it bleeds, it leads.

I was looking for a common ground there Bebe, but I have to disagree on the 'responsible' part. While I do like Rachel's show, only as a balance for the time I spend agonizingly watching Fox, it's the same song and dance. I have to wholeheartedly agree with Charles, there's such a blur of fact and opinion that anyone who watched either one of those networks and took them news is sorely mislead. Mr. Cronkite we miss you.

I was looking for a common ground there Bebe, but I have to disagree on the 'responsible' part. While I do like Rachel's show, only as a balance for the time I spend agonizingly watching Fox, it's the same song and dance. Originally Posted by Sa_artman

Rachel is on MSNBC not FoX...

Well, it is only my opinion on Rachel Maddow, but the examples she gave of unresponsible journalism were very good. I agree that responsible journalism with accountability has gone away with the dinosaurs. It is all now geared toward sensationalism, fear mongering, and pieces dedicated for entertainment value only.

I think responsible journalism is the collection of data, information that warrants trust, confidence and reliance.

In the words of a journalist; "Trustworthy means being responsible and worthy of trust or belief by way of taking responsibility for one’s conduct and obligations.
Reliable means being worthy of reliance or trust that warrants reliance on what is published as a reliable source of information.
Earning the confidence of others requires honesty and fidelity to truth.
Being honest, or honorable in our work means not being disposed to lie, cheat or defraud and not behaving in a deceptive or fraudulent way.
Responsible means being worthy of or requiring responsibility or trust, willing to be held accountable.
All of these ideas are central to legitimate journalism as well as the foundations for many terms used here and elsewhere to describe the characteristics and qualities of journalists, editors and reporters".

I listen/watch long enough to hear what happened. The moment I hear those magic words,

"And now, to tell us all what it means, we have..."



At least, that's the goal. To mean, journalism died the day reporters started interviewing each other & passing that off as news/analysis.

When I do get sucked in past that point, I will try to see what the Fox-ers & MSNBC-ers are all up in arms about...I figure the "truth" is somewhere in the middle...

I've sworn off trying to get real information from the "idiot box". I read alternative and foreign news websites because I can read (and actually recall the details with ease) around 5-10 articles (depending on length) in the time it would take to watch 30 mins worth of msm crap. The US media is owned by 3 very wealthy and powerful men. You are spoon-fed only what "they" want you to know. I watch Russia Today on YouTube quite regularly and learn so much more. Hopefully, I don't sound pretentious or anything.

Rachel Maddows is as nonpartisan as Che Guevara.

BTW, Glenn Beck isn’t a journalist, he’s a comedian. So, laugh at his jokes, like you do those of Jon Stewart, Bill Maher and Tina Fey; get over it and then get on with your lives.

People refuse to pay for content, and there are fewer viewers and newspaper readers to justify to advertisers why they should be spending their money. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

I do pay for content. The New York Times (yes that commie pinko rag for the more conservative among us. Or that bastion of "All The News That's Fit To Print"), and the Hartford Courant (on-line only, $10 a month, I don't waste paper resources).

Very much the same success strategy Howard Stern worked with. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Stern goes for ratings. IMO his program is very entertaining and honest (except when hawking a product). His interviews are great. For disclosure I have been listening since WNBC days, and I won a "Steve Perry" album and a "Smiler's Salami" via contests in that era. I came in 2nd place on "dial-a-date."

The term "responsible media" was useful about 50-75 years ago. Nowadays, it is an oxymoron. As much as I like Rachel Maddow (and I do), she has fallen prey to sloppy/easy journalism just like her knee-jerk reactionary counterparts. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

To be honest all journalists have some element of bias. I accept that whether reading the NY Times or the WSJ.

Yeah, I understand the difference. And there isn't anyone doing hard news. Not anywhere. On any station. In any print media either. It's all fluff. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I get my news from Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show."

Rachel Maddows is as nonpartisan as Che Guevara. BTW, Glenn Beck isn’t a journalist, he’s a comedian. So, laugh at his jokes, like you do those of Jon Stewart, Bill Maher and Tina Fey; get over it and then get on with your lives. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

In the end it's ratings. They all would take on whatever the the ratings drive them to do. Follow the money.

The US media is owned by 3 very wealthy and powerful men. You are spoon-fed only what "they" want you to know. Originally Posted by Can I Play Too???

Oh I agree with that to some point. I always wondered how much influence "government" has with the media. Did anyone ever see that movie "V" for Vendetta? I guess some of what I got from that entertaining movie was how government had control of the media and had everyone living in "fear" because of terrorist attacks.

Now I know America isn't like that....but... it does make one pause with thought.

In the end it's ratings. They all would take on whatever the the ratings drive them to do. Follow the money. Originally Posted by SR Only

Yes, it's all about money, money, money...

Edit: I read this book "The Culture of Fear" by Barry Glassner and he talks about the media and how Americans are afraid of the wrong things, like "Killer mom's", "Minorities", "Killer Kids", "Mutant Microbes", "Crime", etc.