The State of Journalism

Bill O'Reilly. Keith Olbermann. Rachel Maddow. Hannity & Colmes.


Throwing those names out at the start, you may suspect where this is going. A condemnation of the aforementioned and their biased, one-sided reporting. Strong words in their direction demanding that they cease and desist tearing apart the fabric of the truth for their ratings. A harsh and brutal series of insults insisting Edward R. Murrow would be disgusted with what was on the air today. At least one quote along the lines of "how dare you" directed at Mr. Olbermann for ending his program with Murrow's trademark "Good night, and good luck."


But Murrow's rest goes on undisturbed. The problem is not the people reporting the news. It's the people watching it.


The journalists we see on television are not journalists at all. They are pundits, talking heads, dedicated towards pleasing a particular audience. Their reports are geared towards reaching a particular demographic. The stories they twist, the quotes taken out of context, the events they blow out of proportion or ignore completely, they're all done without compromising any kind of integrity. It's understood that these people are not real reporters, not in the purest sense. They're simply there to entertain while discussing current events. Like Jon Stewart, only not as blatant in what they do. The only power they have to be considered real and valid news reporters is the power we give them. Unfortunately, we give them quite a bit.


Somewhere along the line, news stopped being about being unbiased and impartial. People want to hear reporters tell them what to think. We seem to have lost interest in what's going on in the rest of the world. The local interest and human interest story has taken precedent over keeping people informed about current affairs. News agencies stay in business based on their ratings. No ratings, no advertisers, no money, no show. I can't blame them for showing what they do. It comes down to the people who watch - or don't watch - based on how entertained they'll be by what they see. Our news reporting agencies shouldn't be a part of the cycle of bread and circuses, and they would not be. Except for the fact that we demand they be.


The reporting we get is the reporting we want, whether we admit it or not. It's no mistake that we only get bad news. History has proven that's the news that most draws in an audience. People watch news that tells them what to be afraid of. The majority isn't interested in being broadly informed and thinking about information for themselves. They want to be guided. The news is not a tool to tell us how to act. It is there to inform so we can draw our own opinions with a little more insight and information than we would have had previously.

This is one of those situations where change starts at home. The only way to get decent reporting is to demand it in a way networks understand; watch the shows that are actually about the news. Don't sit on the edge of your seat waiting for the next clever thing Keith Olbermann says. Don't eagerly await Bill O'Reilly's next skewed appraisal of events. Sit down and watch a news anchor tell you without offering opinion the events of the world today. Watch the international news CNN is kind enough to provide on most cable providers. Watch for hard-hitting interviews and make it a point to tune in. Watch C-SPAN. Do something to be more than a parrot for a pundit. If you demand it, the networks will be more than happy to oblige, as long as you're watching.

Imagine if the majority of Americans willingly elected to be well-informed about current events and the way their government worked.

Wouldn't THAT be newsworthy?