I believe O'Reilly as a populist about as much as I buy Lou Dobbs as one. Phony.
Reality is somewhere in the middle of this argument below, but someone is at least trying to keep the bully pulpit idiot honest.
And my alma mater thinks that, since reporting and writing is moving online, graduate schools must train journalists as thoughtless, shallow, promotional whores instead of real reporters.
Well, don't let the deep newspaper attrition fool you: we need good training more than ever. If we want to find the next Frank Rich, the only way to do that is to keep training journalists the old fashioned way - and then fold them in with new media.
In other words, if we don't apply tried-and-true standards to our bold new medium, we'll just become big shipping carriers of information without the depth we so desperately need in a country with a free press.
"Remember, the nicest men in the world are those who always keep something of the little boy in them."
True for all of us. That show, the longest running in TV history, will have enormous shoes to fill.
Who's going to operate the whiteboard this November?
David Gregory is a great choice to replace Russert, even though it is way too early to be thinking about that.
After all, someone could only succeed him -- he was irreplaceable... especially during this unprecedented and historic political year.
One of the proposed offending monikers?
"The Medill School of Audience and Consumer Information"
Excuse me for putting it this way, but FUCK THAT.
I just spent the weekend learning how to be a better journalist, learning how to tell better stories in every project, every article... and all I want to say is this: new media and technology should not precede journalism training, it should absolutely be the other way around.
I brought an excitement and aptitude for technology/new media to Medill, an ability that was enhanced and informed by the man-on-the-street, boots-on-the-ground science of journalism.
This is a disgrace. Even if the name changes and lands in the neighborhood of the above proposal, I'll probably renounce my degree.
I graduated Medill with honors and the school is in my heart, in my DNA. This change will cause the school I love to cease to exist.
I think the only way to stand up to this crap is to do what comes naturally to us Medillians... report and write.
Even as recently as our much-ballyhooed escalation, we in the media are reluctant to speak ill.
Consider this tight passage by Salon writer Greg Mitchell:
"In early 2007, with the announcement of the "surge" of troops in Iraq, TV commentators punted at the most crucial moment since the invasion of Iraq -- and not a single major newspaper came out against the escalation until after it was announced. They were all sleepwalking into the abyss. Even if the "surge" proved relatively successful, it would guarantee at least several more years of heavy U.S. presence in Iraq, and the deaths of thousands of more Americans."
I've loaded the full story to my Facebook profile, but you'll need to log in to read it. Try getting Salon.com here, too.
Photo/graphic courtesy of Salon.com/AFP Photo/Stephen Jaffe
"Anchor Blues" (full editorial below) is a series I started some time ago that looks at the amount of energy that news organizations waste yelling at each other.
To borrow the erudite words of Bill Maher, New Rule: Anchors can no longer be the news.
Let’s use one of the more current commissions of media heresy as our baseline. Would everyone reading this please raise your hand if you know the plural of the noun, “ho”?
Is “ho” simply singular and plural, like “elk,” or would it follow with “es” at the end? Hmmm… we’ll just go with “hos,” without the “e” and no apostrophe, lest we imply possession of a gardening implement. Or we might ask Santa Claus, since he often uses that word more than once at a time; or Hostess, maker of Ho Hos, the trans-fat lard bombs cloaked in a chocolaty veneer, which (I’m told) often comes at least two to an artery-clogging package.
Sadly, our distinguished media have successfully solved “ho” in the plural. Paula Zahn was one of them, thrusting “hos” Out in the Open when she led a panel deconstruction of Don Imus’ hideously nonsensical, random and offensive “nappy headed hos” phrase – part of his well-publicized rant about the Rutgers Women’s basketball team. Both the CNN crawl and Zahn’s program slug that night used the word “hos” in the plural; I almost did a double take because I had never seen that word on a screen before. I hope I never do again.
Like a rat gnawing at a piece of stale cheese (but without the flavor), a broader, related issue has been eating at me for months: Why is it, in this great business of ours, that we as journalists, commentators, producers and anchors have stepped so solidly in front of the news we’re supposed to be covering? Specifically, stratosphere-salaried anchors, including hosts of all stripes – radio, primary broadcast, cable-TV screamers, satellite, morning show personalities, reporters – are all consistently upstaging their content.
NBC receiving the murderous manifesto is an ironic example of how, inadvertently or otherwise, we sometimes become what we’re reporting. More on the Virginia Tech nightmare, and NBC’s coverage of it, in a moment.
The fact is, Don Imus has been pushing envelopes and buttons for 30 years… and this random sound byte is in keeping with his standard histrionics. But I’ve noticed enough drama in other media circles in the past six months that I think it begs a few questions. First, are we simply serving at the pleasure of personality? That is to say, are we making that quality in people too important? Are we building them up just so we can break them down when we’re done? Further, is this all a bottom-line, zero-sum ratings game we’re in – where the work of good, solid journalists are being eclipsed and overshadowed by, well, assholes?
Consider these recent episodes, where news – even that which attempts to entertain us – was far beside the point:
• Bill O’Reilly and Geraldo Rivera – both gunning hard for title of Biggest On-air Tool – kept the spit cleaners busy recently when they got into verbal fisticuffs that might as well have been a WWF title bout. (I thought they were going to punch each other out.) Question: did they cover the topic of an illegal-immigrant crime, as was the platform, or was it a shouting match with fancy Fox News stagelights that, making matters considerably worse, elbowed out real news coverage on other channels that day? It was a train wreck in the highest order, but yet we can’t stop watching. Views on YouTube had eclipsed the 500,000 mark as of this writing.
• With ABC’s World News gaining on NBC Nightly News, executive producer John Reiss was reportedly axed in favor of Alexandra Wallace (one of only a handful of women to serve in that role, on any network) – despite the fact that Brian Williams had, during Reiss’ tenure, continued to set the standard (of the Peter Jennings ilk) for elegant, insightful, sensitive and thoughtful journalism. This is the journalistic equivalent of a melodramatic overreaction. Without Williams’ journalistic leadership in the past 18 months – ala Anderson Cooper – New Orleans, for example, would be even more of a forgotten city. We wouldn’t be asking the right questions about Alberto Gonzales or our invasion of Iraq or the installation of Sam Fox, a recess appointee who Bush transformed from a GOP donor to ambassador to Belgium. Reiss helped power Williams and “Nightly” to multiple award victories, yet he still was apparently shown the door.
• “Some say” Katie Couric’s interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards was a smiling softball snugglefest; “others say” her style descended into a sad example of style over substance. Oh and by the by, Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer returned, right? Viewers, me included, took away Couric’s approach more than they did the newsworthiness of the Edwards’ decision to continue campaigning in a crowded 2008 election field. Aside from this misfire interview, Couric’s publicized network switch, fashion choices, chatty style and plunging ratings have, in general, far eclipsed the competent work of a field reporter like Lara Logan in Iraq – work that Couric is supposed to be shining a light on. Again, we’re missing the point.
• When I caught part of Rosie’s “View” debut last September I said to myself, “oh Jeez, Babs ain’t gonna have any of this.” By “Babs” I mean, of course, Barbara Walters, and by “this” I mean the match-and-gasoline bravado that is O’Donnell’s new anti-queen-of-nice personae. Her daily verbal smackdown on “The View” eventually spawned “Rosie vs. The Donald,” that icky mud-slinging bonanza that neither person really won and we all were subjected to. I want to see neither the real combover nor Rosie’s interpretation of it ever again. Still, “View” ratings shot up 60% in the early term of Rosie’s addition, and have been up steadily since, as she has regularly spouted off wild conspiracy theories and sparred with co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck.
This is just the tip of the media-sideshow iceberg: When you factor in NBC’s reluctant Scooter Libby witness and cozy-source example Tim Russert; Oprah’s holier-than-thou pushing the vast “riches” of The Secret; the exhausting audacity of Headline News’ Nancy Grace (sued for wrongful death by the family of a Florida woman she aggressively interviewed last year); and the unnecessary yet all too public “reassignment” of CNN American Morning’s Miles O’Brien and Soledad O’Brien (a team that gave us the only consistent pace, personality and sophistication of our current slew of morning shows) – anchors have more and more been the stories than reported them. It’s time for us to make a mammoth shift in our priorities, and perhaps with the Imus firing we can put people like Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck and O’Reilly on notice: is it not “mission accomplished” when you are the news.
Meanwhile, there are people who are doing yeoman’s work through this ongoing malaise. Keith Olbermann, for lively and confident news judgment that shapes MSNBC’s “Countdown”; CNN’s Kyra Phillips for mining unusual, heartfelt stories out of the Iraq quagmire; a humble Diane Sawyer serving as de facto ambassador to North Korea during her tightly controlled swing through the country; and the aforementioned Miles O’Brien, who has been a joy as the geek go-to guy for science, aviation and aeronautical issues… and who almost certainly has a copy of “October Sky” in his DVD library. I’ll miss waking up with him at 6 a.m.
With questions now being raised about NBC’s decision to air footage from Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui, the media have opened yet another chapter in their own story. And I say, we’re in quite likely the most pointed example of, “Don’t shoot the messenger.” Why? As much sympathy and wished-healing I hold for the students at Virginia Tech, its alumni and the people of Blacksburg, Virginia, I believe history will look at NBC’s decision as one of measured conscience – the news-judgment process working in its most compassionate, careful and thoughtful way. As the only news organization that received messages from Cho, a clearly disturbed and tortured madman, I believe they acted on a journalistic obligation to know more about what drove him to such a horrific act. And any other news organization criticizing that move – you know who you are – sounds like sour grapes to me. The only people who have any standing to criticize are the victims’ families.
The grieving families are a living, breathing example of why we should always search for and find the story’s emotional thread and never discount its power in helping you come to a natural conclusion. I watched a lot of NBC’s coverage and I believe they did just that.
For Medill’s part, it is more critical than ever to know what your personal ethics are as a journalist as you enter this nutty business. Do not be the news, be the impartial gifter of it. If you go to the producer side of things, don’t hang your anchors out to dry because you think your closest competitor is gaining on you. Stand in your integrity. As a journalist working in a few different areas, that’s my mission, and it always will be, and it should be for all of us. Your self-defined purpose matters, and your audience cares.
Personally, I wish the Rutgers team had decided against making statements like “we were stripped of this moment” and claiming that Imus had “stolen a moment of pure grace.” As right as it might feel to express their hurt in this way, the fact is that they are giving too much power to a person who never had it, or deserved it, to begin with, despite his attempts to the contrary. I’m glad they accepted his apology; I have my own opinions about forgiveness – how to use it, when it’s appropriate, how it can change people for the better – but those statements gave away power when nobody, especially that power’s creators, should relinquish it. Nothing, nobody, will take away their Cinderella rise to the finals or the example they have set for women who will most certainly follow in their footsteps.
As such, we can say the same for assigning too much power (or in the case of Miles & Soledad, too little respect) to the anchor desk and to our media personalities as a whole. I for one would like us to bring fundamental change in this area – for the betterment of our business, and also so I can wake up at 6 a.m. with a smile on my face.
Now, I’m going back to eating the rest of my Ho Hos.
# # #