Bruce Sallan: One of the many joys of Social Media is the incredible people we meet. Many of these “virtual” friends as I like to call them, eventually become IRL (In Real Life) friends and many stay “virtual,” as has my friendship with Professor Griffin. We’ve gotten to “know” one another via Twitter and our regular participation in certain Tweet Chats.
We’ve also had the occasional bashing of heads or, to put in more diplomatically, respectful disagreements because that is really what they’ve been. An ongoing debate we’ve had is about the state of contemporary journalism. I tend to rant and rage about the bias in most media and Professor Griffin tends to disagree with me.
So, we’ve decided to have a debate on this issue in written form, going back and forth, and we’ll let you readers judge a winner or simply offer your opinion in the form of a comment. Our objective is not to win this debate but to express our thoughts and let others digest and give their feedback and add to the discussion.
I’ll start off by declaring the main things that I often assert that seem to raise the Professor’s ire. First, I often say that “Journalism is dead” and that “Edward R. Murrow would roll over in his grave at the state of reportage today.” Further, I declare regularly “there really is little journalism left as it’s been replaced by what I call, Opinionism.”
There are no more dramatic examples than the mainstream news outlets such as MSNBC, CNN, and Fox. I would further cite most major newspapers as having less and less so-called journalistic standards in their reporting and many, including the revered New York Times abdicating fact-checking in favor of a political agenda. Perhaps the most egregious example is what brought down Dan Rather with his totally lax reporting on President Bush and what turned out to be a bogus accusation.
I’ll leave it at that, to start, and turn “the mike” over to Professor Griffin to express her views. I will weigh in later with whatever counter-arguments I can make up; I mean express.
Professor Griffin: Bruce Sallan is one of the fabulous people. Daddy’O, as I like to call him, certainly stands out in the saturated social media world. A big reason for this, in my opinion, is Bruce’s level of engagement with those in the social realm. He treats online relationships like real life ones—offering friendly greetings, inviting you to chats, commenting on your blog posts, and sharing insights into seemingly any topic.
There is one topic on which Bruce and I realized early on that we have a major difference in opinion – media. Bruce likely would say that our disagreement is about journalism, but this is where the issue really begins. Not all media is journalism. As journalist A.J. Liebling said in one of my favorite quotes about the industry: “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” This quote has a much different meaning today than it did during Liebling’s lifetime (1904-1963). Cable television, social media, websites, blogs, and video and photo sharing sites are just some of the mediums through which people produce original content and distribute it to the masses—a job that used to be reserved for those working in the journalism profession. So, Step 1 in addressing mine and Bruce’s ongoing debate about the state of contemporary journalism is recognizing that not everyone producing content should be considered a journalist. And, therefore, not all content is journalism.
The second step in addressing the great journalism debate is recognizing the purpose of journalism. In my view, the purpose of journalism is to give the people the information they need to be free and self-governing. This concept supports the democratic function of the press and, more importantly, it supports people’s right of access to information. Perhaps equally as important as what journalism does is what it does not do. As the prominent agenda setting theory purports, the media doesn’t tell us what to think, it tells us what to think about. It is not the function of journalism to present us with a checklist of things we ought to do or things we should think. Instead, it is the role of journalism to help us filter the massive amount of information available (gatekeeping theory) and give us the verifiable fact about those happenings. It is then up to the people to think critically about the information presented to form their own views and take their own actions.
Despite what he may say, I don’t disagree with Bruce’s claims that much of today’s media is biased. Where I draw a distinction is with the assumption that biased media is journalism. Journalism is an inherently objective practice. Therefore, anything Bruce would title “Opinionism” (and there certainly is a ton of it) is not journalism. It’s infotainment at best. In my mind, the public is responsible for making this distinction. Blindly believing everything you see on Fox News is no different than considering The Daily Show a legitimate source of information. It is our job as citizens in an informed, highly educated democracy to be critical about where our information originates and question who benefits from the message. If we don’t support the message or its sender, we need not subscribe. Turn off the television. Cancel your subscription. Blaming the mass, faceless, nameless media is just way too easy. We need to take responsibility for the messages we accept and support.
Bruce Sallan: Once again, I’m struck by the irony that people often disagree and then, if they really talk, they realize they don’t much disagree at all. Such is my reaction to what the professor has written above. Not only was I educated, but also I realized our supposed different points-of-view were really only semantics.
Making the distinction between how we use the terms “media” and “journalism” really made me realize we have almost no disagreement.
Being the respectful gentleman I strive to be, I’ll give the “last word” to Professor Griffin!
Professor Griffin: I think what Bruce meant to write is that he was wrong and I was right. My argument was based on logic, while his contained more holes than Swiss cheese. In truth, I think he’s just been trying to aggravate me for a year. However, I have proven (once again) that women are the intellectually superior sex. And, as a consequence, Bruce will bathe my mud-loving, hair-shedding, bath-hating Beagle mix loving called the “Licky, Licky dog” for one year. My children will be happy to relinquish the chore.
In all seriousness, I hope you enjoyed reading this post as much as we enjoyed writing it. I also hope you can find some bit of wisdom here that might make you pause the next time you want to blame someone else for something completely within your own control. As my mentor is fond of saying: “We have the freedom to be ignorant, and that’s the one we exercise the most.” Use your freedoms actively and wisely.
Bruce Sallan’s second book is an e-book only – “The Empty-Nest Road Trip Blues: An Interactive Journal from A Dad’s Point-of-View” – and costs a whopping $2.79. It’s a travelogue, an emotional father-son story, and it contains 100 photos and 7 original videos. He is the author of “A Dad’s Point-of-View: We ARE Half the Equation” and radio host of “The Bruce Sallan Show – A Dad’s Point-of-View.” He gave up a long-term showbiz career to become a stay-at-home-dad. He has dedicated his new career to becoming THE Dad advocate. He carries out his mission with not only his book and radio show, but also his column “A Dad’s Point-of-View”, syndicated in over 100 newspapers and websites worldwide, his “I’m NOT That Dad” vlogs, the “Because I Said So” comic strip, and his dedication to his community on Facebook and Twitter. Join Bruce and his extensive community each Thursday for #DadChat, from 6-7pm PST, the Tweet Chat that Bruce hosts.
BruceSallan says
That’s JUST your opinion Professor…
Ha!
I loved writing this with you and loved getting an insight into your thinking and gaining more of your wisdom!
profkrg says
BruceSallan It was so fun, Daddy’O! I don’t know if I’d use the word “wisdom.” That’s a lot of pressure! Now, it’s time for us to find something else to disagree (or not) about for our next post!
douglaserice says
I do believe, as Bruce proposes, that most mainstream media is biased. But I don’t think we can blame mainstream media for this. We are the ones who enable it. I think the problem isn’t with the excess of bias in media; it’s with the lack of discernment in consumers of media. We’ve lost the ability to use our heads and think critically. We thrive on confirmation bias–preferring to reinforce our beliefs rather than understand the story.
As far a “journalism” goes, I completely agree that it is something separate from “media.” I have never read anything in an academic journal that seemed biased. However, I don’t think there are many sources outside of academia offering real journalism. Bias sells. And “objective” has difficulty competing with dramatic.
The interesting question to me, in an increasingly flatter and more open world, is this: “What news should get covered?” Who decides what “the news” is? Now that’s a tricky one…
profkrg says
douglaserice I think a lot of the “bias” we perceive in mainstream media is because views are presented that are different from our own. I also think the fact that presenting news is a business creates an automatic bias or at least a sense of one. Businesses make decisions based on the bottom line. That is counter to the journalism concept.
I’m not certain I agree that academic journals are true journalism. Any scholar knows that the literature determines the questions and the questions drive the data. Data are easily skewed to find a predetermined result.
To some extent, the public determines what is news. News is whatever you tell media it is. What do you read? What do you watch? What do you listen to? What do you click? Each of these choices results in a measure later used to determine future content. Sure, there are long-standing values used to separate what is news and what is not, but the greatest measure of what receives coverage is what the public responds to. Just like each vote adds up in an election, each view adds up in the media. People who really want to change the media should alter their consumption habits.
douglaserice says
profkrg douglaserice Yeah, in the end, I guess I don’t think true journalism exists. It might as a hypothetical ideal, but it doesn’t in reality. Nothing is truly objective even if that’s the intent.
I like what you say about bias. “You’re biased” translates as “Your opinion is different than mine and I don’t like it!”
profkrg says
douglaserice Perhaps our idea of journalism is flawed. Asking a profession to be responsible for something that’s impossible sets it up for failure. Journalism never has been truly objective. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for objectivity, but I also think we must recognize the flaws in that logic.
profkrg says
@PegFitzpatrick Thanks, Martini!
PegFitzpatrick says
@profkrg Anytime, dahling!
profkrg says
@CraigMcBreen Thanks, Craig!
profkrg says
@AngelaMaiers Thanks, Angela!
profkrg says
@dbvickery Thanks, Brian! Have a Happy Thanksgiving!
profkrg says
@HBCU_Lifestyle Thank you!
profkrg says
@teachingwthsoul Thanks, Lisa!
profkrg says
@seanmcginnis Thanks, Sean! Happy Thanksgiving!
profkrg says
@TobeyDeys Thanks, Tobey!
KevanGoffParker says
Enjoyed, indeed! Thanks Professor!
profkrg says
KevanGoffParker Thanks for reading and commenting, Kevan. I’m sure you have many informed views on journalism and the changes in our industry. I appreciate you taking the time to read our post.
Kenna
nickkellet says
The one thing I’ll agree it a like the format:)And that the media is broken.And I think the media (and therefore journalists) brought it on themselves. FAilure to see the train coming down the track. Failure to see this displacing power of the interent. Failing to evolve brought on a revolution.I’m twitching on whether to post this or not! Ah what the hell. It’s just an opinion. We all have themThe question is are we and can we all be journalists? I think so.It think we live in an agre of blurry boundaries and a morass of unique perspectives.
profkrg says
nickkellet There needs to be a balance between traditional journalistic routines and norms that stabilize the news gathering and reporting process and the use of new tools/methods for delivering information. The news industry has not done a good job of finding this balance. They should be leading the way for use of new tools for delivering information. Instead, they’re scrambling to catch up at best. It’s an interesting time, for certain.
nickkellet says
profkrg nickkellet Very much so:)
thevanbrown says
@loiscreamer @profkrg Some things just won’t make a good soup no matter how long you boil them.
brandcottage says
Thanks for writing this post. I studied journalism almost 20 years ago and have been working in media for almost as long. My son is now an aspiring journalist in college. My belief is that fundamentally a journalist’s role is to report an unbiased view of information and to keep check on those in power to ensure they don’t misuse power against those who have less power. This is the foundation of a free press. This was something our founding fathers believed in strongly, especially Thomas Jefferson. Freedom of the Press is one of the cornerstones of our democracy and is vital to our country. I believe it will be around forever, albeit in different forms. I think citizen journalism has its place (reporting first hand accounts) but it does not displace a professional journalists’ abilities to report with facts, balance, and perspective.
Cable networks have watered-down journalism by becoming biased and admittedly so. The press has always been liberal. I have met very few conservative reporters in my years in the industry. Fox News came about in response to this left-leaning media marketplace. Not all media is journalism. Much of it is entertainment, debate, conversation, stated points of view. But true journalism is UNBIASED, BALANCED, and FACTUAL.
profkrg says
brandcottage I think it’s interesting that you believe freedom of the press will be around forever. I certainly hope you are correct. It seems today that way too many people take this freedom for granted. They don’t see a point in having a free press because they see media as an enemy instead of a profession providing an essential function. Overall, I think too many people believe that media overextend their roles in an unethical way. I worry that, when push comes to shove, people won’t fight for press freedoms. Sometimes they’re all too willing to give up their own.