Part 1 of Series: What's Wrong With Journalism? Russert Tribute Overblown, Journalists Think They're Celebrities

Commentary by Daniel Zanoza, Executive Director

  

Editor's Note:  During the next week, RFFM.org will do a series of columns on the state of journalism in America today.  We will look into the failures of the dominant media and the lack of adherence to journalistic integrity on the Internet.

 

The profession of journalism truly lost one of its most distinguished representatives with the sudden death of Tim Russert.  The host of NBC's Meet The Press had developed into one of the best interviewers in the dominant media and the profession cannot afford to lose such individuals who ply their trade with dignity and pride.  However, the near canonization of Russert also pointed to one of the problems plaguing the field.  NBC's sister network on cable, MSNBC, devoted practically 72 hours of continuous coverage of Russert's untimely passing.  I'm sure the Buffalo, New York native would have been embarrassed by such attention and the rest of us can point to this as one of the most pressing problems facing the profession of journalism today.

 

Tim Russert was not a rock star.  Russert was not a star of stage and screen.  Russert did not break Olympic records and he wasn't a famous wide-receiver for the Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bears or his beloved Buffalo Bills.  Russert was a journalist, nothing more and nothing less.

 

However, today many in the field of journalism want to be looked upon as celebrities in their own right.  From individuals on the right of the political spectrum, including Rush Limbaugh (WABC Radio) and Bill O'Reilly (FNC--FOX News Channel) to those left-leaning personalities like Chris Matthews (MSNBC), Bill Moyers (PBS) and many others in the mainstream media, reporting the news is simply not enough.  The fact is Russert did not fall into this category.  He worked hard to improve his craft.

 

The former Democratic counselor to the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and to former New York Governor Mario Cuomo came a long way since he took over Meet The Press in 1991.  Russert understood he had large shoes to fill, including those of famed journalists like Lawrence Spivak and others who preceded Russert in his interviewing seat on Meet The Press.  In the beginning, and for many years to come, Russert showed a bias against Republicans.  His questioning of Democrats would be far less aggressive and anyone with knowledge of the profession recognized Russert's bias.  However, during the last decade of his life and career, Russert set the gold standard for integrity in the field, even though many conservatives did not forgive him for past professional sins.

 

Tim Russert would be the first to admit he was not a celebrity.  But with the phenomenon of the 24 hour news cycle, brought on by the popularity of cable television, for many, journalism has taken a back seat to the pursuit of self-promotion and celebrity.  Indeed, the more outrageous, the more attention a journalist may draw to him or herself.  MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is an exaggerated case in point.  Olbermann once referred to the President of the United States as the "idiot in chief". 

 

Can any of us imagine Chet Huntley or David Brinkley using such words?  Can we see Frank Reynolds, Harry Reasoner or Walter Cronkite slithering in the political mud, in order to get attention?  Of course, the answer to these questions is "no", yet Olbermann anchored MSNBC's coverage of both the Republican and Democratic primary season in 2008 for MSNBC.  Should we expect such individuals to suddenly put on hats of objectivity?  Here again the answer is a resounding "no".  To put icing on the cake, Keith Olbermann has a fan club, believe it or not, and this, if nothing else, proves the point of this essay.

 

Olbermann said what he did about the President, disregarding the tenets of journalism, because Olbermann knew his words would garner favor and praise, at least from those who shared his subjective opinion of the President and his administration.

 

In the past, many of us did not know what political Party journalists belonged to.  And the public was not provided with clues about their political allegiance either and they shouldn't have been.  Is there any doubt who Keith Olbermann will be voting for in November?

 

It is uncertain when the line between journalism and celebrity was first blurred.  Some might say the departure from objective journalism began when politics itself became so adversarial.  It was as though some journalists felt they needed to choose a side and political correctness often was the guide to their decisions.  If a reporter did a story on women's rights, that piece would have to come from a pro-abortion or "pro-choice" perspective, if it had anything to do with the public debate over the subject.

 

The issue of civil rights may have also led to the rush towards subjective journalism as well.  A journalist needed to be in favor of affirmative action, especially in larger markets, like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles where a higher percentage of the viewing audience might include minorities.

 

Indeed, there is something called a "stylebook", frequently accessed by print journalists.  Most certainly, the hard news divisions of television and radio have a similar guidebook--which tells reporters what words are politically correct and which words are not.  Until recent years, the word pro-life itself was barred in most major newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times, and, in some cases, it still is.

 

This is akin to censorship, but journalists have to abide by such rules or possibly lose their jobs or their editors would re-write articles or columns for them because they violated the "stylebook".  To ensure there is no misunderstanding, the "stylebook" is a real thing which sits on the desks of probably every reporter and editor in major markets across America.  Such a book itself certainly violates the concept of a free press.  Yet few know this book exists and therefore, even fewer complain about the reason for its being.

 

One can wonder what Tim Russert would honestly say about the state of journalism in America today.  I have a feeling, in private, Russert would find many faults in the Fourth Estate which he honored with his recent work.  Yet the treatment of Russert, after his death, has probably made many journalists wallow in envy.  What they don't understand is the fact Russert was praised for the work he put into his profession and not a quest for fame and fortune.  Obviously, there are those who think they can take a short cut to journalistic respectability and notoriety.

 

Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity (FNC--FOX News Channel) could never fill the shoes of journalists like Ernie Pyle, Edward R. Murrow and Bill Paley.  But often today's journalists will step on and shove aside others to obtain popularity.  A perfect counterpoint to Keith Olbermann is Sean Hannity, the co-host of Hannity + Colmes (FNC).  

 

Nationally-syndicated radio host Dr. Laurie Roth (IRN-USA Radio Network) broke the story regarding Democratic presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama's relationship with convicted domestic terrorist William Ayers (read http://www.newswithviews.com/BreakingNews/breaking55.htm).  Reported on News With Views http://www.newswithviews.com/, by writer Jim Kouri, it was clear the conservative Roth was the first to uncover this politically damaging information about Obama and the company he keeps.  Indeed, sources tell RFFM.org one of Hannity's chief producers called Roth to congratulate her on the breaking news.  Unfortunately, the "step-over your opposition" mentality which permeates the industry of journalism has Hannity now claiming he broke the story about Ayers.  In essence, dumping on his fellow conservative journalist, in order to advance his career.  The moral of the story is, both sides do it, no matter how unprofessional it is, all for the sake of personal advancement.

There are those who will claim this column asserts there is no room for commentary or self-promotion in the world of journalism.  To the contrary.  The problem is today some journalists see themselves as an arm of one political Party or another.  Hence, their popularity may grow within one political sphere and dislike for an individual may grow and add to their celebrity because of those who do not share their world view.  When this is a goal of a journalist, the lines get blurred between news and commentary.

Certainly the death of Tim Russert was a loss to the profession of journalism.  However, Russert's popularity should not be the driving force for young reporters.  They should be motivated because Russert loved the job he did so well and the professionalism he demonstrated along the way.  This should be the motivating factor for any young journalists and the lesson taken from Russert's career.  Yet many will come away with the wrong message from the praise Russert is receiving from many of his colleagues.  The truth is, if alive, the host of Meet The Press could have walked through any Midwestern mall and received a few nods of recognition, if any at all.  And the fact is, this is the way Tim Russert would, most likely, have wanted it.

 

Look for Part 2 in the series, which will deal with the blogosphere.  Journalism or Gossip? 

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected]   

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Comments

[Sara]

The Left worships itself and the media are 90% leftists. There is no God in Marxism. The party is god; socialism is its religion. When one of its leading members in good standing dies, it is as if Fidel died. The Nation is asked to mourn the loss of a great party leader. We should have military parades in the streets of New York with Obama, the party's great and all powerful leader, in the throne of observation! The most valuable part of the socialist party is it's most successful propagandists.

[Bob]

In this one event in history we learn one lesson, if you are not liked by a majority, you won't get a big funeral. To be nice--you must kiss .... to the higher ups in the field of interest. If you don't, no one will remember you for what you did, or what you said.
Today in this country, we are all being told to tow the right wing line or else "unkle censorship" will be here to stifle our outrage at the powers that be, for whatever redress we are crying out for.
It is not a political issue we are crying out about, it is a basic human right, which is being surpressed by those who know how to pull the chains of restraint upon the masses. It is propoganda which once again replaces truth, it is a fabricated mess of lies which is replaced a actual event, and it is a machine of will which feeds on itself, at the expense of freedom. This is what the Press in America today depends on--4 days of "Tim Russert-- How we never knew ye"
Thanks MSNBC and CNN !

[Sean Osborne]

I concur with the comment above [by Sara], the godless socialists have always been and always will be a threat to this consititutional Republic. I heard a Baptist minister once say a very resonating phrase:
"A democracy is for sheeple; a Constitutional Republic is for we the people."

I learned in talking with Laurie Roth on the phone well over a month ago that the Hannity team acknowledged her breaking the story on Barack Hussein Obama's terrorist ties with William Ayres, and how they back-tracked on a planned report and instead fraudulently went forward with the story and continue to this day to peddle the lie that Sean Hannity broke the story.

Thank You to Dan and RFFM.org for reiterating the truth we've been presenting since March 2008. http://theneinblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/barak-hussein-obama-his-questionable.html http://theneinblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/barack-hussein-obama-deceiver.html
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com