I share your concerns about the general publics view of "journalism." Today I think many view the news sources as one large conglomeration of print and television making no real distinction any more. They don't differentiate. I see most of the negative views of "news providers," if you will, beginning when the papers like the New York Times, consciously decided to allow opinion pieces to be among the "news stories" on the front page. That and the decision by the likes of CBS, NBC, ABC to incorporate their news departments into their entertainment divisions. With the birth of cable news the process of co-mingling reporting the news with presenting opinion became truly blurred, be it on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and sadly in my opinion PBS. Having served as the citizen representative on the editorial board of the Post-Star twice over the years, I know just how hard the journalists work to get the facts, and when sharing opinions keep it separate, but perception does matter, and I do think the views of the general public have been shaped more by the television news media than print journalism. And rightly or wrongly, trust in traditional media has declined to an all-time low.
One of my pet peeves is when people continue to refer to news providers as “The Media” as if we were all members of one club. I also ask, “How do you define Media.” What people see on the evening opinion shows is entertainment. It is not news. Their goal is to do things to get people to watch and make more money. While we certainly wanted as many people to read our print product as possible, I was never told to put a fire photo on the front page because that would drive single copy sales on news stands. We made decisions based on what we believe was the most important news of the day for our readers. I do have to disagree with you on PBS. I think they have a well-balanced newscasts and it is a nonprofit. I learn a great deal about what is going in the rest of the world from their broadcasts.
I agree PBS does strive to have "well-balanced" newscasts, and has for the most part accomplished that goal. My opinion of PBS was shaped by my years living in Israel. Time after time when they explored an issue regarding Israel, that I was familiar with, they would, following their general policy, present both sides of the issue. However, it appeared that when it came to Israel they would have a spokesperson for the Palestinian Authority and then the spokesperson for Israel was many times, not a representative of the Israeli government, but rather a person representing an Israeli group who disagreed with the particular action or policy of the Israeli government. Not exactly fair and balanced in my opinion.
I share your concerns about the general publics view of "journalism." Today I think many view the news sources as one large conglomeration of print and television making no real distinction any more. They don't differentiate. I see most of the negative views of "news providers," if you will, beginning when the papers like the New York Times, consciously decided to allow opinion pieces to be among the "news stories" on the front page. That and the decision by the likes of CBS, NBC, ABC to incorporate their news departments into their entertainment divisions. With the birth of cable news the process of co-mingling reporting the news with presenting opinion became truly blurred, be it on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and sadly in my opinion PBS. Having served as the citizen representative on the editorial board of the Post-Star twice over the years, I know just how hard the journalists work to get the facts, and when sharing opinions keep it separate, but perception does matter, and I do think the views of the general public have been shaped more by the television news media than print journalism. And rightly or wrongly, trust in traditional media has declined to an all-time low.
One of my pet peeves is when people continue to refer to news providers as “The Media” as if we were all members of one club. I also ask, “How do you define Media.” What people see on the evening opinion shows is entertainment. It is not news. Their goal is to do things to get people to watch and make more money. While we certainly wanted as many people to read our print product as possible, I was never told to put a fire photo on the front page because that would drive single copy sales on news stands. We made decisions based on what we believe was the most important news of the day for our readers. I do have to disagree with you on PBS. I think they have a well-balanced newscasts and it is a nonprofit. I learn a great deal about what is going in the rest of the world from their broadcasts.
I agree PBS does strive to have "well-balanced" newscasts, and has for the most part accomplished that goal. My opinion of PBS was shaped by my years living in Israel. Time after time when they explored an issue regarding Israel, that I was familiar with, they would, following their general policy, present both sides of the issue. However, it appeared that when it came to Israel they would have a spokesperson for the Palestinian Authority and then the spokesperson for Israel was many times, not a representative of the Israeli government, but rather a person representing an Israeli group who disagreed with the particular action or policy of the Israeli government. Not exactly fair and balanced in my opinion.