Real Journalism

I've been staying out of it. It's futile, it's frustrating and, as much as I love a good argument, they are too few and way too far in between on Fakebook and in social media in general. I've tried, I've failed. However, I will offer this:

I rarely ever watch FOX News. Hold on, let me stop you right there. I also rarely ever watch MSNBC or CNN. That does not mean I think they are equal, equally evil, equally fair and balanced or equally unfair and unbalanced - I never said any of that. I just said I rarely ever watch them. Why? So glad you asked; that is, in fact, the right question. Because I already know what they're going to say - all of them. And... so do you. Watching that swill - to either be confirmed or enraged - doesn't entertain me. I will check them all out, briefly, when really big shit hits the fan, just to see if I'm still right - and I always am. I always know exactly what they are going to say.

I get my news the old-fashioned way - from newspapers. A lot of people seem to be confused about the role of newspapers, and it is somewhat understandable as those same three cable outlets have seriously blurred the line between news and opinion/editorial. They are both part of news organizations, but they are separate and distinct operations, and, for legit newspapers, they have completely different personnel and facilities. Who is legit? Some of you aren’t going to like it, but The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal are all legit. Most major market newspapers as well as many local newspapers are, too.

Straight news - page one of the newspaper (when opinion appears there, it is rare and clearly identified as such) - is just the facts, the five Ws and the H - "who, what, why, where, when and how." They are written in the "inverted pyramid" style, which means the most important facts are up front and the importance continues in descending order such that if one reads the first two or three grafs (journalist talk for "paragraph"), one can skim the tops of the stories and have the gist. While there are some editorial decisions that go into news stories - they are written by real people, after all - we, real, trained-in-the-art journalists, try real hard to present just the facts as efficiently as possible, using as few words as possible. The headline and where they are placed in the physical paper (or even if they are placed) are editorial decisions not usually made by the writer.

All news organizations also have editorial departments that do have an ideological identity. They can be labeled conservative or liberal. And... there is nothing wrong with that. That is truly what freedom of the press is all about. The ability to freely criticize our government through two of the First Amendment's provisions - freedom of the press and freedom of speech - is uniquely American. Criticizing OUR government and its elected officials is not un-American. You are if you tell people who do to "get out."

So, FOX is Red, MSNBC and CNN are Blue - no one can really argue with that (I know, some do…), but there seems to be precious little news. The NYT and WaPo are Blue and the WSJ is Red, but each paper has a distinct and distinctly separate news department. And they produce news stories. I know many who would argue with that. They are wrong and simply comparing the news stories produced accounting for the same events from the different publications will easily verify that. The problem is that too many have already deferred to the cable news model, applied that to the one that actually works and made up their minds. That, and it seems no one really reads anymore.

When it comes to editorial content, I can count on the WSJ to express a conservative view, but even though it is owned by the same guy who owns FOX News, I do not know what they are going to say – that’s why I read it. The same goes for other legitimate newspapers. Today, the Ed Board for the WSJ commented ("Ed Board" editorials express the collective editorial voice of a newspaper) on the recent report of the positive economic indicators and what they mean. While I expected them to present them in a less positive light for this administration than it would for a Republican one (they did), they also have a reputation to maintain. That means they will not take liberties with the truth. The same goes for the NYT and the WaPo. I get not balanced, but I do get fair. And I read them all. The opinion sections also contain Op-Eds and other opinion from individuals who write for these publications or are invited to contribute. Often, “red” papers will offer “blue” opinions and “blue” papers will offer “red” opinions in their efforts to be fair.

They aren’t the only newspapers I read; in this “age of information,” getting newspapers delivered to my inbox is quick and easy. I get my local news from my local newspaper, the Sacramento Bee, and from local TV news — which, remarkably, reports news. It’s not at all in depth, but if I want a 20-minute digest of what went on locally, the Five O’clock News fills a need. The point is that social media doesn’t do a thing for me. At best, it will direct me to something I might not otherwise have heard about, yet, but if it is of interest, I’ll seek out information elsewhere — from a legitimate news source. Journalism, real journalism, still matters — more now than ever.