The primary problem with even the better broadcast media is that they continually destroy their own credibility with the worst kind of pandering and screw ups.

For example the CNN’s report in the Travon Martin story which presented an audio recording which after enhancement created the impression that George Zimmerman had said ‘these fucking coons’. A report that was later refuted when another enhanced audio which made it sound like ‘these fucking punks’.

That’s an enormous error, the kind of thing that inflames people and sways opinion, yet what did CNN do about it? Better questions might be how did such a thing happen in the first place? Who was responsible for that decision, how did they make the decision to air that report, and how did they choose the supposed professionals who did the audio enhancement?

That’s the kind of thing that destroys people’s confidence in an organization like CNN and organization in my view that is already almost irrevocably compromised. My trust in them was already very low, yet I didn’t believe them capable of incompetence on that level, now I do. They do it to themselves by hiring people who are not qualified, by allowing people to make decisions who shouldn’t be in a decision-making position. It’s that simple, and that’s what you get when Press jobs, specifically the jobs in the trenches where the real work gets done, no longer attract the best people. When the pay level is so low, that you have to settle for what you can get. I believe that’s what’s going on at CNN as well as at press providers around the world.

Another incident, CNN’s reporting in Haiti, Where Anderson Cooper decided to make himself the story, when they chose to air the video of him supposedly coming to the rescue of a young boy who had been hit in the head with a rock or some such object. In that moment, Anderson Cooper became the subject of the story, no longer a reporter but now an active participant in the chaos being reported on in Haiti. I don’t fault Anderson for helping the boy, I fault him and his CNN staff for airing that video, specifically in the context of a news report, specifically in the manner in which they did so.

To me that looks like nothing more than self-serving promotional-ism, on Anderson Cooper’s part, who in my view is was engaging in brand building at the expense of the people of Haiti. I would call that going over the line. If it had been included in a larger report, instead of made the focus of the report, that would’ve at least been somewhat acceptable, yet I still cannot ignore the much larger ramifications of journalists becoming the story.

New media have got everybody trying to figure out what is acceptable and what is not, but when it comes to ethics, there should be some kind of standard that folks, especially folks who are at the top tier of the journalistic pyramid, must adhere to.

There was a time that I trusted CNN, I counted on them for reliable information, I no longer feel I can do that, even at the most basic level.

“Media silent when administration targets sources…

‘The administration’s aggressive pursuit of leaks represents a challenge to the practice of national security reporting, which depends on the availability of unauthorized sources if it is to produce something more than “authorized” news.’

What’s behind the administration’s fervor isn’t clear, but the news media have largely rolled over and yawned…

But that silence constitutes an abdication of the media’s role as a voice in shaping public policy. After all, the ultimate purpose of reporter shield laws and the defiant tradition of protecting confidential sources isn’t to make writing stories easier for reporters, it’s to ensure that publicly significant information comes to light.

If the news media publish sensitive information, fully believing it ought to be made public, how can they stand by without protest when the government punishes the people who furnished it?…

The challenge now is for the media to rediscover their voice.”

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/07/2783978/media-silent-when-administration.html

“It’s one thing to have this event be the aberration and be the one time of the year where the watchdogs let down their guard and have civil, polite and even friendly conversations with the people they cover. Again, I would really enjoy that. But the over-chumminess of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is not the exception, it’s now the rule…

But I guess I was looking for some indication of a recognition that this was a one time exception and that tomorrow morning we would go back to the hard questions about Yemen and dead civilians. But how many of you think that’s going to happen?”

While reading it, another item that could be added to Jay’s list cropped up from me. It came from this from Mr. Uygur:

“…it churned my stomach to see the press so chummy with the guys who run the war machine. That’s not some liberal, anti-military spiel. We need a military, obviously. But shouldn’t the press be the most vigilant in their watchdog duties with these guys?”

The point is how holding any kind of position AUTOMATICALLY marks someone as liberal or conservative or whatever label. (This is related to Jay’s #2 {bad actors] #3 [liberal bias], #4 [working the refs] and #7 [culture wars].) People are not allowed these days to hold views that seem to be against whatever their party bosses say should be the party line. People are not allowed to look at the facts and form opinions on their own without them being marginalized if those opinions don’t toe the party line.

I’ll call this “The elimination of party heterodoxy” but I do it partly tongue in cheek. The interrelatedness of all of these reasons and the resulting over-complication of causality makes me think that the reasons lie elsewhere. And for me it is the deterioration of the practice of journalism resulting from the corporatization, commercialization and conglomeration of media outlets.

I find it the most poignant and very convincing in explaining why people trust the media so much less. In short, it covers a litany of ways that journalists behave that is different from what citizens want and need from them. Not only have none of these things improved, most have gotten worse in the 16 years since Mr. Fallows wrote his essay. I think all of these things are primary and simple causes.

Of course, I think that this resulted from the corporatization, commercialization and conglomeration of the media.

Here are the highlights:
“Journalists justify their intrusiveness and excesses by claiming that they are the public’s representatives, asking the questions their fellow citizens would ask if they had the privilege of meeting with Presidents and senators. In fact they ask questions that only their fellow political professionals care about…They are interested mainly in pure politics and can be coerced into examining the substance of an issue only as a last resort…issues don’t matter except as items for politicians to fight over…the media’s language of political analysis is utterly separate from the terms in which people describe real problems in their lives..There was no overlap whatsoever between the questions the students asked and those raised by the anchors. None of the questions from these news professionals concerned the impact of legislation or politics on people’s lives. Nearly all concerned the struggle for individual advancement among candidates…Competing predictions add almost nothing to our ability to solve public problems or to make sensible choices among complex alternatives. Yet such useless distractions have become a specialty of the political press. They are easy to produce, they allow reporters to act as if they possessed special inside knowledge, and there are no consequences for being wrong…she refuses to acknowledge that secrecy about financial interests undermines journalism’s credibility…There is an astonishing gulf between the way journalists—especially the most prominent ones—think about their impact and the way the public does…This is why the most depressing aspect of the new talking-pundit industry may be the argument made by many practitioners:the whole thing is just a game, which no one should take too seriously.”

The whole thing is worth reading.

Except the first section which contrasts/compares ethics of journalists and military personnel. I disagree with the assumptions, assertions and conclusions of that section which mar an otherwise-brilliant essay.

[Re: my Ezra Klein response: Sorry! I meant to delete that first paragraph before posting.]

“The media regularly cover awards for their reporters, editors and producers. They regularly cover award ceremonies for movie stars, athletes, and business leaders. But they regularly ignore the far more important awards for people who ethically blow the whistle on corruption and suppression in both business and government, risking their careers and more to tell the truth to the American people.

Sure, the Pulitzers, the Academy Awards, the Heisman Trophy and the many business awards may seem exciting. But protecting the health, safety and economic well-being of the American people is important and serious. It is hard to conclude that recalling millions of defective automobiles and dangerous pharmaceuticals, exposing serious contamination of drinking water, lies about the BushObama wars and the huge subprime mortgage crimes should be outside the realm of news coverage.”

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/04/28