The "Journalist" Grand Finale

Last words and a pragmatic revelation

My two Substack “Journalist” articles resulted in a “zesty” discussion with Jim Bovard (Last Rights, the Death of American Liberty) on our weekly “2 & Only” podcast. While many excellent ancillary points were raised, the two takeaways:

#1 Both pieces were based on the belief in the vital importance of accurate, unbiased news reporting vs. the mis- and disinformation disguised as “news” regularly inflicted on audiences, recently blown up by “journalists” at MSNBC, NBC. My ham-handed effort was to explain an “ideal solution” would require a “journalist” to meet the same professional standards and ethics of a doctor or attorney; news content was that important. Also, I stated a Code of Ethics would be peer-written with an enforcement provision of some structure for any “journalist” who crossed the ethical line. While sharply focused to me, it was clear as mud to friend, Jim who also had a staunch ally in my journalist/writer/researcher wife. Warm conversations ensued establishing, to the contrary, my scribblings did not succinctly accomplish the intended goal. While excellent points were made all around, there was no unanimous consensus – likely due to the premise being poorly presented. My objective remains: anyone assuming or accepting the “Journalist” title like many at NBC/MSBNC, has a professional and moral obligation to present the unvarnished truth. A story littered with editorial snark fails the Objectivity test and should be properly posted on the Editorial page. The leaven of opinion changes the definition of “news”. Yet that’s what’s offered around the dial in News and News Programs.

#2 The “winner” in our tug-of-words was professional writer/author/innocent-looking-bystander, Jim Bovard with his assessment: I see “journalist” as an occupation more than a title.  In daily life, the term is simply another one of the flags of convenience I use – along with writer, reporter, investigator, muckraker, hooligan, policy analyst, author, and “innocent-looking bystander.”

One reader stated: “Well, least you didn’t need a Halloween costume.”’

Another takeaway:

The futility of meaningful discussions about complicated issues in print. To be productive, it would be necessary for participants to agree on the subject, terms, definitions, semantics, entomology, context, content, and other ‘ingredients’ I’ve probably overlooked. Many comments revealed an emphasis on a point irrelevant to the subject. There may have been understandable reasons for that, nevertheless, those comments were off-topic. On some points, the conversation collapsed of its own weight. Regardless, the main objection (mine) remained: “journalists” – as they are routinely defined - at MSNBC/NBC (and others) are destroying the quality, accuracy, and sanctity of News and sustaining an ill-informed viewer without accountability beyond losing listeners and the trust of those remaining. The only worthwhile result from the detonation of egos at 30 Rock was the audience witnessing the bias of a temper fit of management hiring a political leper.

An Unexpected Revelation

Shortly after the NBC kerfuffle, my subsequent articles, podcast, and Jim’s rejoinder came an “editorial”/opinion piece by Uri Berliner, a senior business editor at NPR. While focused on his assessment of the loss of news coverage and content quality at NPR, I found his discussion revealing, on point, and informative on news and the practice of journalism beyond his newsroom.

As expected, this was followed immediately by NPR’s “defense”, written by one David Faulkenflik. Intentional or not, he cited revealing comments from retired Washington Post Executive Editor, Martin Baron. Tracing the devolution of newsroom attitudes and practices resulting from events that brought on the misnamed “social justice movement”, Baron “feared the bonds with his staff had been ‘frayed beyond repair’, especially over the degree of self-expression his journalists expected to exert on social media…”.

This was a significant insight that explains much of the problem, whether journalist, reporter, or ‘news consumer’. Bipolar schizophrenia is rife among those gathering, writing, producing, and reporting what we are presented as “News”.  As a group, they are mere spoiled brats, foot-stomping, my-way-or-the-highway snots demanding the rest of the profession and the audience accommodate their woke, self-aggrandizing myopia, not only how the News is covered, but their instance of a Jeckle and Hyde existence accommodating their delusion of providing a professional news product from 9 to 5, then morphing into their other personality that has a 007 license to say and do the opposite – with no regard for the credibility or integrity of their employer or the exactitude required of their work.

So Eureka! Journalism, journalists, news reporting, and the audience have all fallen victim to the lowered standards of the kiddie warriors of the social justice generation, the accommodating deference to lower standards by Journalism Schools, and the minefield maze of employer-employee regulations preventing the discipline, structure, and tradition necessary for quality content.

An appreciative doff of the fedora to Mr. Baron.

BW

Thanks again for reading this far. Free subscriptions are still available for you or your local masochist. If already subscribed, you know the “2 & Only” podcast is on deck tomorrow! You’ve been warned!