RSS Feed
Email Alerts
Facebook
Chris Bridges
COLUMN: Confusion abounds over definition of real journalism
Contrary to the belief of millions, Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist. Ditto (no pun intended) for the likes of Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and the other yackers who appear as part of “Fox News.”
This also goes for those on the opposite extreme like Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, etc.
However, many Americans have become confused — too much so — over what is and what is not journalism and especially who is and who is not a journalist.
None of the names listed above are journalists. They are talk show hosts who give opinion. Yet, millions and millions of Americans have had their brains warped to believe that when they watch these shows (not a news show, but a talk show) that they are actually watching the reporting of the news. It’s a sad state of where the mindset of many are today and how short attention spans have killed true journalism in many forms.
For years, I have called out Fox News for its outright slanted coverage. No one with any sense can say Fox does not have a right-wing slant. It goes beyond the talk show hosts who spew venom on a nightly basis. (I can sum up each one’s show right now: “Everything Obama and the Democrats do is bad. Everything the Republicans do is good. Thank you, good night.)
The entire Fox News outfit was founded as an outlet for Rubert Murdoch’s right-wing banter. There’s nothing illegal about that (unethical yes, illegal no) but when I hear so many say “Fox News is fair” and “Fox News is No. 1 in the ratings so what they say must be true” it makes me want to bang my head against the wall.
Just because you agree with the right-wing makeup of Fox News, does not mean it is unbiased. Even Brit Hume, one of the network’s top “anchors” is known for his right-wing stance on 99 percent of issues. Why do you think he was hired by Fox News in the first place?
Even the so-called news anchors on Fox are not hired for their journalist ability (at one time a requirement) but rather how attractive she is in a low cut, tighter than tight dress. Quite frankly, I can get that type of eye candy elsewhere if I so desire.
For the few of us who actually don’t reside at either extreme, there isn’t much choice for television news. You can forget about getting anything fair from Fox. MSNBC is the same on the left end of the spectrum.
CNN is the most level-handed of the three, but try telling that to someone who gets all their information from Fox News. People who subscribe to what Fox News dishes out have become so brainwashed they wouldn’t know what fair and unbiased journalism truly is. They will bash CNN, although in reality, the cable news network which started it all is as down the middle as anything we have today.
As we move toward the mid-term elections, I encourage people to not rely solely on one source for your information and especially don’t base what you think on the rantings of some talk show host. Atlanta-based talk radio personality Neal Boortz (also not a journalist) deserves credit for telling his listeners to never believe anything he says without checking it with multiple sources. At least he’s honest about his whole setup.
In watching a broadcast copy of the 1968 presidential election on CBS recently, one thing quickly stood out. The news anchors were reporting the news, not trying to influence you on how to think. Election results were given, discussed and gone over. No cheering for one candidate or party could be found.
Given the state of today’s choices, give me yesteryear every time. Being a true journalism outlet requires more than you agreeing with the slanted opinions of the hosts and the overall makeup of the network. I only wished more people could understand that. Instead we are left with unfair and biased coverage on a daily basis.
Chris Bridges is an editor with MainStreet Newspapers. You can reach him at chris@mainstreetnews.com.
However, many Americans have become confused — too much so — over what is and what is not journalism and especially who is and who is not a journalist.
None of the names listed above are journalists. They are talk show hosts who give opinion. Yet, millions and millions of Americans have had their brains warped to believe that when they watch these shows (not a news show, but a talk show) that they are actually watching the reporting of the news. It’s a sad state of where the mindset of many are today and how short attention spans have killed true journalism in many forms.
For years, I have called out Fox News for its outright slanted coverage. No one with any sense can say Fox does not have a right-wing slant. It goes beyond the talk show hosts who spew venom on a nightly basis. (I can sum up each one’s show right now: “Everything Obama and the Democrats do is bad. Everything the Republicans do is good. Thank you, good night.)
The entire Fox News outfit was founded as an outlet for Rubert Murdoch’s right-wing banter. There’s nothing illegal about that (unethical yes, illegal no) but when I hear so many say “Fox News is fair” and “Fox News is No. 1 in the ratings so what they say must be true” it makes me want to bang my head against the wall.
Just because you agree with the right-wing makeup of Fox News, does not mean it is unbiased. Even Brit Hume, one of the network’s top “anchors” is known for his right-wing stance on 99 percent of issues. Why do you think he was hired by Fox News in the first place?
Even the so-called news anchors on Fox are not hired for their journalist ability (at one time a requirement) but rather how attractive she is in a low cut, tighter than tight dress. Quite frankly, I can get that type of eye candy elsewhere if I so desire.
For the few of us who actually don’t reside at either extreme, there isn’t much choice for television news. You can forget about getting anything fair from Fox. MSNBC is the same on the left end of the spectrum.
CNN is the most level-handed of the three, but try telling that to someone who gets all their information from Fox News. People who subscribe to what Fox News dishes out have become so brainwashed they wouldn’t know what fair and unbiased journalism truly is. They will bash CNN, although in reality, the cable news network which started it all is as down the middle as anything we have today.
As we move toward the mid-term elections, I encourage people to not rely solely on one source for your information and especially don’t base what you think on the rantings of some talk show host. Atlanta-based talk radio personality Neal Boortz (also not a journalist) deserves credit for telling his listeners to never believe anything he says without checking it with multiple sources. At least he’s honest about his whole setup.
In watching a broadcast copy of the 1968 presidential election on CBS recently, one thing quickly stood out. The news anchors were reporting the news, not trying to influence you on how to think. Election results were given, discussed and gone over. No cheering for one candidate or party could be found.
Given the state of today’s choices, give me yesteryear every time. Being a true journalism outlet requires more than you agreeing with the slanted opinions of the hosts and the overall makeup of the network. I only wished more people could understand that. Instead we are left with unfair and biased coverage on a daily basis.
Chris Bridges is an editor with MainStreet Newspapers. You can reach him at chris@mainstreetnews.com.
Defined tags for this entry: Chris Bridges, Opinions
Related entries by tags:
- OPINION: Math 123: Failed policy masquerading as progress
- OPINION: Ludlow signs off for last time
- OPINION: Enjoying the simple pleasures
- OPINION: A little bio info goes a long way
- OPINION: Trying week for all involved
- OPINION: All in all, 2010 not a bad year
- OPINION: 25 things you probably don’t want to know about me
- OPINION: Family makes holidays special
- OPINION: ‘Dandy’ Don a trendsetter in broadcast booth
- Thankful for lessons learned
Howsomeever, I enjoy your work as well as the Fox folks. Opinions are all worth consideration Some where mixed in the fluff the wisdom of BEN FRANKLIN or POOR RICHARD will shine it's light.....
2) A lot of times we hear criticisms of journalists and journalism for various reasons, but we seldom hear individual journalists or news organizations present their philosophy of journalism. Chris, I also asked this of the editor of a competing newspaper, but at some point I would like to hear your thoughts on how much you think personal bias affects news reporting. Maybe your personal philosophy, as well as what you perceive the philosophy of others to be. If I were in your situation I would try to remain objective when reporting news and deciding what stories to print, but I'm not sure that it's possible for anyone to remain totally objective, and I would think that one's worldview has to shine through to some degree.
3) I also agree with the need for consulting various sources for news. Thanks for reminding all of us of that need.
I can only say you are a TRUE HYPOCRITE! Look how often you bash state politicians and then you want to talk about journalism. Sounds like someone has gotten into the kool-aid and forgot what their "journalistic" duties are. When is the last time that you wrote anything that was really centered? I can't go back and find it.
All I would ask is for people to answer simple questions like:
Do you believe in a smaller government?
Do you want lower taxes?
Do you want the government to make all your choices for you?
Do you want a cradle to grave society where the government provides everything for you?
Do you want the government to run your health care like they do social security or even the post office?
Just think Chris a government that can give you everything can also take everything away from you.
But based on your journalism skills (even back in the sports days- how you kept a job I'll never know) you probably want the government to provide a check for you every month while you actually produce 'nothing'. hummm seems like your situation now- you actually get paid for nothing - your quality and facts are pitiful
1. a learned person, expert, or authority.
2. a person who makes comments or judgments, esp. in an authoritative manner; critic or commentator.
A political pundit, whether liberal/progressive, moderate or conservative, is a LOT different than a talk show host. Oprah, Ellen, Jay Leno, etc. showcase popular culture that SOMETIMES veers into political territory, but they aren't political scholars. They only cover what is popular at the moment (i.e.: John Edwards’s affair, Sarah Palin's teenage daughters’ pregnancy, etc.).
People choose to watch the pundits on Fox, MSNBC, or CNN because they WANT to hear discussions of politics and news that mirror their (the viewers') personal moral beliefs and values.
Neal Boortz, it should be noted, is NOT a conservative or a republican. He leans toward Libertarian beliefs (As I remember, Libertarianism is something that you are sort of fuzzy on.) Check out www.boortz.com to gain some clarification on that issue. As Neal says, "Don't believe anything you read on this web page, or, for that matter, anything you hear on The Neal Boortz Show, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your satisfaction. This is known as "doing your homework."
I think YOU need to be willing to put in the required "homework" time that a genuine, authentic piece of journalism requires. That way you would avoid train-wrecks like this article in the future!
Why don't you listen to FOX News and then make your judgments? I happen to listen to them and "FAIR AND BALANCED" is more than just a slogan.
They are very fair (Bill O'Reily/Glenn Beck/Hannity) in noting the good that Obama does, there just doesn't happen to be too much.
I hope you are pleased that our nation is becoming a nation under a dictator.
Apparently you missed that whole 'Cronkite worked for the anti-war movement' story....
True journalism, in it's purest sense, has NEVER existed. Every propagator of information has an ulterior motive...be it Thomas Paine, Willam Randolph Hearst, Cronkite, Rather, or Hume. True, some outlets may be more balanced than others, but don't dare EVER portray ANY organization as pure - because it doesn't exist and never has.