Same Old Story

Listening to the Diane Rehm Show this morning I hear some great discussion about the future of print journalism. Unfortunately it's obvious that some of the same attitudes that are contributing to their failure are still held.

I agree that a large percentage of quality investigative journalism is done by print. And what I put a lot of value in is persistence and continuity of a story. You rarely get that on TV.

The views expressed by one of the guests that some online blogs only repeat something that they heard somewhere else is entirely true. But while that's obviously true, there are millions of "Blogs", and they cover the entire spectrum from children to professional journalists.

Using that same criteria the same could be said of many "professional" news organizations.
I call it 'parroting', and it can be seen every day from TV news to online news to print. Sometimes it's checked for accuracy and sometimes it's not. Which makes me ask myself "what are all those researchers they have being paid for?". In the rush to compete, the 24 hour news cycle has done more to dilute the quality of the news than anything.

Add to that the consolidation of news orgs to the point that the small amount of "news" the average citizen makes time for is controlled by so few that the job of 'the 4th estate' is far from being served.

The reluctance of the 'dinosaurs' of journalism to change with the times is the greatest factor in their potential demise than anything else. By clinging to their arrogant and conceited attitudes regarding what they like to generalize as "blogs/bloggers" they're demonstrating that they just don't 'get it'. So much of the industry reacted in a defensive manner instead of thoughtfully and with open minds.

As I'm now learning personally and have observed with my father in his later years, (of course I'm generalizing here) the older you get the more resistant to change you become.
Things are changing so fast, plus, the perception of the speed at which things appear to change increases the older you get.

So is it inherent that organizations headed largely by an older generation are resistant to change, especially at the rate that's neccessary to change with the times and technology?

Trust in the accuracy of reporting is essential. Unfortunately that trust has been eroding for many of us that really pay attention to these things. Political influences have in all too many instances been injected into the process. 'Fair and impartial reporting' is hard enough to maintain through the process of delivering news. From the first person to tell others what happened on a hunting expedition to today it's a constant struggle to keep personal bias from unduly influencing the report. From the headline to the bottom line there are so many ways to influence a reader or viewer. I see too many similarities between the tactics of the advertising world and news organizations being used today.

If the majority of Americans were aware of the sloppy reporting and intentional deception as shown by people like those that run and contribute to "Media Matters" their trust would sink!

So as I hear these dinosaurs expressing the same ignorant attitudes today I'm not surprised one bit that their part of the industry is going the way of their namesake. It's a shame that they're taking a lot of good people below them down with the ship.