'Journalism' Goes from Low Standards to No Standards
Posted By Bobby Eberle On April 9, 2009
It's frightening what is happening in this country. On the one hand, we have a collection of elected officials in Washington such as Obama, Pelosi, and Reid who are hell bent on driving America as far left as possible. Don't work or strive to be better, just rely on the government... that's their motto.
On the other hand, we have a media that's delighted to help them. Rather than simply covering news events (which they do with a liberal spin), they also set out to make new events. Through "features," interviews, and "analysis" pieces, they create stories out of thin air in order to move the American public more to the left. But now, it's hit a new low. It turns out that not only is Katie Couric's interview with Gov. and then Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin considered "solid reporting," it is being rewarded with a "prestigious" award. What is the world coming to?
That's right... On April 15, Couric will receive the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Television Journalism. It is unbelievable that the words "excellence" and "journalism" are allowed to appear in the same sentence, since journalism has moved beyond reporting to advocacy. They have "their" issues. They have "their" candidates. They have "their" agenda. And, they will promote it above all else.
Forget journalistic standards. Those only apply if a liberal is being scrutinized. If it's a conservative, forget it! All bets are off, and anything goes.
The Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Television Journalism is being presented by the University of Southern California's Annenberg School of Communication. Couric's award in particular is under the category of "Special Achievement for National Impact on the 2008 Campaign." I can't read it without rolling my eyes. Since when is "gotcha journalism" considered a "special achievement?"
The award description is even more laughable. Apparently, Couric is being recognized for her "extraordinary, persistent and detailed multi-part interviews with Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin which judges called a "defining moment in the 2008 presidential campaign."
As documentary filmmaker John Ziegler writes in an op-ed on FOXNews.com, "[F]or Katie Couric, the poster child of news as 'infotainment,' to be the recipient of such an 'honor' is like giving John Murtha or Barney Frank a trophy for frugal spending in Congress."
It is obvious that Couric is being rewarded for the political result of her interview -- the shooting down of a conservative superstar just in time to save the Obama campaign. It’s not about the “journalism” at all. But even that truth is not the most outrageous aspect of this absurdity. What’s even more absurd is that not only shouldn’t Couric be getting rewarded for her Palin interview, if we lived in a world where journalistic standards still mattered at all, she would have been roundly condemned for it.
Ziegler is about to release his documentary titled Media Malpractice In it, he talks at length with Gov. Palin about the media coverage she received during the campaign. Here is a portion:
Any one who has followed what I have written about Gov. Palin knows that I have my ups and downs. I love and appreciate her conservative credentials. I also admire her no-nonsense approach to relaying those issues to the American public. It's what I try to do in all my writings... get to the point, let people know exactly where you stand, and give people the facts they need to make important decisions. On the flip side, there is no doubt she could have handled the interviews better. She was a journalism major and working in broadcasting! Anyone can see these "gotcha" questions coming from a mile away. She needs to do a better job explaining the issues that concern voters. They WILL NOT elect someone who can't talk about the issues of the day.
That being said, her response to the Couric questions does not justify Couric asking those questions. It was like the interview when then Gov. George W. Bush was asked to provide the name of a particular country's leader. He didn't know the answer, and it made the news. The fact is that there are tons of questions reporters can ask to stump a candidate, and the American people should recognize that such a practice is wrong. Couric did nothing but act as a tool for Obama and the liberal elite.
Organizations like the New York Times wonder why their circulation is going down, and MSNBC wonders why no one watches their political shows. It's amazing. More Americans consider themselves to be conservative rather than liberal, but the media preaches as if anyone who is conservative is out of touch. Rewarding Couric for her "journalism" is a slap in the face of any American who actually has a brain.
URL to article: http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=1267
6 hours ago
2 comments:
"Special Achievement for National Impact on the 2008 Campaign."
What's scandalous is not that Couric didn't have the national impact the Annenberg school is claiming, but that a school of journalism should be giving out an award at all for a journalist having an impact upon the event she's covering. The whole idea behind "objective journalism" is that the reporter remain completely outside the story, as a mere dispassionate chronicler, invisible and unsung. To praise any reporter for having impacted an election is...well, it's so far beyond the pale I can't even find words for it. It's frightening how swiftly the end has come for us.
I respectfully disagree with James. Reporters should be rewarded and awarded if they have a meaningful impact on an election.
I do agree that a reporter should be objective and that is the problem with Couric et al. They are not objective. Most all of them jumped in the tank for BO. On the otherhand, there are those that are in the tank for any Candidate that the rinos serve up.
So the keyword is Objectivity.
Post a Comment