Journalistic objectivity Is Sadly A Laugh

This may sound like one of those "I used to walk to school in the snow" stories. Or, an all too typical "old coot" telling how great it used to be. I hope not. I'll apologize upfront if I seem over zealous about this subject, but it's truly too important to ignore ( obviously, it's on my list of those things that really chap my butt).



Whatever happened to objective, unbiased journalism--the kind that was drilled into our heads by the faculty at The University of Oklahoma Journalism school back in the late 50's and early 60's? Part of the answer might lie in the name of the school--journalism, not today's genre of "mass communications" or "broadcast journalism," which in itself is too often a contradiction in terms. In my opinion, most broadcast news folks today are simply 'talking heads," or personalities, if you will. Most are not trained journalists and far too many couldn't write their own story if their life depended on it. The main requirement is for them to look pretty or handsome, have a pleasing personality, be able to read aloud and sound like they know what they're talking about when they don't have a clue. It's increasingly become a world of 60-second sound bites designed to entertain and garner higher ratings. Even if they are able to think for themselves, 30, 60 or even 120 seconds for a story is hardly time to develop enough facts with which a viewer or listener can come to an intelligent decision.



However, the problems brought about by lack of journalistic training and limited time in which to develop a story are only part of the issue. These faults are truly exaccerbated by a plethora of biased reporting and a propensity to use sources based on their interview abilities to shock and entertain rather than on their qualifications as being expert on the issue at hand. Unfortunately, such sins are equally shared by broadcast and print reporters alike.



Let's look at some examples, and there's no better time to do so than during the political season. Let's go back to the energy issue for a moment, whether we're talking about gasoline prices or oil company profits, we're treated by the media to such experts as Sen. Chuck Schulmer and his idiotic diatribes which I've previously discussed, Sen. Obama whose qualifications include a total of one-half of one year in the U.S. Senate following duty in the Illinois state legislature, a gaggle of movie stars and, if we're lucky, insight from Oprah who at least has some business experience to go along with her political bias. One thing you don't get are offsetting interviews with academic and industry energy experts--and God forbid they might even include folks from other countries to discuss this global issue.



This morning, I found a story on page 16 of the local McClatchy newspaper about alleged indiscretions by John Edwards, FORMERLY mentioned frequently by our media friends as a potential running mate for Sen. Obama. I couldn't help but wonder what page the story would have been on had it been about one of the Republican hopefuls. I saw a survey the other day from one of the media watchdog groups which track the amount of air time given the Presidential candidates. I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear that this group found Sen. Obama with a substantial lead in coverage, both broadcast and print. When asked about this, I couldn't believe the defense offered by one of the major networks--"the reason is because he is the first black nominated by a major party to run for president--that's very newsworthy." Well, I don't disagree that's newsworthy, but the last I checked, John McCain is the first former POW to be nominated by a major party as their presidential candidate and one of the oldest. The three major networks sure as hell didn't send their evening news anchors with him on his multiple trips to the war zone. Have you noticed that when Sen. McCain, a highly decorated veteran with strong military educational credentials and years of Senate exposure to defense issues says that the surge in Iraq is working, he is labeled by the media as a "Bush lackey." On the other hand, when Sen. Obama, with no military experience and a half a year's total experience in the Senate, refuses to concede that the surge has worked despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, his qualifications for such an opinion are never questioned.



I can give you more examples than you have time or the desire to read, so let me leave you with just one thought. Do yourself a favor and don't believe everything you hear on television or read in the newspapers, particularly when the "authorities" quoted are without qualifications. Seek multiple sources of information, not to mention applying some good old common sense to what you read and hear. Demand facts to back opinions and question the motives of those being touted as "experts."



Sorry for the length and rambling style of this pontification.