Most of you guys are too young but this is a great piece:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...7/18/cronkite/
Printable View
Most of you guys are too young but this is a great piece:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...7/18/cronkite/
Unfortunately, I'm not....Quote:
Originally Posted by Warpe
2 cents for what it's worth...
1. I still think Cronkite made it acceptable (or at least took the practice significantly further...) to extend well beyond pure journalistic reporting and make the journalist a "position" role - one influenced by personal philosophy. For better or worst, I think it was the beginning of the end for any commercial market for purely fact-driven news media.
2. I actually liked Russert, as probably the best of a poor bunch. In general, I think TV news media is crap. You can predict whether an interview will be hard or soft purely by the political bent of the show host. Unfortunately, this is no less prevalent in other media - print, online, etc. (Has a position piece by Ariana Huffington ever surprised anyone?) But TV is just plain awful. I will say one thing for Russert - he consistently asked uncomfortable (if not always tough...) questions of everyone who was on his show, regardless of who they were and what side of the aisle they sat on. Think what you will about his technical abilities (and I actually think he was one of the better informed...), he confronted everybody to the same degree no matter what his personal politics.
Cronkite, Jennings, Russert RIP. The mountain wasn't very high to start with, but god dammit if we aren't rolling down it fast and furiously....
ain't this the sh!t....Quote:
the forces of the inauthentic are becoming more powerful all the time.
Between Cronkite's death and David Simon stating that journalism is going in the crapper, I suspect that journalism is going in the crapper
You know what I'd like?
'k, nobody asked, but I'm gonna speak on it anyhoo...
I think you got four basic types of journalism -
1. Fact based. Tell me the who, what, when, where, how and be judged solely on the timeliness and accuracy of your reporting. When I wanna know the 90 day GDP growth horizon for Pakistan, I want the f-kin number, not some McKenzie-tard wannabe postulating about the whys and wheres of what he thinks... Same goes for every other kind of news.
2. Op-ed. I read it 'cause you are interesting and I want your flavor. Be provocative, and make a case for your position. Most of all, don't f-king bore me.
3. Counterweight. If it's a government program that's gonna cost me money, reputation, liberties or something else I value, I sure as sh!t want a f-kin bulldog asking hard questions repeatedly and nailing the @ssholes to the stake when they dodge 'em. Same goes for any decision that reaches a certain scale in the public space. Make 'em answer the tough questions or keep asking tougher ones. I don't want to know what your opinion is, and I definitely don't want it to flavor how tough you are. Get in there and make them justify their sh!t and enforce intellectual integrity.
4. Provocateur. Whoever's in front of you, make them work. Ignore their political leaning, background, whether they got nice tits, whatever makes you happy. Just use the oppty to give them a platform to run their beliefs through a worthy crucible. And be just as hard and combative with every motherf-ka that comes in front of you. Again, don't care what you believe, and definitely don't want it to affect your questioning.
I've come to believe that you can't combine these 4 types. Unfortunately, I think the only type we get regularly is a piss poor stream of #2 from people who think they're much more interesting and informed than they actually are. I'd really love some great sources for 1,3 and 4 – without having to immerse myself in a million sources and cut through the crap myself.