Journalists Must Speak Up
One of the highlights of the fourth annual UNITY: Journalists of Color convention last month in Chicago should have been the appearance of Sen. Barack Obama at perhaps the largest gathering of journalists in U.S. history.
The chance to see -- and question -- the presumptive Democratic nominee (his opponent didn't make it to the Windy City) was the highlight of the event.
Watching someone who could be the nation's first black president had to be inspiring for a room filled with journalists who spent their careers overcoming the toughest of barriers -- a reminder it's still possible to tear down the most improbable of walls.
But even Obama's appearance couldn't remove the shadow hanging over this gathering. I spoke with dozens of veteran and young journalists in Chicago and was surprised by the level of despair about the journalism profession, as well as their own job status. There was little hope of overcoming the obstacles being placed before them.
Most media companies, including newspapers, still make plenty of money. But Wall Street has placed unreasonable demands on companies to increase their profit margins. To accomplish this, news organizations have targeted the newsroom, cutting budgets, closing bureaus, and laying off thousands and thousands of journalists in just the past few years.
Minority journalists have been hit particularly hard. The American Society of Newspaper Editors reported in April that, for only the second time in 20 years, the number of minority journalists leaving the daily newspaper profession last year outnumbered minority journalists landing their first jobs.
The journalists I spoke with did not know how to fight back against this current onslaught; neither did they understand how the battles in Washington over media policy have impacted their profession.
Many journalists are unaware that their bosses have gone to Washington claiming -- despite all evidence to the contrary -- that greater media consolidation will save newsroom jobs and improve their news operations. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin cited this argument when the commission voted to lift the longstanding newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule -- which prevents one company from owning a paper and TV station in the same market -- last December.
Runaway media consolidation is the story behind the attack on quality journalism and the clear-cutting of our newsrooms. But you rarely read -- and then, only inside the business pages -- about media policymaking in the newspaper or hear about it on TV. You might read about jousting among competing media moguls. Maybe there's a small story about layoffs. Very rarely does anyone connect the two.
In recent years, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and the National Association of Black Journalists -- despite receiving financial support from corporate media companies -- have made the connection and spoken out against media consolidation (as has the Newspaper Guild). They must continue to keep up this fight and expand their efforts. But other journalist groups, like the Society of Professional Journalists, have not taken a stand.
Journalists and journalism groups must add their voices to the media ownership debate, just as they have spoken out strongly in favor of free speech issues and a shield law. Both issues impact the practice of journalism. If journalists do not speak out, their corporate bosses will be more than happy to fill that void.
It is also critical that journalists inform the public about the fight going on in Washington over media ownership rules. The public is too often excluded from participating in this debate even though they are the major stakeholder. Where would journalists of color be if it weren't for the people of color who took to the streets to fight for racial equality during the civil rights movement?
If the public knew more about why the media is struggling, why they're not represented equally, why the serious news they need is disappearing - perhaps they would demand that Congress and the FCC pass policies that support journalism institutions and independent news voices instead of weakening them
It is hard for journalists to imagine that the current crisis in the media industry is not a new one. Throughout our nation's history, the emergence of new technology has always disrupted the traditional media system and the marketplace that supports journalism. It happened with the creation of the telegraph, radio, TV, cable and now with the Internet.
During the previous battles, the government always adopted policies that favored corporate interests over the public interest.
It doesn't have to be that way this time. And if journalists join in the debate, we can build a media system that supports good journalism. That good journalism -- holding our corporate and government leaders accountable -- is what we need to nurture our democracy.
Journalists and journalism groups have to start fighting back if they want to once again feel hopeful about the future of their profession. This is not the time for journalists to hang their heads or flee the profession. Now is the time to fight back.
Government Relations Manager Joe Torres works closely with the policy and research staff to create Free Press' legislative agenda, lobby in Washington, D.C. and in the states, and build new coalitions that broaden the base of the media reform movement. Before joining Free Press, Joe worked as deputy director of communications and media policy at the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and was a journalist for eight years.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
32 Comments so far
Show AllI would like to think that a browse through CommonDreams would inspire your average, corporate media-illinformed voter to express . . . something.
And btw, Samski, this world does not have to be divided by either/or. There is always also/and.
Who/what is going to encourage your average, corporate media-informed voter to think more 'progressively?' Amy Goodman and DN or a browse through CommonDreams, complete with hysterical and wild posters?
Hello, Mister Chips!
I watch "Democracy Now" faithfully, and admire Amy Goodman.
However, my impression of Amy is that she is "sensible" to a fault, and shies away from controversial cans of snakes like the 9/11 events.
I don't know if she's solely responsible for DN's editorial content and policy, but just based on observation it's clear that the program is commendably willing to air viewpoints and stories that are ignored by the corporate media, or that challenge the corporate media spin. It's refreshing to be able to see a long interview with, say, Evo Morales or even Ralph Nader-- or to give Ron Suskind or Jeremy Scahill a wider platform to share investigative reporting that isn't co-opted.
Compared to pseudo-thoughtful corporate media infotainwhores, e.g. Charlie Rose, Amy's the proverbial breath of fresh air.
But she DOES play it safe, and either rejects or is skittish about dealing with matters like 9/11; my sense is that she is unwilling to expend any of her hard-earned "credibility" capital by even exploring the seamy underside of the official versions.
And that's disappointing-- because, as with all of the "anti-tinfoil" foes of 9/11 truth, she tacitly endorses or buys into the cover myths with such studious silence.
lwhunt:
Brokaw, Blitzer, Couric, Russert, et. al. have been "shining Walter Cronkite's shoes" all this time. Walter Cronkite is a strong proponent of the World Federalist Movement (i.e. One World Government, New World Order, whatever you care to call it). To listen to Cronkite talk about it, it sounds superficially wonderful, a one world governance which supercedes sovereign nation states in establishing World Peace. I'll be nice and let it pass that kindly old Walter may merely be locked in a "Kumbaya moment". However, as becomes more and more apparent, the globalist push is merely 1984 on the grandest of scales, as the dumbed-down herd watches distractedly and helplessly as the elite mafia factions carry out their "hundred years war" to decide who will be in charge of this One World Goverment.
jclientelle:
Please don't confuse what Truthknoller was saying about 911 and Bldg. 7. Please do more research on this matter--you'll find it very interesting. The fact is that a number of media organizations were televising LIVE that Bldg. 7 had fallen more than 20 minutes before it actually fell, one glaring example being the BBC. This is reminiscent of JFK's assasination being reported in New Zealand and elsewhere before it could have been possible to do so. Background stills or delayed feeds are among a number of feeble explanations given by the broadcasters for the Bldg. 7 "glitch". The BBC moderator on 911, when questioned later, actually tried to deny even being at work that day until confronted with the video. The female BBC reporter he was interviewing LIVE with an intact Bldg. in the background was told not to talk. The BBC, Popular Mechanics, The "History" Channel, and others have aired a number of laughable productions trying to dismiss and discredit proponents of 911 Truth. What's with Amy Goodman, who knows. Maybe it's the funding from the Ford Foundation.
The vast majority of MSM jounalists are either, prostitutes or stenographers for their wealthy,right wing, elite corporate publishers, and I should know as my sister is a publisher. Kill your T.V. and Newspaper news and surf the net; otherwise,you are being brianwashed.
"Journalists" will continue to say what is within the confines of the talking points filtering down from the higher corporate offices within the networks. None of the talking heads on the MSM are in any way "journalists". They are paid TV actors reading off a network-controlled script. Those like Tom Brokov, Katie Couric, Chris Matthews, Wolf Blitzer, all of the FOX clowns, or even the late Tim Russert aren't worthy of shining Walter Cronkite's shoes.
Truthknoller - IF what you say is true regarding what you observed, the most logical explanation is that Amy Goodman was using a picture or delayed clip of building 7 rather than live streaming. Or are you saying Amy Goodman was in on planning the attack? - weee ooooh.
As the Greeks used to say "First secure an independent income, then practice virtue." Everyone except the wealthy has to be paid, so it is not going to work to make reporters choose between rent, food and truth. There will never be a news corp made up of celibate childless Essenes, nor should there be. So the issue of who gets hired and who gets paid to report the news is significant. Ideally we would have a diverse corp that is allowed time and resources to search for facts and answers.
Getting news to the general public who read newspapers, listen to radio and watch TV is also important. I do not believe that the advice to go to the computer is enough. It's hard hauling the computer on the subway or into the bathroom. It's dangerous to use the computer while driving.
I am happy to see these reporters assessing their situation critically. Once again it makes me think there has to be a way to develop a financially sound, alternate independent progressive news consortium of some kind.
Meanwhile, thanks Common Dreams - along with Democracy Now, I depend on this site for news and commentary.
Just wait till they start handing out journalism jobs to H1-B's that will work cheaper than American journalists. After all, how much skill does it take to be a stenographer?
Lobo Gris
This is a great topic, Joe Torres, but the postulates you highlight are hanging in mid-air, just like the TRUTH you forgot to comment upon !!
For example, the article just above yours here today has Amy Goodman, well known journalist, extolling the virtues of not muzzeling protestors at the upcoming political conventions; and the atrocity of caging disent and dissenters by police. Joe, Amy Goodman was on live TV on 9/11 reporting that bldg 7, World Trade Center had collapsed; problem being, over her shoulder on live TV Bdgd 7 can plainly be seen still standing--all 47 stories of it's skyscraper--still standing. Then later, Bldg 7 neatly imploded and fell to the street in it's very own construction footprint ! To my knowledge, Amy Goodman has never answered questions on how she knew, or who told her that Bldg 7 would fall at 5:28pm on 9/11?
Katie Couric, whom you may know, recently spoke out saying she felt pressured by her network (Then CBS) not to report anything critical about the Bush Administration handling or involvement on 9/11 attcks.
A very well known former Press Secretary has just released a book admitting the Bush Administration lied to the public on Iraq having WMD's, in order to justify attacking a defenseless sovereign nation, and a 5th rate Dictatorship.
So, Joe, journalists are speaking out==and why they do not fit into your equation where mega-corporate ownership of major media outlets is EASY to see !! Most journalists are still pandering to the BIG LIE about the criminal attack on NYC on 9/11/01 !!
Do they really believe King George's story line that a cave-dwelling boogie man, and 19 airline school flunkouts pulled off the technical genius which was 9/11 ???
Be they journalists of color, or non color, why is not your point of "good journalism" taking in reporting the 'TRUTH' of the biggest attack on us since Pearl Harbor ??
The third Convention on Media Reform was held recently (Bill Moyers keynote speaker both years) very on point about megacorporatism, and I presume you were there !!
So Joe Torres my point being how about encouraging all journalists to finally report the TRUTH of Government involvement in 9/11, as one way to gain grassroots support for the plight of all journalists ??
Journalists today are just psyops specialists.
Collectively, those journalists on the left and right play their role in the application of the Delphi technique being employed to achieve the consensus desired by the ruling elite.
http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/focus.html
Those foreign journalists in areas of conflict are essentially intelligence agents hiding behind journalist credentials.
You can not believe anything from the corporate media and even the articles posted on the various blogs are not a product of good journalism. More like advertisements selling a product for the target audience. Then the discussions are hijacked by agents employing the Delphi Technique to ensure nobody can turn the discussion towards the truth.
Good journalism presents both sides of an issue fairly. It's pretty hard to find today.
You are being brainwashed. As Mark Twain said, those who do not read the newspaper are uninformed, those who do are misinformed.
You mean the media as we know it is dying? I thought it was already dead. Long live the Queen.
Money has always supported, and in many cases, initiated injustice. It is how they make millions.
And advertising works. Whether in the form of pseudo-news that most mainstream media have become, or failure to report anything that would upset the status quo, the public should have no faith in our mainstream media, our corporations, or our elected officials.
Don't support the corporate status quo, vote third party, vote Green party.
Boo hoo! The old media are dying, and didn't they do a wonderful job while they were alive!
Remember the waves of criticism that crushed Bush/Cheney's bullshit rationale for invading Iraq?
No wait...
The old media got down on all fours and cheered!
Remember the in-depth analysis that defeated the insane tax rebellion which has gutted our schools, hospitals, and the rest of the infrastructure?
No, wait...
The old media got down on all fours and cheered!
Remember how the old media rang alarm bells night and day until sane environmental policies were adopted and enforced?
No, wait...
The old media more or less completely ignored the destruction of the biosphere until it was too late to fix it.
Boo hoo! The old media is dying, and now who's left to endorse the lies of politicians and all the other big spenders who used to buy the news?
" Journalists, " are of many "colors". We have local, national, and foreign. We have serious and muckraking. We have politcal, social, cultural and even food journalists. The problem I have with this article is the bundling of print journalists with TV journalists. Are we to equate Lewis Lapham with Bill O'Reilly? Listen friends, most journalism is not "information" journalism, which deals with verifiable facts and truth, but "story" journalism, which gives us accounts of things that some find emotionally exciting, aesthetically gratifying, or personally meaningful in daily life. Not all print journalism is information journalism but all TV news journalism is storytelling journalism. FOX news is not going to take the time to explain to their viewers the difference between an assertion and an argument or dramatic narrative and factual information. It is up to the individual to decide which form of journalism they want to digest and if they want to live in a world that exists or one that doesn't. I have to admit this is why I have very few friends.
Jobs, jobs, jobs. It's always about jobs. If everyone in whatever career field would just stand for what they know is right, what a difference that would make. Journalists of color or not (if that is possible) are still as unwilling to go to the poorhouse as anyone, and will not stick their necks out to state the truth. But there is a way, and it is seemingly difficult, but winds up being extremely easy: it's called humility. That means you give up that ego, and take up subversive strategies which will not earn you more money, may cause you to lose the admiration of your acquaintances, and other unthinkable consequences, but it will ultimately cause you to love your chosen profession and see the obstacles as challenges that you can outsmart, outwork, and ultimately triumph over. Was it Gandhi that said: first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they get angry and then you win.
marc melchiori sez:
There are real journalists, news and outlets for that news right here. Its up to us to enlighten the others. how many people have you made into everyday CD readers and followers. I have done my part - so far - how about you?
****************
Mark that's a nice start, but the missing ingredient in your proposition is $upport. The reason big money has effective control of the media is they have put their money where their mouthes are.
The advantage of "We the People" is that there are more of "us" than there are of "them" and our votes--both economic and political--(if harnessed in unity) can more than trump their momentary advantage.
"They" have convinced "us" to pay them to arrange for our own political, mental, and economic servitude. It's past time we turned the tables and cut them off root and branch.
Stop listening to and viewing media that does not support your values and start $upporting those media that do support your values. Put Common Dreams at the top of that list!
We still have the internet.
Develop it.
Fight for network neutrality.
There's a book Mark Hertzberg (sp) wrote back in 1988 about mainstream media, entitled "On Bended Knee."
... The title says it all!
I think I may have posted this before on another page, nevertheless, it still applies....
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."
President Abraham Lincoln
" [T]here seems to be nothing to prevent the transnational corporations taking possession of the planet and subjecting humanity to the dictatorship of capital.... In order to crush any thought of organized resistance to the supporters of the new world order, tremendous police and military forces are being used to establish a doctrine of repression...."
Christian la Brie, Le Monde Diplomatique (Paris)
"In the absence of a coherent alternative, the transnational corporations carry on inexorably. Increasingly flagless and stateless, they weave global webs of production, commerce, culture and finance virtually unopposed. They expand, invest and grow, concentrating ever more wealth in a limited number of hands. They work in coalition to influence local, national and international institutions and laws. And together with the governments of their home countries in Europe, North America and Japan, as well as international institutions such as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and increasingly, the United Nations, they are molding an international system in which they can trade and invest even more freely--a world where they are less and less accountable to the cultures, communities and nation-states in which they operate. Underpinning this effort is not the historical inevitability of an evolving, enlightened civilization, but rather the unavoidable reality of the overriding corporate purpose: the maximization of profits."
The Corporate Planet (Sierra Club Books)
When I started out in journalism in the mid-70s, it was a profession that was regarded with reverence almost. To be a journalist was to be among the elite - although the pay did not reflect that.
In my day, no company or advertiser would dare to try and dictate what was published. Now they do so daily. Reporters now are just that - they report what they are told to. They are no longer journalists - just parrots.
Now I am ashamed to admit I am a journalist by profession - although I have not worked for a newspaper in 15 years. I am now self-employed using my writing/editing skills to make a living outside of the journalism as I knew it.
This state of affairs did not happen overnight. We all saw it coming. It started with mass media buyouts and consolidations. Media moguls decided editorial policy. Politicians felt they were above the laws - and no longer had to listen to the voters.
Websites like this one ensure that those of us who still care can get the facts about what is really happening in our world. Trouble is, few people give a damn. Few actually vote and the rest are too busy lining up for the latest gizmo.
All we can do is keep trying. Giving up means the a'holes won.
These are MSM outlets that are putting up the redundancy/going out of business signs, or consolidating with other MSM outlets. If you get your lies, slanders and BS fairy tales from these entities, it makes no difference if there are 10,000 nationwide or a dozen. A Cokie Roberts, a Brian Williams, a Charles Gibson will lie to you or shine you on no matter what. The most vigorously dishonest, ass kissing ones, like the late Tim Russert, will always claw their way to the top. Stop watching them, listening to them or reading their words. That's the only remedy.
canuckchuck August 14th, 2008 2:38 pm
Thats 2 this week!
In just the past 10 days the American corporate media...
- Cebsored the revelation that a phony document created by the CIA, was ordered most likely by Dick Cheney, to try and link Saddam to Al Qaeda. An impeachable offense for sure but nary a word on national tv "news".
- Deliberately reported that Russia launched an attack on Georgia. The entire rest of the world's media reported the obvious truth...that Georgia, with American aid and money, attacked Ossetia.
- Haven't reported that a MASSIVE Naval Armada is headed to Iran.
None of these stories exist because the corporate media has conspired to make sure they're squelched. Where were any of these concerned "journalists" for the past ten days?
There's a real simple way for Newspapers to start making more money and profits...START REPORTING THE ACTUAL NEWS!
99% of the people who responded on the FCC's website OPPOSED further media consolidation. 99 freaking percent!
Yet the FCC decided to give the go-ahead anyway and allow ownership of a paper and a station in a single city.
Why didn't the minority or majority journalists report any of this with big blazing headlines? Were they unaware? Were they prevented? What the heck is happening here?
Control of the FCC is MORE IMPORTANT than control of the Supreme Court.
The court merely defines laws.
The media creates Reality.
re:
Many journalists are unaware that their bosses have gone to Washington claiming — despite all evidence to the contrary — that greater media consolidation will save newsroom jobs and improve their news operations. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin cited this argument when the commission voted to lift the longstanding newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule — which prevents one company from owning a paper and TV station in the same market — last December.
Hey, these are journalists for crying out loud... They get paid to dig up and report the facts!!! And the writer of this article wants me to believe that somehow, these turkey's were asleep at the wheel. So while the boss had these poor guiless reporters out covering the latest Britney or Paris scandal, the boss was in Washington making the case to eliminate their jobs and any other source of competition to the single source newsfeed, and these "reporters" and "journalists" didn't know anything about it...???
Hell, they're getting fired and laid off anyway, why not do something exciting.... Like reporting the truth...!!!
Turkey Journalists, you groveled to the boss, kissed his slimy ass and he handed you a shovel and told you to dig your own grave.... And you did it...!!! You did not do your job, act honorably and report truthfully and now you are in the same mosh pit as the rest of "pink slip" America.
No Job, No Health Insurance, No Heating Oil, Forclosed, and forgotten. And you could have done something about it by simply reporting the truth...!!!!
I would rather be a whore than a journalist these days..it is a more respectable profession, and you usually only have to fuck people one at a time.
These same economic forces have impacted all industries in the US, but the journalists only covered the success story of the corporation and the executives. Now that it impacts them personally, they wonder what they should do. If journalists cannot draw attention to their own predicament as workers, who can?
Right-wing control of mass media in the US is virtually complete. For proof, just look at the relentlessly positive coverage of the growingly senile John McCain in the US presidential campaign by the MSM media.
jj
There are real journalists, news and outlets for that news right here. Its up to us to enlighten the others. how many people have you made into everyday CD readers and followers. I have done my part - so far - how about you?
Yet another ugly story about the corporate gutting of the Fourth Estate in America, engineered by the wealthy elite who run the country. No honest journalists = no real news = no real democracy.
as a child in a small town in the rural western united states in the late 60's, i spent a great deal of time playing in the natural pine forests of that region...coming upon a large pit dug into the ground in the middle of nowhere, and discovering it filled with old, rusty appliances amid a pond of brackish, oily goo, left a memorable impression on me...no human need excuses this industrializing behavior, and no arguments made in favor carry any weight...we have no right to do what we do to our world...this is not an issue for journalists to write about, or congress to legislate on...corporate dollars, the subject of so much vitriol, are your dollars, and mine...keep them...forego the latest Batman movie...forego the Ipod or Iphone...forego the walk-in closet wardrobe and the convenience appliances manufactured to sustain it...forego the lawn sprinkler and the lawn...forego the plastic barbie and the plastic lego and the plastic pool and the floating plastic mattress...forego the car and the tires and the road it travels upon...forego the television and the people on it...my own truth about 9/11 ends with corporate oil dollars...starve these corporations by ignoring their products...
journalists never do well when crackdowns occur...no outspoken individuals do...many may be taking the low-road so as to still be around...
jclientele,
No, no, no! When the Greeks said, to first secure your income and then become virtuous, it set them back on the "evolve" scale. I'm sure that the likes of the very rich like the newspaper tycoon from Australia (Rupert Murdock) would promote that, though, unlike Jesus Christ who suggests that we take a look at the lilies of the field, who neither reap or sow and yet are dressed to-the-nines! And you know what? There are actually quite a few people who read and blog on this site who would tell you that it really works -- do the virtuous thing, and although you will lose everything, you will always have something to eat and a place to lay your head, and a peaceful sleep.