Michael
Aug 17th 2009, 03:56 PM
This is a common topic out there, though few ever state it this way. I'm a bit hesitant to frame the issue that way for the simple reason that I don't believe that journalism has ever been anything but what it is now - shallow, elitist and usually either self-serving propaganda, or corporate-serving propaganda. In my opinion, that's all journalism has ever been, so I don't see how the present state of the trade would represent some kind of 'decline'.
Here's a perfect example...
New York’s Indispensable Institution
The NYPD’s crime-fighting sparked the city’s economic revival and is essential to its future.
In 1990, murders in New York City reached an all-time annual high of 2,262. Six years later, they had dropped over 56 percent, to 984. By 2008, homicides were down nearly 77 percent, to 523, and all felony crime was down over 77 percent.
Source (http://www.city-journal.org/2009/nytom_nypd.html)
This article just repeats the same conventional wisdom that is favored by the corporate and city ruling elites in New York city and has been completely debunked. Fact is, the crime rate dropped massively in every major urban center across the USA at the same time. How NYC policing managed to cause a drop in the crime rate in Cleveland at the same time is beyond me.
So one has to conclude that this article written by a journalist is just pure bullshit that they didn't bother to do any research at all on. They just pumped out some conventional wisdom that they and their friends agree on and they used that to claim that NYPD's crime-fighting is essential to the city's future.
That's journalism in a nutshell. Conventional wisdom, propaganda, lies and bullshit, all rolled into one nice neat little article. All in a day's work for journalists.
* * *
Another example can be readily found every time one sees an article purporting to address the "decline of newspapers" (which is a topic near and dear to journalists). Let's just say that if you see the word "internet" in the first paragraph of the article, you are reading more of that 'conventional wisdom, propaganda, lies and bullshit' that journalists spew out at alarming regularity on almost every topic.
Fact is, I remember reading back in the early 1980s about the decline of newspapers and how their business model was in deep trouble. The predictions were that by the year 2000, none of these newspapers were expected to be around. And these predictions were based on a world that was pre-internet. Now, more than twenty years later, as we've watched the newspaper industry do exactly what was predicted in the early 1980s come to pass, we are now faced with breathless journalists trying to tell us about how the internet killed the newspaper. Fact is, for those who were paying attention (or those who do the research) know that the newspaper business died back in the early 1980s and has been on life-support ever since.
* * *
So my question is, can anyone make the argument that journalism was at any time something respectable and not just shills shoveling corporate-serving bullshit because they are paid to do so? That's the definition of hackery and that's exactly what I accuse the whole journalism industry of being.
Here's a perfect example...
New York’s Indispensable Institution
The NYPD’s crime-fighting sparked the city’s economic revival and is essential to its future.
In 1990, murders in New York City reached an all-time annual high of 2,262. Six years later, they had dropped over 56 percent, to 984. By 2008, homicides were down nearly 77 percent, to 523, and all felony crime was down over 77 percent.
Source (http://www.city-journal.org/2009/nytom_nypd.html)
This article just repeats the same conventional wisdom that is favored by the corporate and city ruling elites in New York city and has been completely debunked. Fact is, the crime rate dropped massively in every major urban center across the USA at the same time. How NYC policing managed to cause a drop in the crime rate in Cleveland at the same time is beyond me.
So one has to conclude that this article written by a journalist is just pure bullshit that they didn't bother to do any research at all on. They just pumped out some conventional wisdom that they and their friends agree on and they used that to claim that NYPD's crime-fighting is essential to the city's future.
That's journalism in a nutshell. Conventional wisdom, propaganda, lies and bullshit, all rolled into one nice neat little article. All in a day's work for journalists.
* * *
Another example can be readily found every time one sees an article purporting to address the "decline of newspapers" (which is a topic near and dear to journalists). Let's just say that if you see the word "internet" in the first paragraph of the article, you are reading more of that 'conventional wisdom, propaganda, lies and bullshit' that journalists spew out at alarming regularity on almost every topic.
Fact is, I remember reading back in the early 1980s about the decline of newspapers and how their business model was in deep trouble. The predictions were that by the year 2000, none of these newspapers were expected to be around. And these predictions were based on a world that was pre-internet. Now, more than twenty years later, as we've watched the newspaper industry do exactly what was predicted in the early 1980s come to pass, we are now faced with breathless journalists trying to tell us about how the internet killed the newspaper. Fact is, for those who were paying attention (or those who do the research) know that the newspaper business died back in the early 1980s and has been on life-support ever since.
* * *
So my question is, can anyone make the argument that journalism was at any time something respectable and not just shills shoveling corporate-serving bullshit because they are paid to do so? That's the definition of hackery and that's exactly what I accuse the whole journalism industry of being.