Yellow Journalism

"Yellow Journalism"; a term I learned about and studied in a Junior High journalism class. For the sake of brevity (well, my version of brevity) I'll post the link to the Wikipedia for the term. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

It was taught to me as something to be avoided. Journalism, at least professional journalism, was supposed to be the stomping grounds of the objective reporting of information. Agenda based literary creations were for editorial pieces, not for serious journalistic efforts.

So, what happened?

I ask this rhetorically of course. I think we all at least partially realize what happened.

Money happened.

Well, okay, not money per se. The lust for money happened. News turned into business.

Journalism is one of those professions that should only be populated by the ethical. It should be the printed and vocal voice of freedom and liberty. It SHOULD be objective. It SHOULD be an honest dictation of fact (not necessarily truth, more on that later).

I think there are still quite a few journalists that aspire to this. Obviously however, I think that this lofty goal has long left large scale network  sources. The vast majority of programming I've seen for the past few years on stations such as MS/NBC and FoxNews have been editorial pieces and programs. All of them agenda laden and weighted heavily in favor of whatever political faction the stations openly support. The fact that they openly support ANY political ideology is a problem. You can't deliver objective information (there's no such thing as an objective opinion) if you start out supporting a pre-conceived conclusion.

It's a form of the scientific method. Even when attempting to prove a theory, you are supposed to simply gather the information and follow it to it's natural conclusion and then report the results. Even if it disproves the theory it's valuable. Problems arise when you selectively use information that supports your own beliefs while omitting information that doesn't or worse, creatively interpreting information to make it support your agenda.

Back in the 1980's Rush Limbaugh became a national phenomena banging away on the swell of conservative ideology born of the Reagan Presidency. Hugely successful radio talk-shows grew out of that era touting that they were a reaction to the heavily "left-wing" presence in main-stream journalism. Which, if I may be frank (instead of Bill), was seemingly true. There was a huge democratic / liberal / left-wing / (insert term of choice here) presence in main-stream news sources. Makes sense really. Most journalism students are usually more liberally or open minded. My opinion is that it comes from having a more artistic and creative thinking process. Doesn't make it right, just understandable. Conservatively minded people generally go into fields of study rooted in the concrete. They become engineers, accountants, stuff like that. Very left brained fields (scientific / analytical). People who are controlled more by their creative right brain tend to be in those fields: the arts, literature, drama, history, basket-weaving and amateur hydroponics (kidding a bit).

Unfortunately, these programs weren't just popular with audiences of like-minded listeners. As usual, this draws advertisers and sponsors. Money is then made in basket loads. Making a great deal of money is attractive.

I used to enjoy Rush Limbaugh's program but I never took it seriously. It was great fun to hear him bashing away at the "socialist pin-heads". It was not however considered journalism. It was editorializing for the sake of entertainment. No different than what a political satirist does in a stand-up routine. You weren't supposed to use it for the foundation of a political belief system. But, the ignorant and lazy did. Now, the ignorant and lazy still do this but they can point their greasy fingers at a main-stream news agency that touts it's veneer of "we report, you decide".

It's not just Fox News I'm talking about. At least when Fox News started it made no if, ands, or buts about it's intentions. If you were smart you already accepted that the information was being delivered from a slanted podium. I don't however think it should have been copied or emulated. Now we have a slew of liberal / socialist / "democratic" talk-show hosts and media outlets using the same excuse the conservative shows used when they were born. They are trying to say they are a counterbalance to the huge conservative voice.

You aren't supposed to emulate a mistake. If anything it makes you more at fault than the person who came up with the idea.

I should probably clarify that I'm reasonably conservative. Duh, like you haven't figured that out. I happily labeled myself a conservative back in the 80's and 90's. However, as both political parties become less and less ideologically opposed I have recognized that I am actually a Libertarian. Probably explained a lot to some of you (if you haven't read my previous blogs that is).

What is being proclaimed as "news" is more like sensationalist propaganda. Stories are presented with the goal of guiding the viewer to a pre-determined conclusion.

The new version of Rush Limbaugh in my mind is Ed Schultz on MS/NBC. I really can't stand that guy. Not just because he is simply a clone of Limbaugh / like the "Mirror, Mirror" version sans the goatee (shout out to the Sci-Fi geeks who caught that). Not that his views are "evil", but they are sensationalistic and predatory, just like Limbaugh's.

Where I work I'm kind of close to Ed's former stomping grounds. I've talked at length with persons who knew him prior to his current fame as the bulwark of liberalism. Besides being a Sports-Caster in the Fargo-Moorehead area of North Dakota (a pretty good one from what I understand) he also tried his hand at (drum-role please) conservative talk radio. Yup, my source tells me that he was an abysmal failure at being a right-wing mouth-piece. He then apparently followed the pay-check towards his current position of a liberal mouth-piece.

Now, what you just read meets the definition of "yellow" journalism. It's obviously slanted against Ed Schultz. Do I know the guy, no I don't. Is anything I just said based in fact? Yes, it is. Check his Wikipedia page (God love those volunteers at Wikipedia.org, they should be making a lot of money for what they give). However, the language used was designed to lead the reader to a predetermined conclusion about him.

The person I claim to have gotten the information from is a real person, I work with him. While the information given was confirmed by "independent" sources the "color" of the information he had for Mr. Schultz is clearly influenced by his personal opinion. I then tainted the way that I provided the information in a way to convey that opinion to the reader. I communicated "facts" but not "truths".

Mr. Schultz explains that his change of political idealism was based on his change from money grubbing "conservative" to kind-hearted and concerned liberal. Whatever the reason it would not be unusual for someone to change their opinions on a topic as a result of experiences during their maturation. During the Reagan Ear there were plenty of self-labeled democrats that then called themselves Reagan-Democrats and placed themselves within the moderate to conservative arm of the democratic party. A person can accept this subtle change of opinion but for some reason groups of people are suspicious and cynical about it. A "leopard changing it's spots" argument. And depending on how the information is communicated makes a difference in how the information is perceived. This makes the battle that counts to be not the difference between "fact" and "fiction" but between "truths" and "half-truths".

More and more our choices for news and information are being colored by this opinionated editorialization. Why not? It's certainly much easier to write an article, state it as an opinion piece and thereby protect yourself from the expectations of accuracy. But, at least label what you're doing as an editorial. Don't write an editorial piece and present it as an accurate presentation of information.

The more astute viewer / reader can tell the difference. However, and this is my opinion, people are getting more and more ignorant. From what I see the average person can power up an electronic device and function but don't bother trying to get them to reason or formulate an opinion by analyzing relevant information. They can say yes or no to the "do you want fries with that" question but discerning opinion from fact, forget it.

My grandmother (God love her) was the perfect example. Brilliant in her own way but as far as she was concerned if it were printed in the paper it might as well be gospel. That's why it is the responsibility of the people providing the information to classify it's relevance and accuracy to it's audience so that they can know how serious to take it.

This would be great if that were the only problem with the major news outlets. Unfortunately, it isn't. Not only are they a factory for opinion but they are also making themselves the vanguard of the political machine. Instead of being the watch-dog of liberty, keeping an eye on what the dirty rascals we elect are doing, they are instead protecting and facilitating the corruption that is so obviously inherent in the members of our political system.

There's nothing wrong with the Constitution. There is nothing wrong with the way the electoral process was set-up. There is nothing wrong with the intended system of checks and balances. As always the problem lies with the people implementing those systems. If the branches of government are conspiring with each other how can they prevent each other from violating our freedoms and liberties? Well, they can't. And if the organizations in the press are not objectively watching for this and reporting the "evil-doers" to the masses so that the recall elections can be started then we're on our own. And, at the end of the day, if "We the People" are too lazy and cynical to actually try to petition and recall those we have deemed unworthy then we get what we have coming to us.

By all means make every attempt to stay informed but be careful as to the source.

Peace and God Bless.