Irresponsible reporting

[scaeagles]

I realize this thread is not about Newsweek per se, but if it is about shoddy journalism, of course that ties in.

The journalists of today typically do not just want to report the news. They want to make the news by being the person to break the big story. They want to be famous. They want to be the next Woodward or Bernstein. They want to find the conspiracy or the hidden truth and be the first to report it. In a world of 24 hour news stations and internet news sites and newspaper and local news and the nightly network news - they want to get noticed. The way to do this is to be the first person to report on the found "piano virtuoso" or to have a story published about the desecration of the Quran by US troops. (Interestingly, it is not reported where these Muslims got the copies of the Quran - being the US government.) Then the reporter becomes the story - being interviewed about how they broke the big piece, showing up on Larry King or Hannity and Colmes. This is why the New York Times reporter.....drawing a blank on his name, but he's the guy who was fabricating all sorts of stuff and got caught....did it. This is why Isikoff went with a huge story that had one unverified and unnamed source (I won't go so far as to say he made it up). Newsweek went with it because they wanted to be first. It's the same thing that happened with CBS and the forged documents.

Reporting actual news isn't enough. It must be sensasionalized. It must be the big story. It must be first. And accuracy be damned. It is things like this that continue to erode the confindence of the public in the media at large. This is not a good thing.

Edited to add: What gets reported in this way is typically negative stories. Reporters get famous most quickly by reporting news that will "bring someone down", a la Watergate. Political leanings come into play, whether to the left or to the right. I doubt you would find Isikoff writing a questionable and unverified piece putting any positive light on anything to do with Iraq or the war on terror.

[wendybeth]

I majored in Journalism in college, at least until I discovered it didn't interest me as much as I thought it should, and we used to take random newspapers from across the country for critical analysis. Our local paper, the Spokesman Review, was held up as a barely disguised gossip rag/political cattle prod for the ruling clan of Spokane, the Cowles. (They own the paper). That was twenty years ago, and it's still the same today- they are now being taken to task for their series on our mayor, and their role in creating the story as opposed to simply reporting the news. Anyway, the Christian Science Monitor and the Cleveland Plain Dealer were the two papers that achieved the highest scores for quality of reporting and adherence to ethical journalistic priciples. (I know, a bit of an oxymoron these days). I believe they are still two of the most respected papers out there.