Internet Only One Factor in Journalism's Slide Into the Superficial

The Wall Street Journal opined on this issue once. Their philosophy is not just to tell what happened, but how it will affect its readers.

On December 8, 1941, most newspapers ran stories about the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Journal was telling how industry was going to be affected by the ramp up of war production, both in terms of the coming lack of consumer goods, and the money that business would make producing war material

Journalists socializing with the people they cover is nothing new. Reporters have been drinking with Members of Congress for decades. Ben Bradlee, the editor of the Washington Post used to entertain the Washington elite at his house, as did his boss, publlisher Katherine Graham.

The idea is that developing a relationship gets the person to tell the reporter something, before someone else does.

There was a column in one of the auto trade magazines how one reporter used to get a lot of information out of Bob Lutz, then working for Ford, while chatting at the grocery store.

I think the problem is that Americnas don't have the attention span to follow serious journalism, whether it's an lengthy article or a long piece on television. I've seen newscasts in Canada that go into much depth than American newscasts. Perhaps Candadians, besides being more polite, have a greater interest in serious news.

I am a "freelance journalist" in the loosest interpretation of the term. I write random articles for online publishers. I give it everything I have but lacking the experience and camaraderie that the great journalists of the past enjoyed, I would most likely be considered at best a hack. Part of the problem is the lack of feedback the under-educated journalist aspirants receive. The lack of iron handed editors is in my humble opinion, detrimental to the industry. I have had plenty of experience with "evil" bosses, but that is not what I am referring to.

I am referring to the type of professional that expects you to do the job you are paid to do and will tell you the real problem with your work. One that takes pride in a job well done and takes it personally if he misses a typo in the final draft.

It is my humble opinion that we have too many people that are working for quantity and not for quality these days. I wish I was a better writer and I practice often. However, I am running out of decent writers to hold up as a standard to try to live up to.

Please don't take this as an affront, I am only saying that there is a lot of pressure on modern writers to be content machines of marginal quality because of the speed required in this day and age to keep up with the thousands of competitors.

I think the only way to halt the slide of journalism is to continue to hammer away at the examples of extreme negligence and unprofessional copy. Just as life is a journey of it's own, so to is the quest for personal and professional success. The battle will never be won, but it will surely be lost if we stop caring.

While I understand that this story is about the decline of news reporting, it also appears that you might be, ever so slightly, buying into the proposed FCC "bailout" of newspapers that many believe would be attached to the "kill switch" bill for the internet. The problem with print newspapers are the very journalists of which you speak. Left leaning or right leaning papers hire those that support their brand.
The American people want to know the truth, not some slanted version of what the newspaper WANTS to be true. We should know the good with the bad. No censors, no filters, just tell us the real truth. With many recent events, it's quite obvious to the entire Country that the mainstream media is censoring us from the actual news. Once the "hole" in the Gulf is plugged, mainstream media will have little to talk or write about since they run away from the real news of the day. This is why cable news such as FOX literally crush their opponents. At least, even with the right slant of the program, we are getting the real news. The internet will always be a valuable tool to weed through to find out what reporters and editors alike don't want to talk about. It's not as much the free fall into tabloid as is it is a free fall into self censorship.

A nice column. Sadly, journalism is going, or has gone, away.
One problem I have with modern news reporting, and the newspapers are not so guilty because of the time lag, is the tendency to report an event before the facts are in. I would cite the 'balloon boy' as one example.
As to the fair and balanced aspect of Fox, the balance come in when they offset
what all the DNC leaning MSM outlets are saying, or omitting.

For those of yous too young ( or that were not even yet born ) to remember when Walter Conkite retired, it signaled the end of an era of true jornalism - replaced by tabloids.
Our media is owned and controled (mostly) by organizations who's main business has got absolutely nothing to do with dispensing the news; for them delivering the news is a side-kick that (in some cases) represents less than 5% of their core business. As Americans, we are given the news "they" want us to know, while negating us what we should know - it's how they keep us in the dark growing mushrums on a steady diet of Britney,Tom and American Idol or other TV game shows.
As for TV journalism, they are an embarrassment that borders on insulting our intelligence; as I'm sure you have seen, the host will ask a political question and the politician will respond with 2 or 3 words that are pertinent, but will quickly "detour" into none-relevant conversation; the host is no bull-dog cuz, for the most part,since the firing of Dan Rather, they've all grown scared of their own job security.
No, I don't worry about leaving a debt to my kids and grand-kids ; I worry more about leaving them a very nasty planet and them growing mushrums in the dark - ignorants of domestic and world affairs.
Amy from Democracy now said it rather well : "our media has lots to sell, but very little to tell"

you can add to all those reasons additionally that this so called journalism has beccome a proproganda outlet, it is no longer relevant to the truth

When the word "impressive" is used as an adjetive to describe the writers here it personfies the author of the articles concept of supeficial. And the fact that this blog censors comments it solicits further adds to the notion that journalism and open inteligent conversation is indeed declining. The minute some group of writers acts out the notion that what they say is gospel and everything else said is suspect...begets exactly the last sentence of the author's article above...and I quote "Otherwise, we lose our credibility and turn into irrelevant members of the blabbering class."

if it wasn't for FOX NEWS nobody would let us know what is really going on!!

I believe the word "snarking" came from the internet and has set the guideline in manners, class and the love of words. Snarking.