Our Blog: where do you stand?
Next Entry | Previous Entry | All Blog Entries | Subscribe to Feed
Tight-rope Walking in Media and Politics
By: Maya Lunnemann | 10/08/2008
After watching the last two debates and the never-ending analyses of the debates, I've realized that politics reveal a lot about the media. Has anyone else noticed how journalists are turning to other journalists to serve as “political experts” or “political commentators?” For example, how can NBC, FOX News, and other leading news organizations allow prominent journalists to serve as a political commentator and maintain a fair and just approach to reporting? It's a very fine line in my mind.
Do you think those who teeter between their roles as journalist and political commentator are practicing ethical journalism? Or should news organizations look to outside sources for balanced political commentary?
Posted in Reputation Management, Reputation Management
comments
Justin says:
Wed, October 08, 2008 at 2:20:pm
I’d rather hear from a journalist than somebody in a spin room or a party henchman who’s overly biased like Fred Thompson, who’s been on Fox News, and Paul Begala, of CNN. For the best analyst, in my opinion, look to CNN’s David Gergen. He’s worked for presidents ranging from Nixon to Reagan to Clinton, and he offers the most straight-forward, level-headed analysis I’ve seen to date. Of course, he’s strictly a political commentator now and not a journalist, so I may have just inserted my foot in my mouth ...
Dwight Wannabe says:
Thu, October 09, 2008 at 10:56:am
Which is why this libertarian believes in order to use the honored designation “journalist” you should be licensed. Any yammering talking head can yammer all they want, but you can’t put “journalist” in the chiron under your yammering face unless you are licensed.
Every three years your license gets reviewed. You go before a small panel or jury. It’s like the scene from Albert Brooks’ “Defending your life.” One person is assigned to present three examples of your bias. One person is assigned to present three examples of your fairness. If the panel votes that you are more biased than fair… You simply lose the right to call yourself a journalist.
Doctors must recertify. Teachers must recertify. Firemen must recertify. Accountants must recertify.
Why shouldn’t journos have to recertify?
Maya says:
Thu, October 09, 2008 at 1:31:pm
Hmmm… very interesting points. I was a little surprised about the Keith Olberman debacle, but why aren’t more news organizations that conscientious about balanced coverage?
Dwight - you make an interesting point about certification. It would certainly hold journalists accountable for how and what they report. Are there any practices in place for that type of accountability? For the journalists who are reading this, do you want to be held accountable?
Tammy says:
Tue, October 14, 2008 at 11:38:am
Maya: You really touched on a nerve with me. Journalists using other journalists as experts is one of my pet peeves. One of my clients (a former reporter) agrees. He says that every journalist brings their own filter to story - it’s inevitable. But when journalists use other journalists as a source, the filtering (or bias) is increased and the audience receives a weaker product. What is driving this practice? Of course it takes more effort to find everyday people or other experts to comment on subjects, but isn’t that part of what is required and expected? I’d love to hear this practice (of using other journalists/media sources as experts) defended. Maybe I’m missing something.
Chrissy Hugyez says:
Wed, October 08, 2008 at 1:36:pm
I agree that it is a really fine line. For example, consider the Keith Olbermann debacle at the Republican National Convention. It was impossible for him to stay impartial, and was pulled as anchor because of several comments leaning to the liberal side. On second thought - do we even need “experts” telling us what we just watched? I enjoy drawing my own conclusions.
——-