Tongues are wagging over a confrontation between CNN’s Piers Morgan and MSNBC’s Toure (a journalist who appears to go by just one name like Cher or the Artist Formerly Known As Prince). At issue was whether Morgan should have been tougher on George Zimmerman’s brother in an interview or conversely whether journalists like Toure have discarded their neutrality and objective distance in declaring Zimmerman a murderer. Putting aside the childish rhetoric, it is a serious question of whether journalists are crossing the line into advocacy in declaring the guilt of someone like Zimmerman. The controversy has also raised long-standing uncertainty of the role of anchors and journalists in actively supporting a claim, cause or movement.
The exchange below is clearly driven to some extent by bad blood between the two men who crossed virtual swords over Twitter. After the Zimmerman interview, Toure objected that “Piers did not challenge Robert Zimmerman the way a professional journalist should” and later accused him of “allowing Rob Zimmerman to spout unchallenged lies further poisons a tense moment in American history. Be professional.” Morgan responded by tweeting “Oh Toure, you’re such a tedious little twerp . . . ps @Toure – 71k tweets for just 57k followers? Ouch. Ever get the feeling you’re doing a LOT of jabbering but nobody’s listening?”
Not exactly the stuff of Edward R. Murrow. Then however it got more direct and even more personal on the show. Morgan pointed out that Toure had pronounced the guilt of a man without all of the evidence and disregarding the claims of the accused. Toure insisted that Morgan was ignoring the obvious evidence of guilt.
MORGAN: Wait a minute. At no stage did I give any sense that I agreed with what he was saying. I challenged him repeatedly about many of the things that he was saying.
TOURE: What you understand as challenging, perhaps, maybe that goes in England. That’s not what we do in terms of challenging in America.
While not defending Morgan’s interview with Zimmerman, he did challenge Zimmerman’s account:
MORGAN: How do you explain as a family the video that came out last night of your brother within not much time after this incident walking around, unaided, perfectly OK, with no apparent markings to his face? If you get a broken nose or the kind of head injuries sustainable from having your head smashed on the concrete floor, you’re going to have blood everywhere. You’re going to have injuries. There is nothing.
I mean, we’re looking at images now. There’s no visible sign of any attack. How do you explain that?
I did understand Toure’s frustration with Zimmerman’s brother. However, I was a bit surprised to see a journalist say that a second unreleased 911 call would clearly prove Zimmerman guilty.
MORGAN: Do you believe that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin?
TOURE: Yes.
MORGAN: So you’ve already tried him? You’ve convicted him?
TOURE: You asked me what I think.
MORGAN: You called me — you called me — you called me an irresponsible journalist. Really? That is professional? Professional journalism means that you have just —
(CROSSTALK)
TOURE: — George Zimmerman is clearly showing repeatedly racist bias against a person who he does not know and has never seen before, and is pouring all these sort of stereotypes into this person.
That’s even before we get to coon. They always get away, which is ridiculous because the jails are filled with millions of black men. But he thinks they always get away. He’s up to no good. He’s got his hands in his pants. He’s on drugs.
It’s a 17-year-old boy walking down the street talking to his girl on the phone. None of those things are true. But he’s already said all those things.
And then we have the other 911 call, which I imagine will be extraordinarily damaging if we ever get to a court of law, where we hear someone screaming, which clearly sounds like a young boy and not a 200 something pound 28-year-old man with a gun.
A person, however, is screaming. There’s a gunshot. And there’s no more screaming. That sounds to me pretty damning. It reminds him of the face Emmett Till, bashed in the coffin, where we see here’s evidence of a black body being destroyed wrongfully, innocently. And the justice system, of course, not coming to his aid.
MORGAN: I’ve raised many questions about the justice system, the legal process, as anyone who has watched the show in the last week knows. What I haven’t done is convict George Zimmerman because I haven’t seen all the facts yet. You berate me for a lack of professional journalism.
But you have just said that you believe he murdered him. You have a very biased, one sided opinion of this, based on your assessment of the limited amount of facts that we have at our disposal. That’s your prerogative. I don’t challenge you. I simply say that as a fact. You also think it’s OK to do stupid dumb jokes, mocking — what did you call it, Zimmermaning (ph) me? You’re killing me.
So we are different people. I like to think that I’m a professional journalist, Toure. I think you are something else. But I appreciate you joining me tonight.
There has always been an interesting question of when a journalist should clearly state what has been established even if denied by a party. For example, I have long criticized the use of the term “enhanced interrogation” by the media — a term made up by the Bush Administration to avoid calling waterboarding “torture” as uniformly defined by U.S. and foreign courts. That is an example of where news reporting can mislead the reader into believing that there is a credible debate or uncertainty over whether waterboarding is torture. Yet, here many journalists feel the evidence is clear and conclusive — should they speak of the evidence in such terms?
Of course, in this case, you have an individual who insists that he was attacked and there is only sketchy evidence of what occurred at the scene. I have previously stated that I believe Zimmerman could have been arrested at the scene based on that evidence. Yet,I have been criticized for simply noting that the case had “murky” element and was “not as conclusive” as suggested in some coverage. I have also been criticized for not declaring Zimmerman clearly guilty while exploring the likely issues facing any possible prosecution.
As a legal commentator and a civil libertarian, I am uncomfortable with political campaigns and petitions demanding prosecutions. While I have expressed my skepticism over Zimmerman’s account, there remains standards to satisfy for any prosecution — including proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There are many details that have yet to come out, including forensic evidence. There are also questions such as whether Zimmerman will claim that Martin tried to grab the gun. Self-defense cases are context bound and detail driven. My training leads me to be neutral in such analysis. While expressing my skepticism, I think it is important to explore both versions of the shooting in a detached manner to assist others in reaching conclusions about the state of the evidence.
The question is whether some television personalities and journalists have crossed the line such as Al Sharpton’s suggestion of civil unrest unless there is an indictment. This includes journalists like Allison Samuels recounting what Martin was thinking at the time of his killing:
SAMUELS: Is this slavery day, where we have to show our papers and say, “Hey, look, I’m allowed to be here. I’m free?” That’s ridiculous. You don’t have to explain who you are or why you’re here to someone who does not have a badge, who is not in a uniform.
I am sure this young man’s attitude was, “What are you following me for, what are you doing?” And I don’t know why they would try to flip the script on that, and make that seem that that’s inappropriate, when he had every right to be there, and didn’t have to explain that to anyone.
. . .SAMUELS: Trayvon Martin had no idea what was happening. He had no idea why this guy was behind him. And the young girl, the girlfriend, I think is going to be very important when she is able to testify, to say he was saying, “This guy’s following me.” She’s telling him to run. Trayvon was very scared for his life, and I think there’s no way that they can sort of change the way that that went down, no matter what they release. . . .
SAMUELS: No, and I was in Sanford, Florida for a couple of days. I went around the community, I talked to a number of people. No one that I spoke to there could sort of defend what George Zimmerman had done, no one was in agreement with what he had done, and no one had seen what he had done. The women that you’ve seen — who admitted, who came forth — they went to the police, they went to the police station, and they talked to the media, they talked about what they saw. I even talked to a little kid who had seen sort of the end of it.
But I talked to no one who had actually witnessed the other part of this story that Zimmerman is putting forth. So, it’s all very suspect. It is also very convenient for it to come out now, when he — Zimmerman — and the police department is taking such a beating.
Samuels made some very good points in the interview and she is a serious journalist by any measure, but the question is where journalists should draw the line in presuming feelings or thoughts. This has always been a difficult question for me in drawing this line. However, I am concerned that the super-heated environment in this case may be interfering with an objective accounting of the facts and possible prosecution. That can itself lead to a violent response if the public is not told about the difficult legal issues that would be raised in any trial.
Notably, the continued super-heated language and marches (and irresponsible tweeting and use of social media) will create a serious question of a fair trial if an indictment is ever brought in the case. A change of venue motion would likely be filed, but where would such a trial occur. With rallies being held in major cities, the defense might try to push the trial to smaller cities or towns. However, there may be a racial differential in the jury pool in such jurisdictions. That would create an ironic twist that the rallies and public statements in various cities could work to the advantage of the defense in a venue change in a more rural area or less urban area.
There may be a different standard for legal commentators and journalists as opposed to others. However, for years, legal commentators have been urged to be outspoken in their accounts — taking predictable sides in coverage that often produces more heat than light. Another (different) question is whether it is appropriate for anchors on Fox or MSNBC to lead political rallies and campaigns. Keith Olbermann was fired at MSNBC for writing a couple of small checks to candidates for political office. I understand that policy and the importance to keep journalists neutral, but there appears no bar on actually leading a political rally and openly supporting one party — so long as you do not give actual money. Again, I am not sure of what the objective line is that divided a small financial contribution to a candidate and leading voting drives for a particular party. Fox recently cancelled an auction item by Dick Morris to assist a local GOP campaign. In defense of people like Sharpton, I am not sure such a line has been articulated. Moreover, Sharpton is billed as a civil rights leader and activist as opposed to a journalist. Morris is defined as a political operative. Does that matter?
What do you think?
Here is the transcript of the Toure/Morgan interview.
francesdavey 1, April 2, 2012 at 9:42 am
re: “While I have expressed my skepticism over Zimmerman’s account, there remains standards to satisfy for any prosecution — including proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Your knowledge of the law likely surpasses my knowledge of my own profession, so I ask this question timidly: In order to prosecute, there cannot be reasonable doubt as to a person’s guilt? Or have I misinterpreted that?
===================================
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the prosecutor’s sole burden in the case in chief in any criminal prosecution. The defendant carries no burden at all in the case in chief and needs to say nothing.
There is no case in chief here because Zimmerman has admitted to shooting unarmed Martin with Zimmerman’s 9mm handgun.
So those facts are not at issue.
The issue is: can Zimmerman prove his affirmative defense? He raised “self defense” as his affirmative defense.
He has the burden of proof and persuasion on that issue.
If I was advising Zimmerman I would tell him to seek a plea bargain with the state prosecutor that the feds would also go along with.
“I agree. There is a big difference between Limbaugh and O’Donnell. Limbaugh isn’t just a blowhard–he’s a hatemonger.”
even if I could let Limbaugh be a douchebag entertainer, and acknowledge O’Donnell is a brooding prick….there is a substance issue. O’Donnell and Matthews have done the Capital Hill game. There are some Republicans that have done that too and even when I disagree with them, I know they get the machinations. Rush is a failure at everything except gab and incitement.
I mostly don’t relate to O’Donnell’s fierce Democratic stances in that he does exude a tribalism that I’m not a member of. But his ability to cut through the bs is valuable to a fogging conversation. The interview last week with the fraud that is Joe Oliver was exquisite! You have to want to have that veneer come down to get it to come down. That was Toure’s point to Piers Morgan. He wasn’t saying to blindly beat up on him because he’s the brother of a bad guy.
Funny how some of these anchors love to push one guest but not another then get defensive when called out for being too soft or hard on other days. Aaron Brown, for instance, used to make me want to puke when he’d fawn over the military brass. The schmooze was too much. I was too busy documenting the ‘officials’ and ‘experts’ to spend too much time on him, but from time to time, he just made me want to vomit.
In surfing the news, my lefty friends scorn FoxNews, appropriately, but truth is I get almost daily gitmo reports because of Catherine Herridge. I know how to the Pravda thing and read passed their small amount of spin. I know they’ll always have “I’m against this” guy on, but…they’ll tell me where we are for a moment. Compiled with tons of other sources, it helps form a full picture that few are able to tell alone.
It is unfortunate that a myth of ‘objective journalism’ has been allowed to foster when purely objective journalism doesn’t exist.
And to Bob, esquire.
You suggested that my example regarding doing a prison abuse story is “a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.”
Of course you didn’t back this up with any evidence. So its easy to say. Unfortunately, then much of the best journalism in our last 100 years was pure sophism. Each damn faux journalist who went after a story on a whistleblower tip, based on their proclivity for civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, gay rights, community development, etc…aka THEIR BEAT…is a sophist? Perhaps you could explain your comment a bit further for the lesser sophisticates.
Most journalism is based in a bias and someone who says they’re a journalist and starts throwing around ethics charges better be sure they can match up to that muster. In my experience, they are suspect the moment tye launch the charge. It can create Ivory Towers and false expectations. I’m softening on Howard Kurtz as I see him more because I think he means well, but he’s a prime example of self-serving clique journalism. Guys like him wish to tell you that they are part of a club of officially sanctioned truth tellers. It is a nice myth, but isn’t so. No different than when someone says, “hey, I’m a lawyer”….as if I should cringe in fear at the great club that must represent!
Name the best ‘journalists’ for some comparison and we’ll see where our venn diagram intersects.
MCM: “Strawman. First, Toure specifically was asked about his Thoughts. That isn’t the result of a journalistic product. He was then attacked for that thought.
Yes, the ethical thing for a journalist to do is present facts. But the choice of facts is already going to meet bias.”
I’m not misrepresenting his position, you simply can’t make up your f’n mind if he’s a journalist or not. And spare me the sophomoric lesson in epistemology that’s about as grating on the nerves as listening to a precocious teen explain how “everything’s relative man..”
Bob: “Judgments are not facts; claiming a man is guilty without trial is irresponsible judgment, not fact. And to do so while cloaking yourself as a journalist on national television interferes with the defendant’s rights to due process and a fair trial. Thus the term “alleged” and the rhetorical approach directed thereby.”
MCM: “First, show where a “journalist” cloaked as a “journalist” to interfere with a defendant’s rights to due process. In case you haven’t noticed, the Florida police force is doing more to damage his due process than any ‘journalist’, ‘pundit’, ‘network’ or mob could do. They bungled the due process for all involved, not the press. The press is in the mix now because they didn’t expected judicial duties.”
I began by stating the principle behind the reason for journalists reserving judgment; showing how your example was misleading.
to wit:
“The rule of reserving judgment in the press is intended to maintain the balance between the rights of a free press and the due process rights of a criminal defendant awaiting trial; or a possible suspect awaiting indictment. Note how your example is inapplicable.”
So, in discussing this principle as applied to Toure in the case at bar, how is your comment about the Florida police force anything more than a red herring?
Toure did not sound anything like a journalist; if anything he sounded like someone auditioning for the Charles Bronson part in yet another installment in the Death Wish film series. To suggest he was a journalist while doing so only makes him look like a clown.
The notion of journalistic objectivity is a chimera. How can it exists when hman objectivity itself is a myth, an illusion and self deception?
Sounds like threads here on JT blog. Oh well, at least the folks here are good at it.
Elaine,
you are too kind when referring to Rush as a hatemonger.
MCM,
I find it useful to distinguish between the common perception of the word propaganda as having a negative connotation by using the term anti-propaganda. The reason is simple. Why do most people have a negative reaction to the word propaganda? Why does the word itself have a net negative value load? It is because much of what people pay attention to in the world is “the bad”. They have seen the damage propaganda does, can do and has done when based in lies and/or applied to nefarious ulterior motives. This, however, is a true observation; a legitimate negative reaction. Since it is true, it is best not to fight it, but rather instead to work with it. A very Taoist approach to the issue, but effective. Accordingly, the same methodologies can be applied to spread truthful and honest messages and information that have no nefarious intent. That is anti-propaganda. The methodologies of propaganda are like any tool – capable of misuses and abuses. Much like Carlin’s general observation about words, “[t]here are no bad words, bad thoughts, bad intentions, and wooooords”, the same can be said about propaganda. The difference between propaganda and anti-propaganda is bad thought and bad intention. The linguistic tool remains the same.
MCM,
I agree. There is a big difference between Limbaugh and O’Donnell. Limbaugh isn’t just a blowhard–he’s a hatemonger.
Gene regarding propaganda “Upon acquisition, it becomes as integral to your world view as a knowledge of physics”
Exactly. I even have to work against the negative bias of the word. “but I hate propaganda” said one activist I know. “really, how will you let the world know about Darfur?”
She opened up on the spot to a better view of the word. Reclamation of our language is something I think you’ve written about before, appreciate that, and it can be a full time job.
Blowhard or not…key distinction: Lawrence O’Donnell is a veteran staffer who knows exactly how the sausage is made. Rush is a talking bag who hasn’t done anything outside that talking bag. Even though I’m not a fan of O’Donnell, I appreciate his experience informing the conversation. Same with Matthews, he’s useful because he knows how the hill works. Otherwise, he’s just another opinion out there.
O’Donnell is a Harvard University graduate, former legislative aid to Patrick Moynihan and staff director for Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Rush Blowbag has only done radio, he’s a college drop out, and only done this shock jock gig. So when it comes to blowbag, he’s got O’Donnell the wonk beat by miles.
Does this mean O’Donnell is a lovable wonk? That’s subjective. But he has more credibility in the field than the blowbag than substance.
I prefer the PBS NewsHour done by MacNeil/Lehrer Productions for televised news and if I’m going to watch a pundit, I’ll watch Maddow because of her superb research staff.
I also appreciate the straight forward manner in which both shows handle corrections when a mistake has been made.
I used to depend on McClatchy/Knight Ridder for accuracy in written reporting but not so much anymore.
I totally agree with Gene’s last statement: “Knowing the nature of propaganda is the very portrait of transformative knowledge. Upon acquisition, it becomes as integral to your world view as a knowledge of physics.”
“However, I am concerned that the super-heated environment in this case may be interfering with an objective accounting of the facts and possible prosecution. ”
Ya think? The lynch mob will not be appeased until their will is done.
Elaine, Another partisan vote. We need one more liberal vote.
The problem is that it doesn’t make good copy to say, “It would be irresponsible to render an opinion until pending evidence has been made available.”
MCM: “where did this rule (of reserving judgment) come from? and how is it being applied. I think this is something that should be discussed fully.
First, what judgement are we talking about?
If I believe I should write a story about prison abuse, I’ve already judged two things that might be challenged later.
a. that there is prison abuse
b. that it is unjust
c. that it should be challenged at least with information.
I’ve already committed the ‘don’t judge’ crime if that is a standard.”
No, that’s just sophistry. The rule of reserving judgment in the press is intended to maintain the balance between the rights of a free press and the due process rights of a criminal defendant awaiting trial; or a possible suspect awaiting indictment. Note how your example is inapplicable.
MCM: “The field of journalism isn’t as sterile as Morgan wanted to project. It isn’t as sterile as Howard Kurtz imagines in his ‘non-biased’ discussions. That just isn’t the history of journalism. Ethics are based in letting the facts come through. Make sure you can source your work and that the sources are worthy of your reader, viewer, and historical record.”
Judgments are not facts; claiming a man is guilty without trial is irresponsible judgment, not fact. And to do so while cloaking yourself as a journalist on national television interferes with the defendant’s rights to due process and a fair trial. Thus the term “alleged” and the rhetorical approach directed thereby.
“Judgments are not facts; claiming a man is guilty without trial is irresponsible judgment, not fact”
Strawman. First, Toure specifically was asked about his Thoughts. That isn’t the result of a journalistic product. He was then attacked for that thought.
Yes, the ethical thing for a journalist to do is present facts. But the choice of facts is already going to meet bias. This is fundamental journalist class discussion. First thing you are confronted with in a journalism class is a balance of your biases and the empirical world. But to render a student to think non-biased journalism exists, aka objective journalism…is simply not the case. It is what is what strives for.
Building facts around a weak premise and seeking a conclusion is bad journalism. Writing about a topic you already have a view on isn’t bad journalism if you let the facts come through. The narrow view of journalism as presented by people like Howard Kurtz and feigned by Piers Morgan simply isn’t the history of the best journalism in the past 200 years.
An additional myth is “each argument has 2 sides”…
If I write a journalistic story about an event I saw, I could write about it one sided if I was the only one who saw it. Or, if in mixed company there could be more than 2 sides. The problem with ‘objective journalism’ is that is void of the acknowledgement of our unconscious bias. If I think treating workers is bad, then when I write a story, I might try to be objective, but I’m probably writing about the policy that is creating conditions I believe should be addressed. This is called “advocacy journalism” and it is as old as print.
I read comments like “what happened to objective journalism” and it sounds like fairy tale land to me. Its like saying “where are the good ol days” which were good for some and not for others. Even the word ‘objective’ can become a biased tool when yielded by ‘journalists’ who want to shoot from ivory towers, ala Howard Kurtz.
Walter Cronkite or David Brinkley might be considered legends of objective journalism until you aren’t coming at it from the view of an American. Then you see their pro-America biases, even though they were pretty good at being objective from an American political point of view. Yes, they didn’t rile the waters.
“And to do so while cloaking yourself as a journalist on national television interferes with the defendant’s rights to due process and a fair trial.”
First, show where a “journalist” cloaked as a “journalist” to interfere with a defendant’s rights to due process. In case you haven’t noticed, the Florida police force is doing more to damage his due process than any ‘journalist’, ‘pundit’, ‘network’ or mob could do. They bungled the due process for all involved, not the press. The press is in the mix now because they didn’t expected judicial duties.
Has the press been going too far? Yes, but pinning that on Toure and not Morgan is absurd. Morgan sensationalizing this as much as anyone else and last I checked I have no record of Toure writing a piece proclaiming guilt. That he may have concluded guilt before had doesn’t rob him of his voice to write on the topic, nor does it interfere with George Zimmerman’s due process.
I concluded Dick Cheney was involved in war crimes long before the public documentation verified what I knew from sources. His record till now hasn’t defied that conclusion. I suppose, now I’ve robbed him of his due process too?
This whole discussion is like asking lawyers to go into court and act ethically…then making ethically mean “only let the truth come out”…yeah right…not in our plantiff-defendant model…not going to happen.
Swarthmore mom,
Good grief! We are certainly traveling down the road to a police state–or have we already arrived there?
“Wolf Blitzer is a nightmare.”
I actually laughed aloud reading that.
Even his name is scary.
Especially if you’re a wolf.
Here’s an interesting letter to the editor that I read in The Boston Globe this morning:
A cost to teaching black youth ‘humility’
http://articles.boston.com/2012-04-02/letters/31269422_1_black-son-black-youth-sad-commentary
I READ Yvonne Abraham’s column “Fatal differences’’ (Metro, March 29) with the recognition that comes from raising a black son. I’m the white mother of an adopted son and now the grandmother of his three children. Our children – we also have two birth daughters – were raised in Brookline, and had safer experiences than many, but we taught our son the “humility’’ routine that Abraham describes early and reinforced it often. He was stopped more than once, driving our car, and when he left the town where he was known, he went with a lengthy set of instructions for what to do when something went wrong.
He and I have often talked about the cost of this “humility.’’ From a word that implies much that is virtuous also comes a word that implies much pain: humiliated. What young boy doesn’t want to be free to be sassy, particularly when it is just? What young black man doesn’t wonder whether, at the age of, say, Henry Louis Gates Jr., he will still encounter unwarranted humiliation? What well-behaved young black man taught these rules doesn’t give up some of his essential manhood, swallow toxic anger, and learn repression when he should be learning joy?
There is an upside: My son is remarkably sensitive to other people’s feelings and has learned to read humans with astuteness. Practicing humility has increased his patience and empathy. But not without cost. It is a cost I had hoped my grandsons wouldn’t have to pay, but they do.
Tama Zorn
Brookline
MCM,
Propaganda is an inherently interesting subject. I’ve done quite a bit of research into the history, mechanics and psychology behind propaganda. A functional knowledge of how it works makes looking at the media, news in general and reading history a totally different experience after that knowledge is acquired. Knowing the nature of propaganda is the very portrait of transformative knowledge. Upon acquisition, it becomes as integral to your world view as a knowledge of physics.
MCMcC,
Myths and mythology of which propaganda is a subset, are an avocation of mine also. I’ve devoured Campbell, Fraser and Graves as starting off points. I’m fascinated by how much of human life is influenced by mythology. The American Dream for instance.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/02/supreme-court-strip-search-jail-inmates-anthony-kennedy_n_1369532.html Off topic but since Scalia has been brought up. 5 -4.
“he did stick by the one basic rule of reserving judgment.”
where did this rule come from? and how is it being applied. I think this is something that should be discussed fully.
First, what judgement are we talking about?
If I believe I should write a story about prison abuse, I’ve already judged two things that might be challenged later.
a. that there is prison abuse
b. that it is unjust
c. that it should be challenged at least with information.
I’ve already committed the ‘don’t judge’ crime if that is a standard.
Now…the real journalist standard would be…don’t let your story offend the facts. Don’t let your judgement offend the facts. And, Toure was asked what he ‘thinks’. That doesn’t mean in his final journalism he couldn’t conclude something counter to his view or not in line with his original premise.
The field of journalism isn’t as sterile as Morgan wanted to project. It isn’t as sterile as Howard Kurtz imagines in his ‘non-biased’ discussions. That just isn’t the history of journalism. Ethics are based in letting the facts come through. Make sure you can source your work and that the sources are worthy of your reader, viewer, and historical record.
Your image as a hack will be guaranteed if you keep talking to 3rd level sources instead of 1st person. I know some great news editors and they are brutal on you when you turn in a story. “where did you get that? is this your conclusion? is this what they said?” It can be tougher than I face with a kung fu instructor in training. The better the editor the harder it is to get the story finished. Each detail is examined for its need and verifiable origin.
Toure is a social commentary person as well as journalist. Cutting his nads off as a journalist when he delivers a social commentary would also show a poor understanding of the history of journalism. I.F. Stone and George Seldes had plenty to say about our society…that was their prime work. The facts only generation are parrots. They serve the authority to be ignorant and unquestioning. Wolf Blitzer is a nightmare. These folks repeat the same unexamined nonsense every day while real journalists do the hard work they feed from.
You and I don’t know the names of most of the great journalists. They’re just too buried under their typewriters and pouring out stories that get AP coverage here and there, show up in various niche magazines or blogs now while the camera heads to the glittery smile of Anderson Cooper, the Hannity Hair, and the train wreck that is Nightline.
I’d be interested in some of your favourite journalists. Dahr Jamail, Jason Leopold, Jeffrey Kaye, and others get my information juices flowing when I read their work. But there are many many out there. Don’t have to necessarily agree with them either, but who would some be?
MCMcC,
Blitzer is an establishment whore. Izzy Stone was perhaps the beat in print. My preferences today are Taibbi and Russ Baker.