L.A. TIMES EDITOR WARNS: Rise of 'Pseudo-Journalism' in America...

[conjur]

http://www.dailyemerald.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/05/07/409bbfc0d5b00

The media industry has been infested by the rise of pseudo-journalists who go against journalism's long tradition to serve the public with accurate information, Los Angeles Times Editor John S. Carroll told a packed room in the Gerlinger Lounge on Thursday.
Carroll delivered the annual Ruhl Lecture, titled "The Wolf in Reporter's Clothing: The Rise of Pseudo-Journalism in America." The lecture was sponsored by the School of Journalism and Communication.

"All over the country there are offices that look like newsrooms and there are people in those offices that look for all the world just like journalists, but they are not practicing journalism," he said. "They regard the audience with a cold cynicism. They are practicing something I call a pseudo-journalism, and they view their audience as something to be manipulated."

In a scathing critique of Fox News and some talk show hosts, such as Bill O'Reilly, Carroll said they were a "different breed of journalists" who misled their audience while claiming to inform them. He said they did not fit into the long legacy of journalists who got their facts right and respected and cared for their audiences.

Carroll cited a study released last year that showed Americans had three main
misconceptions about Iraq: That weapons of mass destruction had been found, a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq had been demonstrated and that the world approved of U.S intervention in Iraq. He said 80 percent of people who primarily got their news from Fox believed at least one of the misconceptions. He said the figure was more than 57 percentage points higher than people who get their news from public news broadcasting.

"How in the world could Fox have left its listeners so deeply in the dark?" Carroll asked.

He added that a difference exists between journalism and propaganda.

As he addressed some of the hard hits journalism has taken in the field of ethics, Carroll noted that anyone could be a journalist because, unlike other fields, journalism had no qualification tests, boards to censure misconduct or a universally accepted set of standards.

However, Carroll said a great depth of feeling remains on the importance of ethics that is centered around newspapers' sense of responsibilities to their readers.

"I've learned that these ethics are deeply believed in even though in some places they are not even written down," he said. When ethical guidelines are ignored, their proponents respond with 'tribal ferocity,'" he added.

"If you stray badly from these rules, you will pay dearly," he said.

He said while much media has ended up "in the gutter," the L.A. Times has a different philosophy and was dedicated to taking the "high road."

"I do think that a lot of newspaper people have made a lot of strategic mistakes," he said. "They cut back space on things people really need to know."

Carroll, whose career as a journalist spans 40 years, joined the L.A. Times in 2000, according to the paper's Web site. Under his leadership, the paper earned five Pulitzer Prizes this year.

Tim Gleason, dean of the SOJC, said Carroll is a "journalist's journalist."

"As an editor he cares deeply about the integrity of the profession and he believes that news, real news is the heart and soul of the business of journalism," Gleason said as he introduced Carroll.

University graduate student Mose Mosely had similar sentiments. He said he admired Carroll not only for his vast experience around the country, but also for his consistent commitment to his ideals.

"The depth of his integrity is very impressive," Mosely said.

Bobbie Willis, a staff writer for the Eugene Weekly, said she felt Carroll brought up some relevant issues in today's media environment.

"It really made me take a look at my career as a journalist," she said.

Willis said she understood Carroll's concerns about the state of journalism nationally, but added that many of the journalists she has encountered were very committed to accurate and ethical reporting.

Carroll had a few words of advise for student journalists; he told them to pick their boss carefully.

"Don't be lured by the money or the big name of the employer," he said, adding that journalists should not allow their integrity to be compromised by unscrupulous employers.

"Don't be a piano player in a whorehouse," he said.

To me, it's just more proof that sheep flock to FOX News.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.dailyemerald.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/05/07/409bbfc0d5b00

The media industry has been infested by the rise of pseudo-journalists who go against journalism's long tradition to serve the public with accurate information, Los Angeles Times Editor John S. Carroll told a packed room in the Gerlinger Lounge on Thursday.
Carroll delivered the annual Ruhl Lecture, titled "The Wolf in Reporter's Clothing: The Rise of Pseudo-Journalism in America." The lecture was sponsored by the School of Journalism and Communication.

"All over the country there are offices that look like newsrooms and there are people in those offices that look for all the world just like journalists, but they are not practicing journalism," he said. "They regard the audience with a cold cynicism. They are practicing something I call a pseudo-journalism, and they view their audience as something to be manipulated."

In a scathing critique of Fox News and some talk show hosts, such as Bill O'Reilly, Carroll said they were a "different breed of journalists" who misled their audience while claiming to inform them. He said they did not fit into the long legacy of journalists who got their facts right and respected and cared for their audiences.

Carroll cited a study released last year that showed Americans had three main
misconceptions about Iraq: That weapons of mass destruction had been found, a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq had been demonstrated and that the world approved of U.S intervention in Iraq. He said 80 percent of people who primarily got their news from Fox believed at least one of the misconceptions. He said the figure was more than 57 percentage points higher than people who get their news from public news broadcasting.

"How in the world could Fox have left its listeners so deeply in the dark?" Carroll asked.

He added that a difference exists between journalism and propaganda.

As he addressed some of the hard hits journalism has taken in the field of ethics, Carroll noted that anyone could be a journalist because, unlike other fields, journalism had no qualification tests, boards to censure misconduct or a universally accepted set of standards.

However, Carroll said a great depth of feeling remains on the importance of ethics that is centered around newspapers' sense of responsibilities to their readers.

"I've learned that these ethics are deeply believed in even though in some places they are not even written down," he said. When ethical guidelines are ignored, their proponents respond with 'tribal ferocity,'" he added.

"If you stray badly from these rules, you will pay dearly," he said.

He said while much media has ended up "in the gutter," the L.A. Times has a different philosophy and was dedicated to taking the "high road."

"I do think that a lot of newspaper people have made a lot of strategic mistakes," he said. "They cut back space on things people really need to know."

Carroll, whose career as a journalist spans 40 years, joined the L.A. Times in 2000, according to the paper's Web site. Under his leadership, the paper earned five Pulitzer Prizes this year.

Tim Gleason, dean of the SOJC, said Carroll is a "journalist's journalist."

"As an editor he cares deeply about the integrity of the profession and he believes that news, real news is the heart and soul of the business of journalism," Gleason said as he introduced Carroll.

University graduate student Mose Mosely had similar sentiments. He said he admired Carroll not only for his vast experience around the country, but also for his consistent commitment to his ideals.

"The depth of his integrity is very impressive," Mosely said.

Bobbie Willis, a staff writer for the Eugene Weekly, said she felt Carroll brought up some relevant issues in today's media environment.

"It really made me take a look at my career as a journalist," she said.

Willis said she understood Carroll's concerns about the state of journalism nationally, but added that many of the journalists she has encountered were very committed to accurate and ethical reporting.

Carroll had a few words of advise for student journalists; he told them to pick their boss carefully.

"Don't be lured by the money or the big name of the employer," he said, adding that journalists should not allow their integrity to be compromised by unscrupulous employers.

"Don't be a piano player in a whorehouse," he said.

To me, it's just more proof that sheep flock to FOX News.

First off...O'Reilly is not a Journalist....he does not report the news, he comments and brings in others for their comments same with Hannity and Colmes. Rush, Savage, Hannity, Franken...these guys are not journalists reporting the news, they are commentators.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur


To me, it's just more proof that sheep flock to FOX News.

First off...O'Reilly is not a Journalist....he does not report the news, he comments and brings in others for their comments same with Hannity and Colmes. Rush, Savage, Hannity, Franken...these guys are not journalists reporting the news, they are commentators.

They imply they are journalists to their audiences.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur


To me, it's just more proof that sheep flock to FOX News.

First off...O'Reilly is not a Journalist....he does not report the news, he comments and brings in others for their comments same with Hannity and Colmes. Rush, Savage, Hannity, Franken...these guys are not journalists reporting the news, they are commentators.

They imply they are journalists to their audiences.

I've heard Mr. O - hahaha say many times that he is not a journalist merely reporting the news.

 

[Jmman]

"They regard the audience with a cold cynicism. They are practicing something I call a pseudo-journalism, and they view their audience as something to be manipulated."

That statement coming from the Editor of the L.A. Times just smacks of irony.........:roll:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Jmman
"They regard the audience with a cold cynicism. They are practicing something I call a pseudo-journalism, and they view their audience as something to be manipulated."

That statement coming from the Editor of the L.A. Times just smacks of irony.........:roll:

Oh, the editor that managed to cull FIVE Pulitzer Awards after he arrived at the paper?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.dailyemerald.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/05/07/409bbfc0d5b00

The media industry has been infested by the rise of pseudo-journalists who go against journalism's long tradition to serve the public with accurate information, Los Angeles Times Editor John S. Carroll told a packed room in the Gerlinger Lounge on Thursday.
Carroll delivered the annual Ruhl Lecture, titled "The Wolf in Reporter's Clothing: The Rise of Pseudo-Journalism in America." The lecture was sponsored by the School of Journalism and Communication.

"All over the country there are offices that look like newsrooms and there are people in those offices that look for all the world just like journalists, but they are not practicing journalism," he said. "They regard the audience with a cold cynicism. They are practicing something I call a pseudo-journalism, and they view their audience as something to be manipulated."

In a scathing critique of Fox News and some talk show hosts, such as Bill O'Reilly, Carroll said they were a "different breed of journalists" who misled their audience while claiming to inform them. He said they did not fit into the long legacy of journalists who got their facts right and respected and cared for their audiences.

Carroll cited a study released last year that showed Americans had three main
misconceptions about Iraq: That weapons of mass destruction had been found, a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq had been demonstrated and that the world approved of U.S intervention in Iraq. He said 80 percent of people who primarily got their news from Fox believed at least one of the misconceptions. He said the figure was more than 57 percentage points higher than people who get their news from public news broadcasting.

"How in the world could Fox have left its listeners so deeply in the dark?" Carroll asked.

He added that a difference exists between journalism and propaganda.

As he addressed some of the hard hits journalism has taken in the field of ethics, Carroll noted that anyone could be a journalist because, unlike other fields, journalism had no qualification tests, boards to censure misconduct or a universally accepted set of standards.

However, Carroll said a great depth of feeling remains on the importance of ethics that is centered around newspapers' sense of responsibilities to their readers.

"I've learned that these ethics are deeply believed in even though in some places they are not even written down," he said. When ethical guidelines are ignored, their proponents respond with 'tribal ferocity,'" he added.

"If you stray badly from these rules, you will pay dearly," he said.

He said while much media has ended up "in the gutter," the L.A. Times has a different philosophy and was dedicated to taking the "high road."

"I do think that a lot of newspaper people have made a lot of strategic mistakes," he said. "They cut back space on things people really need to know."

Carroll, whose career as a journalist spans 40 years, joined the L.A. Times in 2000, according to the paper's Web site. Under his leadership, the paper earned five Pulitzer Prizes this year.

Tim Gleason, dean of the SOJC, said Carroll is a "journalist's journalist."

"As an editor he cares deeply about the integrity of the profession and he believes that news, real news is the heart and soul of the business of journalism," Gleason said as he introduced Carroll.

University graduate student Mose Mosely had similar sentiments. He said he admired Carroll not only for his vast experience around the country, but also for his consistent commitment to his ideals.

"The depth of his integrity is very impressive," Mosely said.

Bobbie Willis, a staff writer for the Eugene Weekly, said she felt Carroll brought up some relevant issues in today's media environment.

"It really made me take a look at my career as a journalist," she said.

Willis said she understood Carroll's concerns about the state of journalism nationally, but added that many of the journalists she has encountered were very committed to accurate and ethical reporting.

Carroll had a few words of advise for student journalists; he told them to pick their boss carefully.

"Don't be lured by the money or the big name of the employer," he said, adding that journalists should not allow their integrity to be compromised by unscrupulous employers.

"Don't be a piano player in a whorehouse," he said.

To me, it's just more proof that sheep flock to FOX News.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

I'll get my news and information where I care to, thank you.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jmman
"They regard the audience with a cold cynicism. They are practicing something I call a pseudo-journalism, and they view their audience as something to be manipulated."

That statement coming from the Editor of the L.A. Times just smacks of irony.........:roll:

:beer:

CkG

 

[dbk]

How credible and valid is that study?? Those are some astonishing numbers..

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bykim5
How credible and valid is that study?? Those are some astonishing numbers..

Study: Wrong impressions helped support Iraq war

Posted on Thu, Oct. 02, 2003

By FRANK DAVIES

Knight Ridder Newspapers


WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans have held at least one of three mistaken impressions about the U.S.-led war in Iraq, according to a new study released Thursday, and those misperceptions contributed to much of the popular support for the war.

The three common mistaken impressions are that:


U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.


There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists.


People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it.

Overall, 60 percent of Americans held at least one of those views in polls reported between January and September by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, based at the University of Maryland in College Park, and the polling firm, Knowledge Networks based in Menlo Park, Calif.

"While we cannot assert that these misperceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions," said Steven Kull, who directs Maryland's program.

In fact, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. U.S. intelligence has found no clear evidence that Saddam was working closely with al-Qaida or was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Gallup polls found large majorities opposed to the war in most countries.

PIPA's seven polls, which included 9,611 respondents, had a margin of error from 2 to 3.5 percent.

The analysis released Thursday also correlated the misperceptions with the primary news source of the mistaken respondents. For example, 80 percent of those who said they relied on Fox News and 71 percent of those who said they relied on CBS believed at least one of the three misperceptions.

The comparable figures were 47 percent for those who said they relied most on newspapers and magazines and 23 percent for those who said they relied on PBS or National Public Radio.

The reasons for the misperceptions are numerous, Kull and other analysts said.

They noted that the Bush administration had misstated or exaggerated some of the intelligence findings, with Bush himself saying in May: "We found the weapons of mass destruction ? and we'll find more as time goes by."

The Bush administration has also been a factor in persistent confusion.

Last month, for example, Bush said there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attack after Vice President Dick Cheney suggested a link. Cheney, in a "Meet the Press" interview, had described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

Why some news audiences had more accurate impressions than others was less clear.

Kull cited instances in which TV and newspapers gave prominent coverage to reports that banned weapons might have been found in Iraq, but only modest coverage when those reports turned out to be wrong.

Susan Moeller, a University of Maryland professor, said that much reporting had consisted of "stenographic coverage of government statements," with less attention to whether the government's statements were accurate.

The study found that belief in inaccurate information often persisted, and that misconceptions were much more likely among backers of the war. Last month, as in June, for example, nearly a quarter of those polled thought banned weapons had been found in Iraq. Nearly half thought in September that there was clear evidence that Saddam had worked closely with al-Qaida.

Among those with one of the three misconceptions, 53 percent supported the war. Among those with two, 78 percent supported it. Among those with three, 86 percent backed it. By contrast, less than a quarter of those polled who had none of the misconceptions backed the war.

On the Web:

To review the study, go to http://www.pipa.org

 

[DealMonkey]

I watch Fox News and I read their web site (among numerous others) and as long as you ignore/avoid the commentators they're not really that bad. Anyone who listens to Rush or Hannity or Air America, or anyone who simply tells you what they think about what's going on, is sadly mistaken if they think they're being informed about the issues.

I prefer my news to be more about the who/what/where/when/how and less about the talking head's opinion of the matter.

 

[NumbersGuy]

All the pseudo-journalist faults attributed to Fox are true; they have just carried the pseudo-journalism practiced more discreetly by the mainstream media to a new extreme.

Whether carrying out agendas, campaigns or just their daily ignorance, lazyness and doping, the media's product declines and is less trusted on a daily basis.

An example similar to current "journalism" practices is that of the lazy high school student that creates his project from the Internet the night before it's due. The toad, Madagascar, the top quark, why we need a new stadium? You've got it! How long do you want it?

As to the Pulitzer prizes, they have been debunked as good ole boys giving each other pats in thae back, like the Oscars there's enough for everybody. The only good Pulitzer was Roxanne.

$.02, maybe less

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I'll get my misconceptions and disinformation where I care to, thank you.

Indeed you will.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I'll get my misconceptions and disinformation where I care to, thank you.

Indeed you will.

Oh, that's right the average Joe need geniuses like you to sort things out for them.

Thank goodness you're around.

 

[nutxo]

LOL.

This thread is the best!

Gotta love it when people that actually think the daily show is news, rag on another network.:beer:

 

[chess9]

I loathe and despise The Fox Entertainment Network and Bush League Cheer Leading Squad. However, I've noticed something that's started lately-and I'm sure this is a new trend because I haven't seen it before-they actually have news on Fox now. Shepard Smith sounded positively Cronkitian the last time I heard him, which led to a near Diaper Disaster.

They've gotten so much grief for being so twisted and distorted I think they've moved slightly back towards the center to get more voters, er viewers . It's also about money. They see the country is divided about this war and Bush so do they put all their eggs in one basket (the 30% of right wing wackos in this country) or do they soften their tone a bit and try to appeal to a broader audience? Now that they are number one, I guess they can get away with the latter without losing the former cavemen.

-Robert

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: nutxo
LOL.

This thread is the best!

Gotta love it when people that actually think the daily show is news, rag on another network.:beer:

Can't say I recall anyone mentioning The Daily Show in this thread until you did.

Now you're just being a FOX News apologist.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: chess9
I loathe and despise The Fox Entertainment Network and Bush League Cheer Leading Squad. However, I've noticed something that's started lately-and I'm sure this is a new trend because I haven't seen it before-they actually have news on Fox now. Shepard Smith sounded positively Cronkitian the last time I heard him, which led to a near Diaper Disaster.

They've gotten so much grief for being so twisted and distorted I think they've moved slightly back towards the center to get more voters. It's also about money. They see the country is divided about this war and Bush so do they put all their eggs in one basket (the 30% of right wing wackos in this country) or do they soften their tone a bit and try to appeal to a broader audience? Now that they are number one, I guess they can get away with the latter without losing the former cavemen.

-Robert

Could be.

I mean, they had McCain and Evan Bayh on FOX News Sunday. McCain's far from a Bush fan.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119402,00.html

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I'll get my misconceptions and disinformation where I care to, thank you.

Indeed you will.

Oh, that's right the average Joe need geniuses like you to sort things out for them.

Thank goodness you're around.

Exactly, the average Joe doesn't need to know that no WMDs were found in Iraq, and no Al Qaeda links.

Zephyr

 

[Buz2b]

The analysis released Thursday also correlated the misperceptions with the primary news source of the mistaken respondents. For example, 80 percent of those who said they relied on Fox News and 71 percent of those who said they relied on CBS believed at least one of the three misperceptions.

Is it me or did almost all of you seem to miss that little part about CBS?? They were just a mere 9 points behind Fox. I guess the "pseudo-Journalism" accusation only applies when it is a seemingly conservative leaning organization.

I don't intend to get into your little p1ssing match here but figured, in the interest of being "fair and balanced", I'd point this out. :beer::laugh:

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: nutxo
LOL.

This thread is the best!

Gotta love it when people that actually think the daily show is news, rag on another network.:beer:

Can't say I recall anyone mentioning The Daily Show in this thread until you did.

Now you're just being a FOX News apologist.

LOL.

I think that anyone that pays attention to network or cable news is misinformed actually. American media is trash. My news is transmitted directly to my brain from Tau Ceti.

 

[ElFenix]

well it looks like CBS watchers are almost as bad.


i'm guessing its mostly the for-profit tv news viewers, and not fox in specific.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Exactly, the average Joe doesn't need to know that no WMDs were found in Iraq, and no Al Qaeda links.

Zephyr

You're kidding right? I ask 'cause I don't sense any sarcasm....and it scares me how wrong that statement is.

edit: if you ARE kidding....I need the '' to pick up on sarcasm.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Exactly, the average Joe doesn't need to know that no WMDs were found in Iraq, and no Al Qaeda links.

Zephyr

You're kidding right? I ask 'cause I don't sense any sarcasm....and it scares me how wrong that statement is.

edit: if you ARE kidding....I need the '' to pick up on sarcasm.

You may think I am kidding, but certain adherants to the "Neo-Conservative" movement sure aren't. They come from the "Noble Lies" department.

But I'm just an anti-semite, because I used the NC-Word.

Zephyr

 

[chess9]

Conjur:

McCain was pretty coy in his responses, don't you think? I suspect he is casting a wary eye on Rumsfeld and Bush over this debacle. He probably is nowhere near suggesting a pullout of Iraq, but if he did I'd find a bunch of McCain stickers and plaster them all over my car bumper. He's such a renegade anyway, the White House must dread it every time he speaks.


-Robert