View Full Version : RANT: What in the world has happened to real Journalism?

07-11-2004, 01:04 AM
I'm so angry with the state of so-called "Journalism" here in the States. When did the National Enquirer take over every news bureau in this country?

The San Fransisco Chronicle "BREAKS" a story saying that Barry Bonds is participating in the Home Run Derby because he's being paid by Major League Baseball. The next day, everyone involved with the Home Run Derby states that it's false.

We have ESPN proclamating that (as an example) Ron Artest has had a major spat with Larry Bird, and that now Ron is going to be traded. It's only a matter of time.

We have ESPN "reporting" that the Pacers are attempting to move up in the draft because of Larry Bird's love of Luke Jackson's game. Larry wasn't interested in Jackson, he wanted Gordon.

Every Sports network in America had McGrady "confirmed" as going to a different team every day.

Every Sports network had Shaq on his way to Dallas. He is (probably) ending up in Miami.

I can't count on my toes and my fingers how many times I've seen mis reported "news" stories. How many times was Bush and Gore announced the winner on election night?

The state of so-called journalism in this country is a JOKE. Whatever happened to getting the story right? Whatever happened to getting several sources before breaking the story? I'd much rather read a story later with completely factual information than read a "breaking" news story that is filled with errors.

I have worked in Television "Journalism" as a news photog. Let me tell you, half of the time the reporter had the story written before interviewing anyone involved. I've seen reporters ask questions on camera for 45 minutes in order to get the ONE sound byte that reinforces the reporters story, disregarding all information that does not support it.

I've seen reporters intentially ask questions to cause emotional outbursts because tears = Ratings.

I've heard "News" Producers telling their reporters to come back with a "slant" to their stories. (In other words, the "News" Producer wants the reporter to influence the audience into siding with the reporter's beliefs.) For an op/ed piece that's fine, but for a news story, that's unethical.

I'm sorry for the rant, but I had to get all of that off of my chest.

Thanks for reading.

C. Neil Milton

07-11-2004, 01:09 AM
The correct answer to the tread title is the internet.

Pig Nash
07-11-2004, 01:19 AM
ding ding ding! you are correct sir.

07-11-2004, 01:21 AM
i get up early every morning just to see what rumors have been cooked up. Its funny to read an article frmo the L.A. Times stating the Pacers are in tense negociations with L.A. to send Jermaine O'neal, Scot Pollard, and Austin Croshere for Shaq and then to read an article from the IndyStar stating from Donnie Walsh himself he has no intentions of ever trading Jermaine O'neal. Its comedy.

07-11-2004, 01:46 AM
In some cases, GMs and the like use the media like Geraldo Rivera uses a stick to get bugs out of a dead tree. Walsh got everyone to believe the Pacers would take Kareem Rush, then turned around and took Freddie Jones. I think Larry did the same thing this year with Luke Jackson and Ben Gordon, or at least tried to.

But in most cases, the media, be it newspaper, sports network, internet or what have you, just wants to be the first to "break" the story. They want to take a risk, so they can have the right to say "we said it first!"

But obviously, by doing that, they cripple their credibility. It's like comparing Peter Vescey to Indy Star news. Bleh. It's fun to read about rumours, but in the end, I want the real news from a reliable source that doesn't jump on crap like that.

07-11-2004, 02:08 AM
We have ESPN "reporting" that the Pacers are attempting to move up in the draft because of Larry Bird's love of Luke Jackson's game. Larry wasn't interested in Jackson, he wanted Gordon.