Why Some People Shouldn't Be Journalists.

There was a time when it was expected, even demanded by some news outlets, that a journalist be as thorough in his research, as exhaustive in his analysis of information gathered from that research, and as unbiased as possible in presenting what he'd found. Writing it all up in an intelligently presented format was also expected. The only exceptions were editorials and “opinion pieces” in which the writers expressed their personal views, mainly in order to attract readers. Even in “Op-Ed” articles, research and accuracy were expected.

Failure to do so meant the risk of being accused of “yellow journalism, the misreporting of news in order to promote a biased agenda. There was a time when this was frowned upon by all but the most mercenary and disreputable of news outlets. Think of the days when “The National Enquirer” or “The Star” showed up on grocery store check out line displays. Most people realized they were full of junk, some of it obviously fictitious. These “tabloids” sold well, however, and so a trend was birthed.

Times have changed. With the internet, it seems that anyone can put up a website, gather some writers of questionable integrity and ability, and start making money off of click-throughs as people naturally respond to headlines intended to attract people, whether the articles are accurate, or even related to the headline.

A recent example was several online articles scoffing at the Pentagon paying $170,000 to “see why people spill coffee”. The short articles (many of the copy/pasted from other sources) tried to come across as snarky and superior by pointing out that people spill coffee because they are clumsy. What these writers either failed to find out, didn't care about, or intentionally omitted was the study was to find out what neuro-muscular functions combined to either spill or successfully carry a full cup of coffee.

“So what?” people asked. Answer: This was a practical way to gather data that can help in the engineering of prosthetic devices and remote/robotic machines, as well as possible applications in therapy and treatment of numerous neurological or muscular disorders. A “real” journalist would have uncovered this aspect of the study, researched it, and instead of trying to get hits by reporting the negative side of it, would have announced that new research involving something as simple as carrying a cup of coffee might aid amputees, soldiers in action, and those suffering from illnesses such as Muscular Dystrophy or various palsies.

Coincidentally (or not) a similar article resurfaced about a photo of a group of high school students engrossed in their phones with a magnificent Rembrandt painting in the background. This photo was originally presented as an example of how today's young people are missing out on great things in life because they are busy with their smart phones Many people “liked” and “shared” the photo on Facebook and other social media, smugly harrumphing that they are not like that (even though there's a 65% chance they were using their own smart phones to access social media).

The problem with this interpretation of the photo is that it's completely wrong. These kids were using the museums interactive smart phone application to learn more about the paintings they were viewing. Again, some careful research and honest reporting would have presented an article citing the favorable use of smart phones in education.

I'm not even going to touch on the plethora of “news” sources which intentionally engage in “yellow journalism” and propaganda. That would take a book of several hundred pages to address. The phenomenon that leads to all these types of “journalism” consists of some common elements.

• The Money Factor. Sensationalized, biased or articles that cast a bad light on negatively viewed people or institutions generate sales, or at least hits on a web page where it's hoped people will intentionally (or through manipulation) click on ads. Websites attract sponsoring ads based on the number of page views and unique hits they can generate. So, the more they can get people to click on links to their sites, even if the link involves a misleading headline or untrue article, the more money they can make. Journalistic integrity has always clashed with the drive to make a news outlet profitable(which has always depended on advertising). Today, integrity has fallen by the wayside as our society of greed has made profit the primary motivator.
• The drive for power and influence. Publishers have always had a desire to make a mark on society and in politics. For the most part, laws regarding libel and slander helped keep print sources in check, while the Fairness Doctrine of 1949 was the FCC's attempt to address broadcast news sources. However, there have always been many clever ways to circumvent any laws or regulations intended to promote and ensure balanced, objective reporting. The time when most journalists had the personal integrity to avoid such techniques has passed, and making sure the boss is happy, even at the expense of journalistic integrity, weighs heavily on even the most “honest” of journalists.
• Give John. Q. Public what he wants. We have devolved into a society inordinately influenced by Narcissism, competitiveness and negativity. People have reached a point where they prefer to have subjective opinions reinforced no matter how much misinformation or outright lies they have to embrace to do so. In the articles cited at the beginning of this essay, the Pentagon and young people with smart phones are viewed with antagonism by a lot of people. So, the goal of the writers was to appeal to that antagonism, with any regard for accuracy or fairness being of little or no importance.

There was a time when journalists would report the news as accurately and honestly as possible. There are a few who still do so. They are men and women who will write articles they know will be unpopular with many people, but they feel what they have to say must be said. Their goal is to inform and educate, even if people don't want to be informed or educated. They are far outnumbered by hacks who cannot, with honesty, call themselves journalists in the conventional acceptance of that term.

What makes this situation even worse is some people consider their biased articles full of misinformation or omitted facts to be fair and balanced. They have allowed their own antagonism toward those of differing views, whether ideological, political, social, economic, religious etc. to determine what they view as worth reporting or not. This is “yellow journalism” at its worst, when writers forego honesty and factual reporting simply to connect with and influence those who are willfully ignorant. They're the journalistic equivalents of vultures circling above a carcass, thus helping jackals to find a putrid but easily obtained meal.

It it true that no one can be completely objective in reporting news or presenting an opinion. That's simply human nature. However, when we consider subjective, misleading or uninformed reportage to be some sort of virtue, we have done ourselves a great disservice as a nation and as a society. While truth can set people free, accepting lies as truth is a sure way into bondage.