Laughing Wolf
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Why Journalism Is Dead In Traditional Media
If you happen to wonder why I don’t think traditional media even pretends to do real journalism anymore, or even understands the basic concepts of same, just go read this short piece and look towards the bottom. As Instapundit notes, this is in Columbia Journalism Review. The few practitioners of real journalism in traditional media are indeed a dying breed (or pushed out the door and into new media), and this shows why better than anything I’ve seen in a long time.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Dear Marvel & Ed Brubaker
Read the story, saw the art, think you know what you can do with it. Sure not wasting any money of mine on it.
Then again, I don’t remember the last time I bought a comic, or graphic art, from any of the old (and tired) groups like Marvel. The independents have been far more to my taste, both in terms of literary and art quality, and have been willing to honestly explore any number of complex topics from politics to sexuality. The old publishers lost me years ago, when they decided that you couldn’t have heroes anymore, that all the good guys/gals had to have feet of clay. Rather than an ideal, like King Arthur, that you could strive to be like, the “heroes” had to devolve to be far less than you, the better to sneer at and belittle—and belittle those who would try to live up to any ideal of any sort. Ideals are for suckers was the cry, and you led the charge well. Still surprises me how many bought into that bilge, and completely missed the point (including some who have degrees and interest in literature and related memes). Captain America long ago stopped representing any ideal of America, and this latest low is nothing new. Tired, old, hackneyed, and trite. If that’s the best you can do, the independents will continue to boom, and I know where I will put my money. There are two words I really want to say to you, but neither of you are worth it. Frankly, to be honest, not even with my worst enemies apendage.
LW
Monday, February 08, 2010
It Had Nothing To Do With Waterboarding
cross posted at Blackfive
Reporters rarely get to write their own headline, that task being reserved for the copy desk or its equivalent. That said, the headline writers at Foxnews.com have been doing a very bad job of headlines recently. In fact, a number of the headlines to do with the military have sounded a bit like they were hired from the DU.
Case in point: this story about a soldier abusing his child. What he did to her was not waterboarding, or even close to it. In my opinion, it was attempted drowning/attempted murder, and child abuse and only in the fever dreams of the deranged was it anything close to or to do with waterboarding. As point of order, my sincere hope is that if the charges are true, they throw the book at the scum and toss his sorry ass out and into civilian incarceration.
Then there is the one about the ”Special Forces Assassins“ that I have to feel is another fever dream from a deranged copy desk person. If a real military person said that in those exact words and way, then I think they need a party. Sock party out back specifically.
Feh.
LW
really not as grumpy today as he sounds, despite yet another winter storm alert…
Saturday, September 05, 2009
The Associated Press Shows Its Colours Once Again
Go read this and this if you have not already. My thoughts are as follows, as taken from various comments and exchanges made today:
FWIIW, I think that what she did was reprehensible on many levels and a complete abrogation of her duties as a journalist. She apparently wanted to make people “think” about the war (i.e. oppose it), which violates the canons of journalism about being impartial and fair. It was also a violation of the embed agreement I also believe. She did this not for journalistic reasons, but for political ones and for self-gain (IMO). She’s angling for a Pulitzer and other awards, and will wear her “martyrdom” for what is about to descend upon her from the military, milblogs, and anyone with basic common decency, and use that martyrdom for yet more personal gain.
Yes, military photographers do, can, and have taken similar photos. Some from WWII are only now being released as I understand it. They do document, but they do so in a way that is respectful, careful of privacy (and even HIPPA issues these days), and careful of the wishes and feelings of those being photographed.
My personal take is that I have no problem with the shot being taken, but in its use and it’s use against the specific wishes of the family. If she truly wanted to document, she would not have published now but waited as many good and respectable photojournalists (see many in WWII and even into Vietnam) have done.
I think it’s time for an “Army of Davids” approach to the problem. If the AP thinks this is so grand, then let’s start photographing them. Them doing what they do, for that is history too, and deserves to be documented in full, right? After all, the are such an important part of history, with an awesome responsibility, with which comes power, and power must be watched and recorded for posterity. Let’s document that, from wake to sleep, life to death, every aspect, and run them on the web. Every good job, every bad job, every nooner, every trip, comments they make as asides in public, every moment as they are sick, drunk, sober, or dying. Hey the public has a right to know and must know all aspects. Let’s see how they like it when its them and theirs done like this, and let’s be sure to start with Julie Jacobson and Thomas Curley, but if you happen to get someone lower and document them for posterity, that’s fine too.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
On The Radio
Tomorrow morning on the Morning Zoo, an interview with yours’ truly will be played. The Morning Zoo, hosted by the lovely and talented Tara Madison, is the top-rated morning show in the area and is the most listened to at work. The interview focuses on my upcoming trip to cook for the wounded at Landstuhl, and if you would care to listen, you can do so online at WAZY.com.
LW
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
A True Must Read
If you read no other article this week, please go read this one. The article is on movies, in particular modern war movies, and is remarkably well researched and written and examines the ethics, philosophy, history, and even morality in context and with devastating accuracy. Context is a key here, and the examination of philosophical/political systems and movements with such is truly amazing—and essential for anyone who wants to understand art, much less movies and cinematography. For that matter, for anyone who wants to understand current events and depictions of same…
Again, please go read The Lost Art of War. If you have any intellect, you will be glad you did.
LW
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The News From Canon
Got the news via e-mail. They don’t think any parts need replacing (but can’t guarantee) but it does need a bit better than $400.00 worth of work done to it. Don’t see much of a choice, to be honest, so will get it done.
Meantime, here is my current ultimate drool videocamera, but I what I will now settle for this sweet thing. Both are approved by major cable networks for full footage, not just B-roll, which means that whatever I shoot wherever I shoot it is good to go for a lot more than youtube.
LW
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Support PMI and Blackfive
Note: This post is sticky for the next week or two. Please scroll down for fresh content.
Grim has posted about this here and here. I know a number of my fellow bloggers who read here have complained about the not just poor reporting that fails of every standard, canon, and rule of journalism, not to mention the outright lies and enemy propaganda passed off as real reporting. I hope any readers I still have left have done so as well…
Okay, you’ve complained. I’ve complained. Now is a time to act. Bill Roggio and his team have shown the world what real reporting is. Accurate, fair, on-the-spot. It is everything I was taught journalism could be and should be. So, step up. Do more than complain. Give up a six-pack, a meal out, just one small thing a month. Make a donation. That donation will help Public Multimedia do even more, and in the process reach an even wider audience. It can and will also help send a Blackfive embed or two out. The more you donate, the more can be done. This is but one thing going on in that particular battle, but it is a very important part.
Quit whining about us losing the information war, and fire a shot in it by donating to Public Multimedia.
LW
Friday, May 25, 2007
A Slander I Say!
I’ve haven’t been able to ignore all the stuff about Rosie, and noticed a slander that needs to be set right. I refer to the custom of referring to it as Ro-Ro. That is a slanderous insult to all the hard-working, productive, and needed roll-on roll-off container ships out there, who are much smaller and more useful than Rosie or her ego/lack-of-intellect. That is all.
LW
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Unit: Beslan Redux
I actually was up and caught The Unit last night. I do enjoy the show, even with the Hollywood, but oft am not able to stay up for it. Last night’s show revolved around a Beslan-type situation here in the US. It is one of the scenarios that I fear, and am almost surprised has not happened yet. That said, they did a good job with it, though they cleaned it up quite a bit. The real Beslan had more killed at the start, and the scum that did it did not wait for paradise to sample young virgins. While I understand why it was not done, I do wish that such shows would show more of the reality that faces us and not pretty it up. As for those that planned and executed Beslan, I still hope they got buried upside down, rears towards Mecca, and liberally coated in lard…
LW
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Saving Pvt. Journalism, The Wrap Up
Originally posted June 25, 2003
Aren’t you glad I’m finally finished. 
There is more that can and should be said, but I think that I am going to leave it to the people I am trying to get to provide some guest blogs. What I have done is to try and provide some history and context to the situation we face, as well as some constructive recommendations on what to do.
For me, the situation can be summed up with the following statements:
Blogs are the long-anticipated “new media” and the new journalism. Blogs show the best, and the worst, of what can be done in terms of almost real-time information transferal. The best of the blogs report, update, correct, and provide commentary in a timely manner that makes the best of television and radio seem glacial in comparison. The best of the blogs also provide the thought pieces that are necessary as well.
Media consumers are becoming more savvy every day. The trust factor is down significantly with mainstream media and The Media in particular, and a surprising number of people are now turning not to the Web per se, but to the blogs for news and information that is accurate and reliable, as well as for reasoned commentary and debate. This particular trend is only going to increase.
The Media and “journalists” are getting a rude awakening on many levels. Bias, distortions, lies and fabrications, and much more are now being exposed in ways not possible before. Questions are being asked and answers demanded, a thing that is beyond the ken for many of these people. Outlets and journalists are being held to account to a degree never before seen in the history of journalism. That they are less than happy at having their own tactics and “rules” applied to them as organizations and individuals is understandable, if amusing.
Specific suggestions are reiterated below, with a listing by who needs to do what:
You, the reader and consumer of media from blogs to movies, need to:
1. Let your congresscritter know, in no uncertain terms, that attacks on freedom of the press will not be tolerated, and that blogs and people on the net are just as much journalists as are people at the New York Times or Fox News. Remind them also that America does not condone or accept the licensing of media.
2. Let your congresscritter know that you oppose other government involvement in, and regulation of, the Internet for any reason. What is free speech today is all too likely to end up as pornographic or unacceptable tomorrow. Beware the slippery slope.
3. Support your local blogger. Make that monetary donation if they have a tip jar, and make comments to keep them honest. Promote valid discussion and rational discourse. That is, after all, one of your duties to the Republic as a Citizen. It should even be argued that it is your duty as a Citizen of the World.
4. Since no outlet can have specialists in all areas, if you see a problem let the outlet know in a constructive manner. Offer to help them with correction, correct information, introduction to experts, etc.
5. If the outlet won’t make a correction or is otherwise uninterested, let the blogs know and see if pressure can be applied that way. Public ridicule can work wonders…
6. Be an informed consumer of news from The Media. Learn the track records and background of the local or other reporters of interest. If you find they are lacking, switch media and let it be known. Media outlets are businesses, and they can and will change tunes – and reporters or editors – if the proper motivation is applied.
7. If you can’t get others to blog about problems in local or other media, do it yourself. Follow the rules (learn the difference between libel and slander, and avoid both) and do the best job you possibly can. Yes, it will cost you time and money, but that is one of the responsibilities we, as citizens, must bear.
The Media, those that call themselves journalists and news people, and the pundits who publish or broadcast through the same need to do the following:
1. Abolish the practice of so-called advocacy reporting. It is not journalism, it is not good “press” work, and it seriously compromises any pretext at doing real journalism.
2. Make use of specialists in subject areas, particularly in science, business, law, military, and other arcane matters. These are not compromised sources nor should they be second class citizens in the news structure. They are valuable resources and should be treated as such, be they on staff or freelance.
3. Make use of specialists all the way through the process. From writing to headline writing, make use of that knowledgebase so as to avoid mistakes and other problems.
4. No outlet can have all the specialists it needs, so make use of freelance specialists as well. Freelance does not mean tainted or unwashed, and does not automatically mean compromised in the journalistic sense. Get some sense, and grow up on this matter.
5. Offer the same degree of transparency that you demand of big business, government agencies, and others. You are a business, a big business, and need to be held to the same rules and standards to which others are required to meet.
6. Accept the fact that journalists are not elites, and that the club is open to anyone. Quit putting on airs, looking down your nose, and deliberately withholding of the term journalists to those who don’t happen to toil at a major daily. In short, get over it.
7. Make conflict of interest rules and ideals have relevance by including political and other sources of bias as much a part of them as financial and work history are supposed to be today.
8. Start correcting mistakes online, and do so by updating rather than trying to put things down the memory hole.
9. Study the best practices of the blogs and start making use of it on your own online sites.
10. Improve journalism schools and training, so that students are exposed to new ideas, concepts, and more in school. Fair and balanced needs to start there, if it is ever to make it into The Media.
Bloggers need to do the following:
1. Operate to the highest standards of personal and professional ethics. This does not mean play nice or only use good and proper language, but it does mean getting things right, doing things right, and obeying the letter and spirit of the law. Anything worth doing is worth doing right.
2. You/we need not only to point out problems, but suggest means of remediation directly or encourage discourse such that one or more means are developed in the course of said discussion.
3. You/we also need to make use of the fantastic opportunity to update, correct, and refine offered through the medium. The best already do this, the rest of us need to follow the lead.
There you have it. Ten posts, a lot of information and food for thought, and I hope that it does spark some good discussions on a crucial topic.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Rational Discourse and Persuasibility
Originally posted 17 June 2003
Part 4
Though it stands on its own, you can also think of this as the fourth installment of Saving Pvt. Journalism. I have been wanting to do this for some time, as it lies at the heart of the great experiment that is America.
The founding fathers took part in, and encouraged, a concept known as rational discourse. Since there was not the mass entertainment of today to occupy them, there were discussions and presentations held at dinner parties, gatherings at taverns and other public places, and even at theatres. At such times, discussions and news of the latest scientific theories, philosophy, thought, and more were presented, discussed, and considered. Even those who could not read the written word heard, learned, understood, and took part.
The exchange of ideas and information was the heart of the process. Through discussion, those present learned the news, examined the implications of same, and took part in a sometimes vigorous exchange of ideas.
This tied into the very radical idea that this bunch of rich white guys held dear: namely, that individuals were capable of making informed decisions and ruling themselves. This idea, as with the concept of rational discourse, came from Europe and intellectuals and revolutionaries there. There is some debate as to whether the concept of rational discourse as practiced in the New World matched that of the old, but such discussions – while interesting – are largely irrelevant.
What matters is that the idea as practiced here by the founding fathers and those who came before them, became a cornerstone of America. The way it is supposed to work is that news, ideas, and concepts are brought forth on the public stage by one means or another. This is presented to the audience, and from that audience individuals examine, interpret, and discuss. Some individuals do so in a way as to create positions, or presentations on what “it” all means and what it might mean to society. These positions are then debated and discussed, and all who hear, read, or are otherwise exposed to them can formulate their own opinions and act on same.
The key points are and were the presentation of the facts as facts, the discussion of same, the formulation of positions, and the debate and decisions reached through sound consideration of same. It may be thought of as debate on a grand scale, but a key component was rational presentation and rational discussion. Then, as today, it was known that you will never convert an ideologue of any type, and as such extremist positions were more or less excluded by consensus.
As I stated earlier, the exchange of ideas was the heart of the process. The soul of the process was the ability to change minds. It was expected that when presented with facts and information that showed a position to be untenable, that the person presenting it would concede such and change positions. All positions, popular or not, were expected to take part in this process, and abide by this unspoken rule. This was the model followed by many of the founding fathers, and as such became the example held up to the country.
This is a very fine concept, but in practice it can and does fall short. Even in the days of the founding fathers, it was sometimes honored in the breach. I urge you to read some of the writings of Jefferson and others to get a better feel for this.
This form of rhetoric is one with which I was raised and taught. I also quickly learned that it is not terribly well followed today, or any day for that matter. It is difficult, requires not merely thought but thoughtful consideration of ourselves and the world, and it requires effort. You must be knowledgeable, seek more knowledge, take the time to be informed on current events and the like, and have a high-degree of self-honesty.
Yet it was still a core part of my beliefs, but recently there was some discussion by author John Ringo that caught my attention. He recounted and amplified on the concept of persuasibility as presented by former professor and current author John Barnes. Dr. Barnes states categorically that much of his presentation is nothing more than classical rhetoric, but if so it is an excellent summation of same.
It also is a very clear example of what I feel rational discourse to be about. Rather than try to distill it down, I am with his permission going to quote the key points as he presented them to me.
“Where it is: The obligation of persuasibility is a moral and ethical obligation that flows from the enthymeme of reciprocity, which in turn is one of the quasi-logical structures of informal logic. It is therefore itself enthymemic, so it’s more firmly rooted than a mere preference or value (like the rules of baseball, driving on the right, “the Backstreet Boys suck”, “patriotism is good”, “all you need is love") but less so than an empirical law or a mathematical theorem.
What it is: the obligation of persuasibility is the requirement that if you enter into a dialogue with another person or persons, your purpose will be not only to refute their arguments or to convert the arguer, but to consider their arguments as candidates for your own belief. That is, you will not reject the possibility that it may be your mind, rather than theirs, that needs changing; or in utilitarian terms, the greater good may be for you to be persuaded, rather than them.
What it ain’t: Although, obviously, if someone converts, they were persuasible, the other side’s not being persuaded does not prove that they violated the obligation of persuasibility—it may be, for example, that you made a poor case. It is perfectly possible for people to disagree throughout their entire lives while still upholding the obligation of persuasibility. (Indeed, it is likely).
Why it matters: because ethically, two people who have placed themselves under mutual obligation of persuasibility can co-participate in a political and social order peacefully and of their own free will. The obligation of persuasibility is thus a possibility condition for liberal democracy. The areas in which the obligation of persuasibility holds, within a given society, are the ones where society can be both individually free and socially ordered. Or, as I used to put it to my class, tell me how much of the obligation of persuasibility your society is willing to undertake, and I will tell you how much peace and freedom you’re going to get.”
To me, this is the heart of rational discourse as practiced in the colonies. It may or may not have been the correct interpretation of the continental philosophers of the day, but is built on the foundations laid by Aristotle and still taught at that time. The sad state of education today is a topic for another day.
That said, there are some things that will invalidate rational discourse/persuasibility. Again quoting Dr. Barnes, the things that do this are:
“1. communications aimed entirely at conversion; that character on your doorstep in the cheap suit, who is not there to find out what you might think about God or God’s nonexistence, but to deliver a single-sided message and try to knock down your objections. 2. communications aimed entirely at expression (or maybe “venting” is a better word, since the legal term ‘freedom of expression” covers much that is intended to be persuasive), e.g. shouting “Nigger” into a bullhorn on a crowded city street, 3. communications whose purpose is to dismiss any need to listen to the other side (e.g. ad hominem, sponsor boycotts, a habit of characterizing the other side as morons or dupes), 4. therapizing speech (treating the other person’s opinion as a symptom of disease or vice), 5. listening solely to refute, 6. some kinds of extreme relativism ("that might be right for you but it’s not right for me"), 7. apathism (the position that the other sides’ distinctions are without differences).”
John Ringo also brought up a concept that deserves mention, because it is an area in which rational discourse/persuasibility has no bearing. This is the concept of a “religious” belief, i.e. one that is held on a matter of faith such that no amount of evidence, data, or other will change it. These are beliefs that can be core to a person, or are simply such that they will not be discussed or modified. A former co-worker and I discussed this point at some length in some rather fun discussions, and the term we had settled on to describe such was “prejudice.” For such beliefs are just that, they are subjects on which a preconceived opinion exists that is not subject to rational discussion or debate.
We all have such, and they can be a religious belief, a political belief, or simply an opinion on a current event. I have certain prejudices regarding space, including the fact that we need to be out there, that no amount of discussion will change. In terms of events, it is a prejudice with me that we did a good thing in Iraq, and that having been home sick and watching it live on TV that day it is my prejudice that my government committed murder at Waco. I have facts to back both assertions up, but these are not topics in which I will engage in rational discourse, but rather conversion discourse.
The press, as opposed to The Media, was intended to play a crucial role in the process of rational discourse in America. It was to be a means of providing the news, the facts which needed to be considered by one and all. It was to provide a means for disseminating the differing positions that were generated, along with the discussion of same. It was to allow a means of disseminating what was distilled from this, so that some form of consensus could be presented, or at least what decision had been reached by the government and why.
Through this, there was presentations by the press, by pundits, conversion messages by individuals or groups, and again news of the decisions reached. It is a critical process, and is key to ensuring and expanding our freedoms, as well as continuing the great experiment that is America.
It is also the concept upon which I founded this blog, with the hope of encouraging thought, discussion, and more. It is why I can and will delete comments that fail of the test of persuasibility. If you want to convert, attack and destroy, fail to provide facts and citations: go start your own blog. I am very pleased that I have thus far only deleted one comment. It gives me hope for the blog, the concept, and for America if not the world.
-30-
Friday, September 08, 2006
Saving Pvt. Journalism, Pt. 3
Continuing the reprint, originally posted 16 June 2003
There are certain aspects to what is called journalism that go beyond the real office. Then, there are certain realities that come into play as means of communications develop. Both need to be understood as we continue to consider saving journalism.
There are certain aspects to what is called journalism that go beyond the real office. Then, there are certain realities that come into play as means of communications develop. Both need to be understood as we continue to consider saving journalism.
Within The Media and most communications efforts that have anything to do with journalism, there is real journalism, entertainment writing, opinion writing, and advertising. These have different histories and purposes, and bad things happen when the lines between them get blurred.
As stated previously, real reporting gives facts in an honest and balanced manner. It does not lead you, suggest what you do, or in any other way attempt to coerce you towards a particular view. Having this type of information is a keystone of the great experiment that is America, and was one of the reasons for Jefferson’s famous quote “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.”
Now, it is interesting to note that President Jefferson had his run ins with the newspapers of the day, just as modern politicians do. Even then, there was considerable debate on what constituted reporting and what was other. Indeed, Jefferson got in one of the best shots when he remarked “Advertisements… contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.”
He also made two quotes that are very applicable today, especially when taken in the broader sense of The Media. “I deplore… the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them… These ordures are rapidly depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information and a curb on our funtionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief… This has, in a great degree, been produced by the violence and malignity of party spirit.” This was echoed in “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”
Entertainment writing is how I refer to human interest and similarly done feature stories. They do present a lot of information, but can hardly be called fair, balanced, or non-coercive. They are approached from a particular point of view, often from the eyes of a “victim” of some sort, and through such loose all journalistic credibility. They are great means of exposing a wrong and encouraging some form of change, but less than beneficial towards rational discussion of an issue and determination of the optimum means and method of change. I refer to it as entertainment writing in part because its roots like back in the 1800s when tales of frontiersmen, the wild west, and other characters were the genesis for this style of writing (IMO). Other writers caught on to the fact that putting people in, and telling the story from the viewpoint of a given person, caught the reader’s attention and hooked them on the story and on the publication. This has been used to great effect, such as forcing reforms in the meat processing industry, and to great shame as in the falsified stories of Janet Cooke and Jimmy’s World.
Opinion writing has a long and prestigious history in the United States. In many ways, it was the early leaders of the states, and then the founding fathers, who made it an art form. Since there were no mass means of entertainment as we have today, dinner and party conversation often saw presentations in rational discourse in which selected speakers would hold forth on issues ranging from natural history to political science. The speakers were engaging, thoughtful, and presented their positions well. This speech was to convert, but it also allowed for the possibility of conversion in the opposite direction.
As time went on, this expanded and such conversations became debates of sort, and were of interest far and wide as problems with England grew. The various options for action and inaction were laid out, as were the costs and benefits for each. This debate spilled out of the drawing rooms of the day, and into pamphlets and such that were carried out to the wider world. In this way, the general populace was informed and presented with the relative merits for each position and was able to judge between them.
This gradually moved from the politicians, as the intellectual founding fathers moved on, and became the province of journalists, academics, and others who were able to continue the tradition. From this, we get today’s columnists, pundits, and broadcasters who provide opinion-focused writing.
Advertising is a means of paying the bills for communications outlets. It began because printing was expensive, and some means of defraying the costs of the press, ink, paper, and such was needed to make mass printing feasible, either for journalistic or political ends. Ads have always been both a blessing and a curse, as they are needed but they also have the ability to corrupt coverage. An advertiser can, has, and does influence coverage by either buying more or paying more when they like how things are done, or by taking money away when they do not. Good communications outlets have clear boundaries between advertising and business and the journalistic side of the house.
In previous posts, I have touched briefly on changes in technology and how it affects The Media and communications. In reviewing the history of journalism and communications, there is a concept that needs to be brought forward for consideration.
As any technology develops, it goes through clear phases. There is the initial single purpose, then a move towards general coverage, and then a focus on specialization. In newspapers, this can be seen in the original broadsheets, which then moved into newssheets and newspapers that covered all possible topics, then a switch towards a particular audience or a particular subject matter. Magazines followed a similar path, growing out of newspaper and political pamphlets to devote to a specific subject or goal, then becoming the general magazines of the day, and then evolving into a legion of magazines each focusing on a different topic or specialty area.
All media follows this trend, and it shapes operations and plans in The Media and in any communications outlet. Getting on the right side of that curve means being extremely successful and making money. Being off the curve means loosing your shirt. So, most outlets keep this theory in mind as they start or as they try new things.
-30-
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Saving Pvt. Journalism, Pt. 2
Originally posted June 13, 2003
To understand where we are today, we have to look back at the long road that brought about modern concepts of journalism, media, and entertainment. In many ways, this is a history of technology with a bit of people thrown in for spice.
In a day and age where instant communication is the norm, it is hard to remember that it was not that long ago that not every home had a phone, a television, and that not every television was colour. Most of today’s high school students have never lived in a world without the internet, cable or satellite television, phones, or even cell phones. Despite some nasty accusations, I am not as old as dirt and I do remember the days when not every home or location had a phone; when there was not cable television and the pain in the rump it was to re-orient the outside antenna to pull in signals from different areas (and the wonder that was an electric rotator that went on the mast), when quite a few televisions were not colour, and communications satellites began to revolutionize things.
Given the changes in a single lifetime, much less the many millions of lives that take things as they are for granted, it is hard to conceive of a time when news was strictly local, and even that took time to get around. In ancient of days, long before the rise of Athens and the true flowering of Western thought, news traveled my merchants, by soldiers, and others who had to take to the road. Travelers were sought after when they arrived, because they could and would tell the news of far away places, sometimes more than twenty miles away.
There were no presses, and clay tablets, papyrus, and even stone contained the writing of the day. Specialists in writing, scribes, were the earliest gatekeepers of the recording of information, deciding what was worthy to go on the limited resources of the day. As a result, most news and entertainment were oral and traveled person to person. To get an idea of how reliable such is, simply play the kids game rumor. You get the picture.
Nor was this the only problem. Many people relished being the center of attention, of being plied with food and drink so as to tell the news and tales of far away places. This, in turn, lead to bards. These were traveling entertainers who sang, danced, recited poetry or stories, and otherwise entertained the masses – such as they were – along the way. Bards had entry into great halls and the lowliest hut, but knew that they must entertain to earn their keep. So, they told great stories of great deeds, and news often was embellished to keep attention and ensure good earnings for the night or stay.
Written histories did exist, but they were limited in amount because the cost of the materials was quite high. Therefore, they tended to be for official writings of one sort or another, and as a result represented the “official government take” on events. Since this usually involved justification of things or the official version of events, it is safe to say that they were often as embellished as the bardic tales.
As the ability to make paper grew, so to did written documents. They were still expensive, and very limited because there the photocopiers of the day were teams of scribes, later monks, who copied documents by hand. Again, the game of rumor can show you how perfect some of those copies might be… The result was, that news and entertainment continued to be a largely oral tradition.
Entertainment itself deserves a bit more explanation. There were, of course, theatres and great plays and shows were put on in them. These were, by and large, rare events and limited primarily to large towns. Even traveling shows tended to go to larger cities rather than small villages and such. Within large towns, there was a need for more regular entertainment, and the bards filled the role. Bards were actor, singer, illusionists, and more rolled into one. Even when traveling acting companies began to appear, they had to be a bit multifaceted to make a go of it out on the road.
This continued to be the case even after the advent of the printing press. The press made it easier to produce multiple copies of things, but it was an expensive and time-consuming operation. Not only was the press expensive, but parchment and paper were as well. Therefore, most printed items tended to be either books or special announcements from the government that needed to be read far and wide so all the people would hear them. Literacy was far from universal, and any who would decry the status of such today should look back a hundred years or more for contrast.
The concept of news as news, unembellished, timely, and unbiased was largely undreamed of until fairly recently. Traveler’s tales were in great demand, but all knew to take them with a grain, or a keg, of salt. It was quite often impossible to tell fact from fiction, which produced a number of problems, solutions, and perplexing situations.
In the 1600s, this began to change somewhat, but did not flower as an ideal until the 1700s. It was during this time that the great thinkers and philosophers of the day made the point that people were capable of looking after themselves, and making good decisions, if provided with the right information. This also coincided to some degree with the rise of the merchant class, who needed accurate information for purposes of trade. It was then that the first broadsheets began to be published, primarily with shipping schedules, fees, and other information needed for business. This was aided by newer presses and improved means of paper production.
The idea of accurate information grew out of the needs of business, out of capitalism. The other driving force in this was science, and the meme from it that all could be explained logically, rationally, and accurately through the discoveries being made. These memes merged, spread, and grew among the intellectual elite of the time. Some began living it, and the broadsheets transformed a bit into things that were the precursors of today’s newspapers and magazines.
The term “the press” grew out of the printing presses of the day. Even with improvements they were expensive, large, heavy, and took several people to work in an efficient manner. Therefore, “the press” served the needs of a large area and once the idea of competing broadsheets began, they also found service printing rival publications at different times. It was to ensure that the presses would continue to be used for such that the modern concept of freedom of the press was born. It was to ensure both that the government did not control the presses, and therefore the flow of news and information, and to ensure that presses were not limited to just one group.
The journalists of the time are in many ways barely recognizable by the ideals of today. They were partisan, and broadsheets and newspapers were closely allied with various political parties and factions. That is still quite true in a majority of the world today, though many in The Media and various ivory towers do their best to pretend that it is not so. Having traveled the world a bit, read papers and watched news elsewhere, and talked to the people involved in the production of same, it is my opinion that this practice is far more widespread than not.
The U.S. was not and is not exempt. Just look at the history of such papers as the New York Times, and the Chicago Tribune (copperheads anyone?), or of the Washington Times and Washington Post today. Almost every major paper in the U.S. was, and to some extent still is, affiliated with a political party or movement.
Just as partisanship has continued on, so too have elements of the bardic tradition. Writers and broadcasters seek to capture, to enthrall, to wax eloquent on the topics of the day. While this may show learned background, and that was a part of the bardic tradition since they often were literate and more, it is also an attempt to boost readership and viewership. Simply look at the writing of the 1800s and it is plain to see. This has lead to some great writing, some even truly great in literary terms, but it can also be as misleading as any tale of dragons or daemons who will eat the ships that sail off the edge of the world.
This continued into the new media of the age as well: radio. Radio stations sprang up, and were often spinoffs of print media empires. Until monopoly laws changed the practice, it was not uncommon and generally accepted.
The concept of modern reporting actually is a product of the last century, the 1900s. It was then, through a variety of events that occurred in the U.S., that the idea of accurate, unbiased, beholden to none, straight news came into being. For background purposes, there were several scandals in government and in the media itself that brought this about. When the people of the country found out that both the media and the government had been lying to them, or at the very least not telling the whole truth, the outrage had to be dealt with in a constructive manner.
There are numerous parallels to what we face today. Advertisers were influencing the news, celebrities and politicians were getting preferential treatment, payoffs were being made to media and to government, and it was clear that all the rules – and a heck of a lot of laws – were being broken. This brought about the reforms that were to “end” corruption in government, and reforms were made in the media by the media. The latter was to ensure that regulatory efforts were not made on any level, and to prevent further business losses.
The next post will explore this a bit further, so that we can get a better picture of how we have reached from print and radio to today.
-30-
Content copyright C. Blake Powers and the individual authors. Comments become the property of C. Blake Powers and may be altered, edited, deleted, and used by C. Blake Powers or the individual authors without restriction or recompense.
