|
Not really another Tim Russert post, there are plenty of those. However, reading those posts I keep finding myself sidetracked by the concepts of journalism and M$M that people are throwing out. As a working (albeit specialized) journalist myself I'm shocked that so many bright people actually consider opinion journalism. Very little of what is on television on the cable news networks is real journalism, it is news entertainment. I enjoy the Daily Show, Keith, and lots of Air America, but these aren't journalism, at least John Stewart doesn't claim to be a journalist. Lots of newspapers have real journalists, and even a few of the columnists do actually engage in some journalism to bolster their columns, but mostly columnists are simply essayists.
A story from a real journalist can be fact checked. Anonymous sources are great, for pointing a reporter toward a story, but if you're going to make a claim, you need something other people can verify. In extremely rare cases, a plethora of unnamed sources in agreement AND a willingness to stand behind the story can justify running without independently verifiable sources, but that story isn't as strong as it should be and no real journalist can be truly proud of such an article.
I've read some pretty strong unattritibuted/confidential source "quotes" on DU recently. When questioned, inevitably the person using the quote says something like "You didn't prove it didn't happen" usually followed with "it fits right in with everything else, so therefore I believe it." Wow! Can you "prove" Vince Foster wasn't murdered? Can you prove aliens don't come to my house bringing me delicious pudding? Of course you can't, and you shouldn't have to--the burden rests solely on the "journalist" making the claim.
Sorry, but journalistic standards are important and despite their almost non-existence on television, the profession is too important to allow those standards to be ignored or abused, no matter by which ideological side.
|