Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once wrote that it is better not to be a journalist than to write the lies of Pravda. Press in the United States is freer — exactly how “free” it is is debatable — than it ever was in the Soviet Union, so journalists here aren’t confronted with the dichotomy which Solzhenitsyn mentions. Despite this freedom of the press — and the ever growing freedom provided to us by the Internet — most journalism that exists today is either of poor quality (in that it lacks depth and insight) or it is simply not journalism, because of the topics it covers… You want evidence? Just look at most magazines, newspapers, radio programs, Web sites and TV news programs. Separating good journalism from the bad is like looking for tiny diamonds in a large pile of bullshit. There is good stuff on the radio (NPR), the Internet (mostly the Web sites of good magazines), and there are a few good newspapers out there… I can’t think of any good TV news networks. Only two television programs stand out as insightful and good bullshit filters: “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “The Charlie Rose Show.”
The highest form of journalism, the form I value most, is magazine journalism (The New Yorker, The Atlantic, The Economist, and a few others) and journalism books (for example: by David Remnick, Sy Hersh and Hunter S. Thompson). In journalism, there is too much of an obsession with the present — often the immediate present — the importance of which is constantly exaggerated. I’m not saying that what’s going on in the present isn’t important, but depth, insight, critical thinking and seeing past the false dichtomy of “seeing both sides of the story” takes time. Reporting on “what happened today” should be the exception rather than the rule; and pandering to the lowest common denominator and sensationalism should not even be considered journalism.
Less news, more depth and critical thinking.
August 31, 2006 at 7:20 pm |
D-money, I have a few minor suggestions about the overall blog. I think you use the word good too many times… and there is nothing good about that. Also, if I may critique the message, while I agree with your proposal to tackle the issues underlying everyday news, I think you are forgetting that a large part of jousrnalism is entertainment. I know its not nearly as importent as insight to you– I can definetly relate to your diamond and cattle scat comment– but entertainment is an importent part of journalism. Perhaps what you can learn from all of the “bad” journalism out there is how to integrate meaningful insight in an entertaining way much like the Daily Show does today.
Holla
September 3, 2006 at 1:20 pm |
So I’ll be curious how you would change daily papers, TV shows, and web sites to move closer to your definition of quality. The Guardian says it’s pretty much not in the breaking news business (though it does, certainly, compete well in the latest news); it’s more about perspective. Will that work in the U.S.?
October 11, 2006 at 3:06 am |
[...] Another Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, a long-time critic of Putin’s policies and the war in Chechnya, was murdered last week. In a generally well-written article about her death, “In a Risky Place to Gather News, a Very Familiar Story,” New York Times journalist Steven Lee Myers made a mistake in writing, “Her murder has made her a symbol of what Russia has become.” This sentence may be beautifully written, but it’s untrue. As a Russian, I have to offer the following correction: Her murder has made her a symbol of what Russia has been for hundreds of years. To say that Russia “has become” a state institutionally hostile to the freedom of the press is to conveniently forget that the Russian—and formerly Soviet—government always did its best to suffocate even the remotest attempt at free speech, most recently in the 20th century. Although American grievances about censorship in the United States are often legitimate, they look hyperbolic and metaphorical when compared to Russia’s preying on and devouring of free speech. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Russia is the third most dangerous country for journalists in the world, after Iraq and Algeria (good company). Furthermore, according to CPJ, thirteen journalists have been murdered in Russia since Putin took office. There’ll be more. But let’s take a trip back in time to the ’60s: Soviet censors at first did not allow Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” to be published. And this was after Stalin’s reign of totalitarian brutality… “A Day in the Life” was only published thanks to Khrushchev. But then Solzhenitsyn was kicked out of the country. This was no aberration. The fact that Russia had so many great writers, yet such contempt for free speech, has to be one of the greatest literary ironies of all time. [...]