Sunday, May 09, 2004
LA Times Editor on the Warpath
John Carroll, editor of the Los Angeles Times, warns us of the rise of what he calls 'pseudo-journalism--a sort of public events coverage whos practitioners--Bill O'Reilly and Fox News in particular--doesn't fit into a long legacy of journalists who got their facts right and respected and cared for their audiences.
Of course, for John Carroll, 'pseudo-journalism' apparently exists only on the right, not on the left. And his singling out an editorial talk show host and opinion columnist for this criticism is nothing short of whacked--especially for an editor who keeps a nut job like Robert Scheer on his payroll.
Of course, as Carroll will undoubtably point out, there is traditionally a cheesecloth of separation between opinion page staff and news staff. So you'd think he'd figure out that a conservative opinion show like O'Reilly's is not a proxy for FOX News, any more than Robert Scheer is a proxy for the LA Times.
Now, it might be fair to say that Tony Snow might be--Snow's substituted for Rush Limbaugh on occasion. But is that any further out there on the ideological limb than Katie Couric's marching for abortion rights with Whoopie Goldberg?
Carroll cited a study released last year that showed Americans had three main
misconceptions about Iraq: That weapons of mass destruction had been found, a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq had been demonstrated and that the world approved of U.S intervention in Iraq. He said 80 percent of people who primarily got their news from Fox believed at least one of the misconceptions. He said the figure was more than 57 percentage points higher than people who get their news from public news broadcasting.
See, each of these points--with the exception of 'world support' in its broadest and most practically meaningless definition, is at least arguable. But if you look at the actions of the governments that actually count, the majority of the governments of NATO, the majority of the G7, and the majority of the European Union actually joined the coalition and put boots on the ground in Iraq.
How many people who get their news solely from Public Broadcasting are going to know that?
How many people who get their news solely from Public Broadcasting are going to know that Saddam Hussein was giving aid and succor and shelter to the guy who murdered Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro?
I'm not a FOX fan. Actually, I consider the channel to be almost unwatchable. I hate its graphics and look and bleeding colors and white washouts and color distortion and obnoxious sound carts.
But they break stories every day.
Further, when it comes to manipulating the news, check out how Carroll manipulated coverage of Schwartzenegger's 11th hour Gropergate.
Carroll goes on to warn young journalists to guard their integrity very closely, and not be seduced by the prospect of TV gigs and prestigious publications at its expense.
"Don't play piano in a whorehouse," he says.
Yeah, I've noticed that about piano players, too.
By the way, how's that revenue-sharing arrangement with the Staples Center working out?
Splash, out
Jason
Of course, for John Carroll, 'pseudo-journalism' apparently exists only on the right, not on the left. And his singling out an editorial talk show host and opinion columnist for this criticism is nothing short of whacked--especially for an editor who keeps a nut job like Robert Scheer on his payroll.
Of course, as Carroll will undoubtably point out, there is traditionally a cheesecloth of separation between opinion page staff and news staff. So you'd think he'd figure out that a conservative opinion show like O'Reilly's is not a proxy for FOX News, any more than Robert Scheer is a proxy for the LA Times.
Now, it might be fair to say that Tony Snow might be--Snow's substituted for Rush Limbaugh on occasion. But is that any further out there on the ideological limb than Katie Couric's marching for abortion rights with Whoopie Goldberg?
Carroll cited a study released last year that showed Americans had three main
misconceptions about Iraq: That weapons of mass destruction had been found, a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq had been demonstrated and that the world approved of U.S intervention in Iraq. He said 80 percent of people who primarily got their news from Fox believed at least one of the misconceptions. He said the figure was more than 57 percentage points higher than people who get their news from public news broadcasting.
See, each of these points--with the exception of 'world support' in its broadest and most practically meaningless definition, is at least arguable. But if you look at the actions of the governments that actually count, the majority of the governments of NATO, the majority of the G7, and the majority of the European Union actually joined the coalition and put boots on the ground in Iraq.
How many people who get their news solely from Public Broadcasting are going to know that?
How many people who get their news solely from Public Broadcasting are going to know that Saddam Hussein was giving aid and succor and shelter to the guy who murdered Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro?
I'm not a FOX fan. Actually, I consider the channel to be almost unwatchable. I hate its graphics and look and bleeding colors and white washouts and color distortion and obnoxious sound carts.
But they break stories every day.
Further, when it comes to manipulating the news, check out how Carroll manipulated coverage of Schwartzenegger's 11th hour Gropergate.
Carroll goes on to warn young journalists to guard their integrity very closely, and not be seduced by the prospect of TV gigs and prestigious publications at its expense.
"Don't play piano in a whorehouse," he says.
Yeah, I've noticed that about piano players, too.
By the way, how's that revenue-sharing arrangement with the Staples Center working out?
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Post a Comment
