A “bouillabaisse of chatter”

I read this interesting article about journalists, reporters, bloggers, pundits and professional political commentators. I think it is pretty accurate.

I have always said that New Zealand lags 3-5 years behind developments in the US in media and blogging. That may be shortening up a little, but not by much.

However there is much in the article that is similar to New Zealand already.

Unlike the medical and legal professions, which require their practitioners to have a degree and certification, anybody with or without a sane thought in his or her head can be a “journalist.” It raises a legitimate question of who is one today and indeed what is journalism.

There was a time when a practitioner, under the commonplace identity as reporter, had the minimum requirement of examining a politician or a campaign from as neutral a stance as possible before presenting the conclusions thereby reached to the reader or viewer.

In the glory days of radio and early television, a jewel of the airwaves was the periodic gathering of network reporters deeply grounded in political and foreign affairs before a microphone or camera to spread their reasonably unbiased knowledge. The old CBS roundups chaired by Edward R. Murrow easily come to mind.

Today, the reportorial successors or reasonable facsimiles thereof sit elbow-to-elbow with political guns for hire in what too often is watered down to another sales job for one or the other party, with the reporters reduced to spear carriers in the scene. 

I think that can be chunked down to “decent journalists, trained and skilled”, which is of course a fantasy.

Not only that. With the advent of the Internet, the art of the blog has been born and has flourished, the moniker being an abbreviation of “web log,” meaning logging onto the web. A blogger has an unlicensed license to offer all manner of views, speculations, rumors or just plain fantasies to a receptive audience with or without forethought.

The same goes for the addict of Twitter, which requires the product to be squeezed into 140 characters no matter how complex the matter to be discussed may be. All this seems to come under the rubric of today’s journalism when much of it is the functional equivalent of radio static on an old Philco crystal set.

Twitter, politicians, journalists all tweeting together is insanity, not very enlightening except to tragics or stalkers and ultimately futile. I’ll happily discuss this with anyone who cares to engage on it, including high paid political consultants.

In an era in which the Supreme Court declares that corporations are people for the sake of exercising free speech, paid political consultants and propagandists certainly share the same rights as anyone else, no less than folks who earn their living reporting and commenting on events of the day for newspapers, radio and television.

But the growing trend of mixing consultants and spokesmen for politicians and political parties with working stiffs of the news business into a bouillabaisse of chatter almost inevitably tilts the discussion into a scramble for partisan advantage.

Undoubtedly, the presence of practicing politicians, elected or otherwise, adds star power to the television talk shows, endlessly in battles for higher viewer ratings. Repeated appearances of the most prominent consultants similarly don’t hurt their own primary businesses, and nobody expects them to leave their political commitments and convictions outside the studio.

But their participation around the panelists’ table risks diverting what could have been substantive discussion into a defense of one’s clients or party or an attack on the opposition.

In New Zealand there is a sea change coming. The old crusty out of touch faces are going to go, replaced by more astute and aggressive commentators prepared to piss people off and challenge the status quo.

Meanwhile, the participating reporters, with less of a partisan ax to grind, often are moved to a bit of showboating to hold their own in the verbal tussles that result. Newspaper reporters hoping to be hired by network television have been known to lobby for spots on such panels.

Of course, laments of this sort from old-time newsies can be dismissed as sour grapes about the decline of the old ways of journalism. So be it. But as Walter Cronkite used to say at the end of his nightly show, that’s the way it is.

Lamenting…too funny, that is snob speak for whining. One thing is for certain, times change, they always have. It is no use whining about it because you will ultimately get mowed down by those willing to either embrace change to create change.

  • blokeintakapuna

    How Maori are you?
    Although she’s moderately attractive on the outside – she’s as ugly as Gower on the inside…
    In summary – Journalism standards don’t exist anymore and “journalists” these days are about as credible as a chocolate teapot…

    • Patrick

      Apparently the Producer gave her the questions – whatever happened to Journalism as a “trade”? You now have a front person repeating questions given to her by someone else. Feminists must be shattered with this revelation, pretty girl hired because of her looks, not for her brains has to rely on someone else to supply the intellectual grunt.

  • johnbronkhorst

    I have a conspiracy theory for you: (I don’t believe in conspiracies)
    Reporters and news organisations (in NZ) are anti this National Govt., to try and pervert the next election, not because they support the opposition, but because it will give them free copy to write about next year. If they can over throw the govt., by using shonky “facts”, misinterpretation and supporting the opposition’s position.

    • Phil T Tipp

      Naaah, you’re granting them waaaaaay too much foresight and cunning. Gotta remember these hacks are merely disposable glove-puppets.

    • Patrick

      Kind of like recruitment consultants – they love “churn” as that is how they earn their dough. Media need stories, they live & die by the ratings. I don’t think it is so much a conspiracy theory more like quite a plausible theory, most journo’s are leftie suckholes, they hate National anyway so it fits with their political leanings to do whatever it takes to bring National down, the added bonus is it secures the journos jobs because the rating go up. They must absolutely hate Key, product of a single parent home, brought up with the assistance of the State, goes on to make it big time & comes home to run the country – what a story. Not exactly how the lefties would like it to play out, in their world that person would now be a long time welfare beneficiary & lifetime Labour voter. That is how the story is supposed to play out in their eyes.

      • johnbronkhorst

        “They must absolutely hate Key, product of a single parent home, brought up with the assistance of the State, goes on to make it big time & comes home to run the country – what a story.”
        The typical labour party MP’s story is very different to one they try to portray as the average labour MP’s story….The portait of a typical labour rmp (as forwarded by them) is a cut and paste of MJ Savage, the reality however, is that none have achieved much in their lives and many could never lay claim to having got their hands “dirty” (from work) either physically of metaphorically.

        • johnbronkhorst

          I’ve just looked him up. Something I must have read past and missed. MJ Savage was born in Australia!!
          No wonder norman thinks he can achieve the same thing here!!

102%