Snowden and Manning are no different than Mark Felt (Watergate) and Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers). Snowden and Manning, through their work, had access to the documents they divulged. They did not hack systems; they had proper security clearances that allowed them access to the material they collected -- just as did Felt and Ellsberg. Snowden and Manning should be protected by the First Amendment. (Granted, Manning's error is that he went through an intermediary -- Wikileaks -- rather than delivering the documents to an entity known to be protected by First Amendment rights, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, etc. I personally believe Wikileaks should be protected under the First, however, I can also understand where there is controversy since they predominantly disclose raw information, rather than analyze and report as a traditional media entity would.) So why do we label Felt and Ellsberg 'whistleblowers' and Snowden and Manning 'traitors'? Because both the media and political landscapes have changed drastically in 40-plus years. Media entities are corporate; their news divisions can cause trouble on Capitol Hill, impacting the bottom line of the conglomerate as a whole. Taking a stance to defend Snowden or Manning could end up coming back to haunt a media corporation when they look to pursue legislation that could benefit stockholders. There is also the post-9/11 mentality, that civil rights be damned in the name of national security. And yes, the media helps perpetuate that for the same reason described above. Although, it is funny (and hypocritical) when word gets out that the government has hacked the computers of reporters to obtain information on sources. Only then does the journalism community damn near riot because their constitutional rights have been violated. As someone who has studied media on an academic level (two degrees -- journalism and mass communication) and worked in the media industry for nearly two decades, I can tell you the state of journalism is in complete disarray. In nearly all cases, watching television news is no more valuable in providing a person with quality information than watching reality television. Most newspapers are better off used as fish wrap or a birdcage liner. Those who still attempt to practice real journalism are drowned out by corporate media or eventually cast off as pariahs. There are still journalists who stil believe in the trade and produce quality content, but they are becoming so much harder to find. The fourth estate? A well-informed electorate? Ha. Journalism is dead. Long live journalism?
May I probe your mind and ask which journalists you believe are producing quality content, and also what (if any) websites exist that provide quality news with a clear value to it? There's a couple of reasons for this, one is that I'm becoming increasingly interested in news and journalism due to a resurgence in a news program at the college radio station I work at, the other is because of the today's political landscape.As someone who has studied media on an academic level (two degrees -- journalism and mass communication) and worked in the media industry for nearly two decades, I can tell you the state of journalism is in complete disarray. In nearly all cases, watching television news is no more valuable in providing a person with quality information than watching reality television. Most newspapers are better off used as fish wrap or a birdcage liner. Those who still attempt to practice real journalism are drowned out by corporate media or eventually cast off as pariahs. There are still journalists who stil believe in the trade and produce quality content, but they are becoming so much harder to find.
The top of my list is NPR and American Public Media. They are not quite non-profits, but they are certainly not corporate. What they receive in funding, they put back into the product. (This is how journalism should work -- not based on turning profits.) It is worth noting, a study I came across about media coverage in the 2012 election indicated NPR was the only media outlet that aired almost a 50-50 split of negative stories on the candidates. (I think it was 52-48 skewed against Obama.) Almost every other media entity had a 65-35 or greater skew toward one candidate. So in regard to not showing bias in journalism, NPR did a pretty good job against its peers. Start with the NPR hourly news update. It is what I like to call 'Cronkie journalism' -- just the facts. As far as breaking news goes, no one needs more than 8 minutes at any one time. News needs time to evolve. You are bound to hear more world news on public radio, and much more in-depth national coverage. I think it is Susan Stamberg who covers the Supreme Court for NPR; her reporting is phenomenal. If one of her reports is on, I don't leave my car until she is finished. (Who would ever guess the Supreme Court is interesting?) Public Radio International's 'The World' is an excellent show that will expose you to news stories that would be ignored by the U.S. media. (Because of the what-comes-in-goes-out budget, public radio tends to still fund a number of foreign correspondents, where as many corporate news divisions have scaled back.) You may hear some arts and music related coverage on NPR, but not your typical celebrity gossip coverage. Maybe a movie or album review, but those features are short maybe only 2-3 minutes. (News stories run around 4-6 minutes.) If you want to learn how to conduct an outstanding interview, listen to Terry Gross on NPR's 'Fresh Air.' The BBC (not BBC America) is an excellent source. Your PBS station may carry BBC World News, which is exactly what they get in the UK. It is a proper 30-minute broadcast, and they do cover news in the United States. BBC World Service is the radio branch, also excellent. And because the BBC is a publicly funded entity, there's no worry about news being skewed, dumbed down, etc. because of finances. The CBC in Canada is very similar. Peter Mansbridge is the host of The National, the CBC's nightly news, is a good, traditional newsman. They, too, have great radio, but the television broadcasts are so hard to get in the U.S. I haven't watched Al Jazeera America, but I thought their English product was solid. Unfortunately, you can't get AJE in the U.S. anymore. (And my understanding is, yes, the broadcasts are different.) Print-wise, you can't go wrong with the New York Times. There is some corporatism there, but 90 percent of the company is privately held. And the Times has experienced some scandal, but it still stands as the best in the U.S. (It's Sunday edition is worth the $6 they charge -- all original content, unlike many newspapers that use wire service copy, sometimes days old, as filler.) Speaking of wires, the Associated Press is very reputable. So is Agence France-Presse. Both non-profit wire services. I am intrigued by Vice Media as of late. It's alternative, but they're going to places and uncovering unique stories others are not. Also, don't overlook a magazine like Rolling Stone for its political coverage. These days, keep an eye out for investigative, long-form journalism. It tends to be very time consuming, very costly and returns little in terms of profit. It may even put an entity's budget in the red. So if there is some publisher, somewhere willing to make that kind of commitment, it is going to be thoroughly researched and of some serious magnitude. If you want a great example of investigative, long form journalism, read Katherine Eban's "Dirty Medicine" Is that a good start? :) I leave you with this, a quote from H. L. Mencken: "I know of no human being who has a better time than an eager and energetic young reporter."
erin, I too am an avid listener and supporter of NPR. I grew up listening with my father when he would drive me to school in the mornings. Back then, I couldn't stand it and wished we could listen to music, but I really appreciate that he introduced me to it at such a young age. I know it is off topic, but I wonder what you think of them getting rid of Talk of the Nation? I was really dissapointed, it was a fantastic show and I tuned in to listen to it live almost every day, because I never knew if the topic would shift in to an area that I had expertise in and would like to call in and participate. -In an era when people can TIVO their telivision programming and stream any NPR program anytime, Talk of the Nation required someone to stop what they were doing and listen at a specific time each day. -There has to be value in that from a marketing perspective, right? This is why live sporting events are so valuable to network television. Anyways, I found it to be a giant bummer. I miss Neal Conan. As for Terry Gross, I have a love/hate relationship with her. She gets fantastic guests and she has a great breadth of knowledge, but I feel like sometimes she has her mind made up about what the answer should be to her questions before she asks them. -A small criticism that I've shared IRL with cW a number of times. I'm a BIG Diane Rehm fan. In fact, go to this page and search "hubski". Yeah.... that was me. I'm an unapologetic proselytizer of Hubski. I used to go running with cliffelam who is a conservative fella. We would listen to the Diane Rehm show while driving to the trail. We would count the amount of times they said something that was pro-right or pro-left or anti-right anti-left. It was almost always 50/50. Pretty balanced journalism imo. I think cliff would disagree though. No matter what though, the worst journalism out there is CNN. FOX and MSNBC are both giant piles of garbage, but at least we all know they're biased. CNN is supposed to be objective. -Ha.
Well, that one day we counted it was 50/50 and I was surprised. I've counted since and will say that DR is more balanced than her guest hosts, but I've never gotten her higher than 70/30. Of course, the choice of subject matter is also another way to skew the conversation. So you have "how will we clean up this oil spill" rather than "how can we have energy independence in the next 5-7 years." See how that changes things? -XC
I miss Talk of the Nation, too. If I could not catch it live, I would listen to the podcast in the evening. To me, the brilliance -- regardless of when you listened to it -- is that mainstream media brought the public into the conversation. That is a very difficult thing to do, and TotN pulled it off masterfully. I read NPR nixed TotN because they felt they had a similar product in "On Point" with Tom Ashbrook. He's okay, but I liked Neal Conan better. Yes, I've noticed Terry Gross throws out the occasional leading question. It is not a good practice, but sometimes it helps moderate an interview or open up a new path of discussion. I wouldn't call Diane Rehm's show journalism, especially the round table discussions. But I agree, there is always good balance. And the debate is civilized. I may not agree with the guests sometimes, but at least it's not the riled-up screamfest that dominates television. It is no secret FOX and MSNBC target specific demographics. I laughed at all the recent changes at CNN, because it seems like they are not trying to be objective, but both FOX and MSNBC, with a little TMZ thrown in. How is it no one at CNN had the idea of, 'Hey, other networks are so skewed, why don't we go back to our roots and practice real journalism?' This void does exist in television news. You would think last-place CNN would try something out-of-the-box and shake up the landscape. What's even more hilarious is Time Warner broadcasts 'The Newsroom' on HBO which is based on bringing respectability back to television journalism, yet Time Warner is doing the exact opposite with their own cable news network. Oh, the irony.