Journalists: Are Any Of Them Not ****s?
Discussion
Its late so I might not be as articulate as I'd like.
I've had a fairly low opinion of journalists for about fifteen years now. In fact my FB post of just now kind of sums up my view of them: 'A journalist is a person who, if he found you bleeding to death, wouldn't apply first aid but would take some damn fine pictures of you dying'.
I didn't always think like this. My brother was a photo-journalist for a long time and a friend started in the back room of a photo agency and is now a very successful 'paparazzi' dude in New York. But for all their 'crusading after the truth' I can't help but think that they would sell their soul - and yours - for a scoop.
There was an obituary in the Telegraph today of a photo-journalist, apparently well respected and who in later life did good things for charity. But his career was made on pictures of struggling starving kids in Africa. Nowhere did it say that he ever fed them.
There's a book by some dude who was a journalist during the Bosnian war - 'My War Gone By, I Miss It So'. In it he describes how he intervened in an incident and saved someone's life but was then criticised by other journos for lacking the necessary detachment. Apparently they were there to observe, not participate, as if the world was a massive social science experiment.
My general uneasy feeling about them, which had been growing for a good few years, was crystallised during the Iraq war and particularly the early stages of the insurgency. They would demand transport, facilities and protection from coalition forces yet would stab them as soon as the first inkling of a story might emerge. Yet whenever a journalist was killed, injured, or even mildly threatened that was given airtime and print space over all other things. There's a quote - I wish I could remeber who by - that said: A foreign correspondent is someone who thinks the most important thing about a story is the fact that he has arrived to cover it.
The phone hacking thig is too well documented elsewhere to bother with here but thats only the latest thing. I know that some journalists do good, moral, work and many stories need airing, but on the whole they seem to me to be a plague of leeches, reporting and criticising other peoples actions but doing nothing themselves. The freedom of the press should be a wonderful thing but the people who are the press give it a bad name. Or so it seems to me.....
I've had a fairly low opinion of journalists for about fifteen years now. In fact my FB post of just now kind of sums up my view of them: 'A journalist is a person who, if he found you bleeding to death, wouldn't apply first aid but would take some damn fine pictures of you dying'.
I didn't always think like this. My brother was a photo-journalist for a long time and a friend started in the back room of a photo agency and is now a very successful 'paparazzi' dude in New York. But for all their 'crusading after the truth' I can't help but think that they would sell their soul - and yours - for a scoop.
There was an obituary in the Telegraph today of a photo-journalist, apparently well respected and who in later life did good things for charity. But his career was made on pictures of struggling starving kids in Africa. Nowhere did it say that he ever fed them.
There's a book by some dude who was a journalist during the Bosnian war - 'My War Gone By, I Miss It So'. In it he describes how he intervened in an incident and saved someone's life but was then criticised by other journos for lacking the necessary detachment. Apparently they were there to observe, not participate, as if the world was a massive social science experiment.
My general uneasy feeling about them, which had been growing for a good few years, was crystallised during the Iraq war and particularly the early stages of the insurgency. They would demand transport, facilities and protection from coalition forces yet would stab them as soon as the first inkling of a story might emerge. Yet whenever a journalist was killed, injured, or even mildly threatened that was given airtime and print space over all other things. There's a quote - I wish I could remeber who by - that said: A foreign correspondent is someone who thinks the most important thing about a story is the fact that he has arrived to cover it.
The phone hacking thig is too well documented elsewhere to bother with here but thats only the latest thing. I know that some journalists do good, moral, work and many stories need airing, but on the whole they seem to me to be a plague of leeches, reporting and criticising other peoples actions but doing nothing themselves. The freedom of the press should be a wonderful thing but the people who are the press give it a bad name. Or so it seems to me.....
Difficult one, made worse by the Phone Hacking and the concept of "embedding".
A proper journalist is there to provide the truth, and that is perhaps the greatest think they can do. Remember Michael Buerk in Ethiopia in 1984? I was about 3, and I do sort of remember it. The stories he brought back from there were instrumental in bringing it to the attention of the world.
If a journalist gets involved, they lose the ability to provide the truth - they've become the story themselves, and that's not what they're there for.
A proper journalist is there to provide the truth, and that is perhaps the greatest think they can do. Remember Michael Buerk in Ethiopia in 1984? I was about 3, and I do sort of remember it. The stories he brought back from there were instrumental in bringing it to the attention of the world.
If a journalist gets involved, they lose the ability to provide the truth - they've become the story themselves, and that's not what they're there for.
davepoth said:
If a journalist gets involved, they lose the ability to provide the truth - they've become the story themselves, and that's not what they're there for.
I do know what you mean but you do kind of illustrate two of my points:Do journalists ask themselvs - what is more important, my duty as a reporter or my duty as a human being?
Often, journalists seem to think they are the story. See how much of the reporting in Libya was about what happened to journalists, rather than what happened to Libyans.
davepoth said:
Libya was about the journalists because Gadaffi kept them all in a hotel, so they couldn't do what they should be doing - talking to people. As is becoming ever more common, the real stories are coming direct from the people being affected, through the internet.
Agreed again, but I saw a story last week that was all about the fact that there was shooting near journalists. Not shooting and there were journalists near, if you see the difference. I'm not sure. I still think of "Journalists" as people who go out & find stories, with most people on the news merely being reporters or general media scum. I'm indifferent on the not-feeding-starving-children issue. If you're in the middle of a war zone, the best thing you can do is report what you're seeing to the best of your abilities- they're the eyes of democracy and it's up to us to decide wether to feed/intervene. Supposedly. So in that sense, I guess it's context dependent wether the fact they'd photograph me dying in a pool of my own blood is a good or bad thing.
Linda Polman's book "We Did Nothing" is full of exactly that kind of standing aside in the face of atrocity (which is sort of the point of the book), but she did her job and reported on it, so I hold her in high regard.
Also, there's guys like these:
http://worldnewsvine.com/2010/04/leaked-apache-gun...
Who weren't embedded and were doing more "real" journalism than some talking head reporting on the news from a NATO tank.
So whilst I would broadly agree that I'd rather my girlfriend reveal she was a stripper than a celeb journalist or Daily Mail editor, I'm not ready to slate the whole breed just because their job can desensitize them to some harrowing things.
Linda Polman's book "We Did Nothing" is full of exactly that kind of standing aside in the face of atrocity (which is sort of the point of the book), but she did her job and reported on it, so I hold her in high regard.
Also, there's guys like these:
http://worldnewsvine.com/2010/04/leaked-apache-gun...
Who weren't embedded and were doing more "real" journalism than some talking head reporting on the news from a NATO tank.
So whilst I would broadly agree that I'd rather my girlfriend reveal she was a stripper than a celeb journalist or Daily Mail editor, I'm not ready to slate the whole breed just because their job can desensitize them to some harrowing things.
BruceV8 said:
I know that some journalists do good, moral, work and many stories need airing, but on the whole they seem to me to be a plague of leeches, reporting and criticising other peoples actions but doing nothing themselves. The freedom of the press should be a wonderful thing but the people who are the press give it a bad name.
I agree with that 100%.I think a lot of the journalists that you don't really hear about (or perhaps more importantly, get annoyed about) would fall into that category. We consume a vast amount of material daily that is written by decent people, we just take it for granted. Nobody at the Daily Mail of course.
Just by being somewhere and showing what is happening, they can do good. Would people know about Darfur etc without journalists being there?
But I can't disagree with the idea that they are there as observers, the same as wildlife photographers, I don't know how they can do the job myself.
But I can't disagree with the idea that they are there as observers, the same as wildlife photographers, I don't know how they can do the job myself.
When it comes to the live or embedded style tv journalism, I can't help but think of the 1966 song by frank zappa "trouble every day" on the subject of the Watts riots. He had his finger on the pulse even then. Journalists have only become worse, though there are some who apparently do give more of a s
t about their subjects than themselves.
t about their subjects than themselves.BruceV8 said:
Its late so I might not be as articulate as I'd like.
There's a book by some dude who was a journalist during the Bosnian war - 'My War Gone By, I Miss It So'. In it he describes how he intervened in an incident and saved someone's life but was then criticised by other journos for lacking the necessary detachment. Apparently they were there to observe, not participate, as if the world was a massive social science experiment.
This bit reminded me of an Anthony Bourdain: No reservations episode I watched recently. He was in Haiti filming at some street food eatery. Surrounded everywhere by starving kids. The film crew and he took pity so decided to buy up the entire stock to be distributed to the kids (despite warnings not to do this) cue massive riot as soon as the adults found out someone was giving out free food and them having to beat a swift retreat before being lynched.There's a book by some dude who was a journalist during the Bosnian war - 'My War Gone By, I Miss It So'. In it he describes how he intervened in an incident and saved someone's life but was then criticised by other journos for lacking the necessary detachment. Apparently they were there to observe, not participate, as if the world was a massive social science experiment.
Sometimes perhaps being aloof is what keeps you alive.
BruceV8 said:
There was an obituary in the Telegraph today of a photo-journalist, apparently well respected and who in later life did good things for charity. But his career was made on pictures of struggling starving kids in Africa. Nowhere did it say that he ever fed them.
Do you not think that the pictures he took encouraged others to give to charities who could feed them? Randomly feeding starving people can kill them, FFS!D1ngd0ng said:
BruceV8 said:
Its late so I might not be as articulate as I'd like.
There's a book by some dude who was a journalist during the Bosnian war - 'My War Gone By, I Miss It So'. In it he describes how he intervened in an incident and saved someone's life but was then criticised by other journos for lacking the necessary detachment. Apparently they were there to observe, not participate, as if the world was a massive social science experiment.
This bit reminded me of an Anthony Bourdain: No reservations episode I watched recently. He was in Haiti filming at some street food eatery. Surrounded everywhere by starving kids. The film crew and he took pity so decided to buy up the entire stock to be distributed to the kids (despite warnings not to do this) cue massive riot as soon as the adults found out someone was giving out free food and them having to beat a swift retreat before being lynched.There's a book by some dude who was a journalist during the Bosnian war - 'My War Gone By, I Miss It So'. In it he describes how he intervened in an incident and saved someone's life but was then criticised by other journos for lacking the necessary detachment. Apparently they were there to observe, not participate, as if the world was a massive social science experiment.
Sometimes perhaps being aloof is what keeps you alive.
The money that it cost to get a camera crew to Africa could probably have fed a thousand people, the pictures that they took got Saint Geldof on side which probably fed millions.
I don't disagree that many journos are a waste of a good skin but I'm not sure that those reporting from war zones, famines and natural disasters are often the worst of them.
I don't disagree that many journos are a waste of a good skin but I'm not sure that those reporting from war zones, famines and natural disasters are often the worst of them.
Pothole said:
That's not quite what happened, is it?
You're right, its not as bad as I remember but it still isn't pretty. 9 minutes in if you care to watch. an example of why it is best to stay detached at times (you cannot save everyone)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6gmB-jYd-c
I'd say that the majority of them are less than honourable in the way they work because its a cut throat business and if you don't hack a phone to get a story, another journalist will.
There definately needs to be a more strict code of ethics in the press though, the PCC is so biased its untrue.
I'd hate to cover war stories though. Kevin Carter committed suicide after not being able to live with himself after taking that famous photo of that starving child in front of a vulture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carter
There definately needs to be a more strict code of ethics in the press though, the PCC is so biased its untrue.
I'd hate to cover war stories though. Kevin Carter committed suicide after not being able to live with himself after taking that famous photo of that starving child in front of a vulture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carter
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff