Readers Note: The following is a response prepared for a longtime friend, who asked 1) how would a 'true old-fashioned reporter' investigate and report a story; 2) how is that different from what is being called 'news reporting' in today's media; and 3)How much have newspaper readers themselves changed? Has the number of people capable of reading and understanding investigative articles decreased?
** In a heated El Paso City Council meeting Tuesday--on rewriting a city ordinance allowing health benefits to “domestic partners” (after voters turned down such a move last fall)--Councilman Eddie Holguin Jr. reminded the crowd less than 10 percent of eligible voters turned out in that election; only five percent turned out Saturday in a special runoff election. How do you determine the “will of the people” anymore thru elections, he asked. I hope my “Letter to a Friend” provides some fresh insight into the changing face of our democracy vis a vis the decline in newspapers.
-- A. Daniel Bodine
-----------
James,
The nature or role of the “true old fashion reporter” --if, indeed, that's not another myth we drug along to the world from our childhood, too--was changing even when you and I were in our early college years. A reporter's nature has changed (as an employee) throughout history, when the role he or she finds themselves in changes. And that role, as defined by the publishing aim, is influenced by economic factors, of course. Now more than ever, I strongly believe. Radical capitalism changed it.
The myth I'm referring to, in linking your 'true old-fashioned reporter' query, is the legendary story that arose out of the Peter Zenger trial I think, in the country's pre-Revolution days of the Colonies. He printed some derogatory stuff someone had given him about the governor (still part of the Crown then) and ended up in jail for it. Sedition, I think. Many credit him with the birth of American journalism, but it's a little more off the beaten path for that, I think. Ben Franklin would certainly argue against it. He practically coined the term free press.
But Zenger's is a hallowed case in newspaper history because it (the actual trial) was the first time “the truth” was ever successfully used as a defense, I believe. And the rest is history, as it is often said; in J-schools especially.
Like idiots, the damn British kept Zenger in jail for almost a year before trial, I want to say; from where he continued to write and to direct the publishing of his little newspaper--further spreading and building his publicity!
It's considered a huge case also because what eventually happened was that this one mere act of standing up to the Crown fanned the embers of resentment )that already were heating up over taxes in the colonies), fanned them such that it eventually would turn into the American Revolution. And here we are today.
If it hadn't been for Zenger (one could argue), America could still be part of the Crown. And maybe Royal Crown whiskey would've been 100 times the amount in price, and millions of alcoholics would've been spared their tortures, simply because they couldn't afford to drink it. Huh? Yeah.
But Zenger was not a businessman first, it's important to remember.. He was a revolutionist who happened to be a journalist. Or a publisher. A journalist/publisher with a big point to make at that.
Commercialism has ensnared us now. Maybe that's one of the big differences with the old and the modern. Now, we're objective. Meaning fair and balanced to both sides, I guess. We can see b.s., like Zenger saw it, but we're not allowed to call it b.s.
We sell advertising now, not just circulated news pamphlets with stories. (Many of which were old pasted stories they'd cut out of papers that came in on the ships!) Our decorum is different. We are a storefront selling a variety of merchandize, and we can't afford to be prejudice. Or outspoken! Offending and losing readers means losing business. We can only report what others call the b.s.
And we must get different views to make sure our reporting is “fair and balanced.” That way the public, who the majority it seems doesn't care a rat's ass enough (or have time enough/ or isn't educated enough) to go vote in the first place, can make up their own minds about whether or not it's actually b.s.And what exactly needs to be done with it. They decide; our hands are clean concerning the decision, it is. Ain't my responsibility!
It was only after the Revolution, hell, 70-80, maybe a hundred years--as roads began linking communities and states to each other; the post office took hold and newspapers actually began circulating more; and the idea of a “nation” binding people together hardened--that most editors and publishers moved toward objective reporting, if my memory is still holding. Until then it was subjective. And the viewpoints were colorful! Life was colorful!
But it's important to understand this distinction, first of all, between old and modern eras when considering newspapers and the way stories are reported.
This trend of reined-in reporting of “just the facts” heightened in the Sunbelt. Again, it was already in place when you and I were in college in the early years.
It was especially so when I stupidly left a good-paying job at Texas Instruments in Dallas in September '74, to break into newspapers. At the only writing job this ol' stuttering, country boy could find, a pauper-level cub reporter position--under the famed Frank W. Mayborn at his Temple Daily Telegram.
Journalism by then was already degraded to “all the news that fits”--e.g., filling in holes left by advertising on dummy sheets--I'd soon learn. The armed “power broker with a pen” was mostly an empty mystique for reporters, I found. I'd been an assembly line supervisor at Ti; the awkwardness of being reduced both in salary and in stature, so quickly, was the biggest factor in the failure of my first marriage, I believe. The change on us (as individuals, and as a marital unit) was just too much.
But an attraction toward writing (the curiosity of following the string) drove me on; and it's still with me now I guess. Everyone's not that much of a fool, thankfully. Nor an idealized dreamer. But at least I found out more about myself, enough to be comfortable with, anyway; and found out more, too, about a wonderful, old profession that unfortunately has been ailing for decades now.
Oddly, journalism may be making a comeback of sorts now because of technology. Electronic media has opened up myriads of reporting possibilities—the Arab Spring in the Mideast being the most prominent. Independents are alive and doing well. Who knows? But where there's a chance for dollars, corporations are going to go in heavy also. London and New York papers with electronic editions, for example, are well into it now. And confronted with so much competition they're doing admirable work, too.
Their eventual dominance, if it comes to that, is worth watching though. Independent non-profits have made a statement we're determined to make a dogfight of this, too. So it's too early to judge the outcome of electronic media on the journalism profession yet, I think.
What might become huge media transnationals, for instance, could eventually encircle the profession and restrict it further. Or the situation might descend into a real Pandora's box of anarchists that makes governing for anyone, anywhere, impossible—leading to a real, one-world government, just as a last option for sanity. This may be the big show to watch, indeed.
But the long, honored stream I stepped into in Temple saw reporters--basically the same as now (and always?)--writing their staple news stories or features by inversely pyramiding the interrogatives (what,who, where, when, why and how) with enough details to “fill up a hole on a page.”
** News reporting topics were (are) heavily weighed toward government activities, of course. Democracies depend upon keeping “the people” informed about the use of their tax money. Even if, again, most of them don't care enough to go to the polls to vote.
But there's another reason for this kind of reporting also, and I never became comfortable with it. Except on deadline of course, and needing to fill up a hole somewhere on one of the pages. Fluff always fit fine as fillers.
But a reporter restricting himself or herself to just what's going on with government bodies or agencies, one, is taking the easy way out to find stories. The good ones you usually have to dig for. Government stories (their framework) come with agendas usually; you simply regurgitate from your notes or your memory, and they're much quicker to write than investigative or feature stories.
** Too, government reporting is safer. You're at risk of a lot of heat with investigative reporting. Not just lawsuits but angry callers and letters. Some anguishing effects can linger for years. As a result (and especially with the ever growing problems of government, brought on by growth), most reporters steer away from it. They don't need it. And journalism (reporting) suffers, of course.
This particular category of writing (investigative reporting) is making a comeback of sorts today, too, with the explosion of electronic media competition coupled with the threat of declining newspaper readership. But again, who knows what the outcome will be?
** In still another area, newspaper opinion writing changed, too, during the Sunbelt, I believe. Historically such writing always has been kept on the opinion page, and clearly marked as such. Good, conscionable but hard-hitting editorial writing over the years has steered millions of voters to decisions that are now revered as bulwarks of our society.
But the leading dogs in this writing, again, the ones setting the pace for the industry, have been the larger corporate chains—the ones cushioned against singular advertising protests or withdrawals. And their very nature is to go after the big bucks. First.
Thus the emphasis (whether overt or very subtle) becomes to craft editorials aimed, first, at not offending front-line advertisers and, too, pushing a strong, overriding argument promoting economic growth. Growth, of course, brings jobs—supposedly “more jobs are good for everyone.”
Can we say in theory, at least? In reality, I believe, the old-fashioned concept of “community good” gets trashed all too often by a whiff of strong, economic growth. Sometimes it's like watchdogs acting like hungry chow-hounds at a piece of meat someone has tossed out to divert their attention. I can remember falling for this trick a few times in my career.
And corporate officials and stockholders, who may be several hundred or maybe a thousand miles away from the cumulative, individual local issues (involving growth effects in a particular community), can smile and rub their hands together in glee at the outcome, and count their profits. Life is good—even tho it's irrelevant.
** “News analysis” already had emerged as a hybrid offshoot of opinion-piece writing when I started out. My earliest recollections of the cause of these writings were stories such as the Sharpstown bank scandal. Again, it was a captured genre driven by Sunbelt greed and the need for more readers and advertising dollars on one hand, versus explaining the complexities of growth and development on the other. These stories were always marked “analysis,” so the reader wouldn't go off half-cocked and think the newspaper was actually telling him how to think.
But this writing was mostly relegated to large metro dailies (and later television broadcasting) that had the investigative resources to cover the publishing organization from lawsuits. In later years as my confidence grew, I loved to do this kind of writing. But usually it takes a lot of time—everything has to be checked and rechecked; sources scoured inside and out—and is emotionally draining. You've done tons of it on the research side now yourself and no doubt know the feeling well; I won't preach to the choir.
Analysis writing (in the wake of all the negative Sunbelt transformations and, too, with electronic publishing pushing the envelope) has evolved to the level of a new professional genre, in my opinion. Initially, reflecting on the early years of our age that is, it was a watered-down, more palatable form of writing known in another era as Yellow Journalism. Strange how the morphing process turned out. Both were designed to attract more readership though, during increasingly complicated, explosive growth times--when there was “a lot of money to be made.”
Yellow Journalism (or muckraking, it was called, too) came out during the onset of another revolution--the Industrial Revolution. New York's Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall-style political machines didn't create graft and corruption, but they sure held he corner on it for many years in American history. Withcorpocracy ruling us now, who knows what worms may turn up?
You know my bias on the Sunbelt Era, and how I feel it minimalized us as a people. The era was well into flexing its growth muscles when I started at the Daily Telegram; and conglomerate corporations essentially bought the media during this period. Mr. Mayborne was quite a character, yes. And a helluva businessman. Rather than sell to the chains, he formed one himself.
Some of my most painful memories in Temple, for instance, involved the well-known Washington UPI reporter Helen Thomas. Mr. Mayborn had secured her as our Washington Bureau, and each night she'd call and dictate her stories, from nothing but a notepad and her memory, to whoever the unlucky one of us it was at the other end of the line. She talked fast, very fast, and taking her dictation, for me, was excruciating.
I still remember in '75 when the first fax machines came out. Crude, they were, to what we have today; but to me they were “heaven on earth.” I didn't have to stutter anymore to Helen and have her get all angry at me for not being able to keep up.
But yes, we did have a Washington Bureau. And Helen was good. But the point still needs to be made that Mr. Mayborn was a promoter first, and a journalist second, also. The nature of the business I entered at Temple was not that of the “true old-fashion reporter” we'd grown up respecting.
You'll find a ton of real exceptions to this trend, of course. Mostly independents over the years have kept the fires alive. With today's electronic publishing, too, many non-profit sites, such as
Global Research in Canada (here) are emerging well and who knows for sure whether or not they'll be game-changers.
But generally, yes, bought is an applicable word for what has happened to journalism; changes you and I have witnessed.
And in a wider panoply, in the course of our nation's history, what must be remembered, is that the Sunbelt Era was just another economic “transformation” wrinkle affecting newspapers. Before that...Oooh! You don't have enough years left to research it!
But the long and short is that once profit motive (in this sense, for all practical purposes, an untethered quest for profit) became the single most important dynamo behind newspapers—as I'm venturing to argue it became again in our latest wrinkle of national social minimalism, aka The Sunbelt—then content became a variable stepchild, whose importance waxed and waned in proportion to whatever readership was needed to secure the most “cost-worthy” advertising revenue.
Lot of words, I know. Hope this view helps some though.
– 30 --
