The Fall of Journalism, Part 1

Journalism is in a very sad state right now. More than sad, kind of scary.
Two definitions I will use in this post:
{ Journalist: a person reporting past or present facts with no opinion of your own, just the facts, for the media, whether it be for TV of the paper.
{ Columnist: a person who writes their view, opinions, and suggestions in a magazine or website.

We can compare these journalists and columnists to News Shows. FOX for example: (they are the only ones in the news who in the “reporting facts time” they are not right-or-left leaning.)
Shepard Smith, FOX news reporter, recounts facts. When he tells everyone that Obama signed the stimulus bill he doesn’t give his opinion of whether it’s right or wrong. He just says Obama signed it. That’s it.
However, people such as Glenn Beck and Bill O’Rielly, they are talk show hosts. They talk about whether Obama should’ve or shouldn’t of singed it. (Obama signing is just an example!)
Journalists and columnists are similar. Journalists report facts, like Smith. Columnists give ideas and opinions, like Beck and O’Rielly.

***

Now that we have that clear, let’s go on. My point is that we have too many columnists sitting at the desks of journalists. Now, let me get this clear: It’s ok to give your opinion- but not when you’re a journalist. Some people are more naturally opinionated than others. Those are the people that should be columnists.
Now when a journalist reports a man who didn’t know how to swim trying to save a drowning ten year old- and he ended up dying- he doesn’t write: "Now, folks, wasn’t that dumb of that man to do that? He should’ve gotten help from somebody who knew how to swim.” No, of course not. No way!
The goal of the journalist should be to alert people to what’s going on, but never in a partial way. You see, if it’s not partial, it will allow people to decide for themselves what to think or do about the present situation. The journalist of today is attempting to guide people’s thinking. And you can never trust a journalist who does that: Why?

1) If they are trying to “guide” you’re thinking (just like what they’re trying to do with what you eat [but that’s another post]) why can’t they “guide” what’s published? Why then can they publish this, but not that? Why do they go crazy, criticizing Chris Christy for his awesome work in lowering the deficit, creating more jobs, etc. , but you never hear a word of the incredible 12% raise our governor gave his staff? Why do they condemn Scott Walker but praise Dick Durbin? Because they are trying to guide your thinking in a way that’s not good.

2) If they can guide, or try to guide, our thinking, why can’t the government guide their thinking, and force them to publish only what they deem necessary- (which will end up being a future post on socialism)?
Journalism is well down an already downward slide toward being obsolete.