Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Anarrus -> Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/2/2009 10:30:25 AM)

["In the words of Stanley Kutler, the scandal's leading historian, Watergate "consumed and convulsed the nation and tested the constitutional and political system as it had not been tested since the Civil War."
 
"As important as Watergate was in political history, it was perhaps equally so in journalism history. Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein produced "the single most spectacular act of serious journalism [of the 20th] century," said media critic Ben Bagdikian. Marvin Kalb, a senior fellow at Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, believes that the Post's reporting was "absolutely critical" to "creating an atmosphere in Washington and within the government that Nixon was in serious trouble and that the White House was engaged in a cover-up. I believe that the reporting of Woodward and Bernstein represents a milestone of American journalism." ]
                                                                              source- American Jounalism Review, Watergate Revisited

I was just sitting here and thinking about the caliber of investigative journalism shown in the Watergate scandal and the media's willingness to become involved in presenting it to the American people at that time and how it contrasts with the state of journalism and the mainstream news media today. I use Watergate as an example only because it's one of the best known examples of investigative journalism and mainstream reporting.
Basically, what I'm wondering is if such a politically charged and scandoulous set of events were to happen today, would there be credible and mainstream journalists willing to investigate it thoroughly and report on it, but more importantly, would the current media outlets have the journalistic integrity to put it out there for public knowledge and scrutiny? Moreso, has America as a whole become politically complacent and politcally correct enough (personal political leanings aside) that high caliber journalism and reporting has taken a back seat to reporting only what happens to be the political or newsworthy flavor of the week?

Those questions asked, I'm not interested in hearing comments about Watergate and why or why not the reporters involved were heroes of mythic purportion. The article quoted above does that quite nicely already.
What I'd like are your thoughts about the state of journalism and the news media in America today. Would journalists and reporters such as Edward R. Murrow and H.L. Mencken be proud?



rulemylife -> RE: Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/2/2009 10:39:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anarrus

Basically, what I'm wondering is if such a politically charged and scandoulous set of events were to happen today, would there be credible and mainstream journalists willing to investigate it thoroughly and report on it, but more importantly, would the current media outlets have the journalistic integrity to put it out there for public knowledge and scrutiny?



I think you only have to look back to the Bush administration's propaganda efforts that led us into Iraq and the nearly complete failure of the media to question any of their claims.



Anarrus -> RE: Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/2/2009 10:52:02 AM)

I agree wholeheartedly, but I have this nagging need to understand why and what's lead us to here.
I grew up in the 60's and 70's, in a political climate where everything was questioned and people got plenty pissed if there weren't good sound answers to questions asked. Have we really become that complacent in our attitudes and what we'll accept now? It's fuckin scary if that's true.



Musicmystery -> RE: Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/2/2009 11:14:42 AM)

quote:

What I'd like are your thoughts about the state of journalism and the news media in America today. Would journalists and reporters such as Edward R. Murrow and H.L. Mencken be proud?


That's part of what I want to cover in my (now long promised but still coming) take on the news bias thread. The problems are much greater than mere bias.

Part of the trouble is short budgets--but also news as entertainment, anchors becoming celebrities (and not for their journalistic talent), analysis and commentary being blurred, then news and commentary being blurred.

And I frequently wonder "Where the hell are the editors and what the hell are they doing?"

In short, journalism today is a shadow of what it was in the 70s, or when Murrow took on McCarthy's distortions.

Mencken is another material. He had a lot of material--news was full of distortions. And still earlier 19th century yellow journalism made no attempt to pretend otherwise.

A large part of the problem is that a large part of the populace isn't interested in quality investigative journalism--they want to be told what they already think, and that life is just that simple. [Ironically, I did a piece about that for Newsday several years ago--and quoted H.L. Mencken at the top.]

Hey, Rick, let's get together again before Christmas and solve the world's problems. In a few weeks, when my schedule calms down?




servantforuse -> RE: Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/2/2009 12:05:29 PM)

I have to wonder if Woodward and Bernstein would have gone with the Watergate story if the sitting president was a liberal democrat ? They were out to take down a republican. I'm thinking they would have buried the story.



Musicmystery -> RE: Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/2/2009 12:06:45 PM)

A sitting president committed overt crimes for political reasons.

That's newsworthy.




mnottertail -> RE: Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/2/2009 12:10:55 PM)

you should turn off the radio and learn to expand your horizons.

Bernstien was tough as tough could be on Hillary Clinton, and even wrote a book about her, and was all over larry king and anderson cooper and whatnot about it.

Woodward wrote a book about John Belushi, continuing his tradition of writing about comedians like Nixon, Bush and so on.............

Ron



EbonyWood -> RE: Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/2/2009 12:16:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

I have to wonder if Woodward and Bernstein would have gone with the Watergate story if the sitting president was a liberal democrat ? They were out to take down a republican. I'm thinking they would have buried the story.


I have to wonder why it took only 4 posts before someone made it partisan, spectacularly missing the point of the OP.



Musicmystery -> RE: Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/2/2009 3:15:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

I have to wonder if Woodward and Bernstein would have gone with the Watergate story if the sitting president was a liberal democrat ? They were out to take down a republican. I'm thinking they would have buried the story.


Did you feel that Whitewater and Ken Star and Monica Lewinski and the impeachment got too little media coverage?

Or perhaps that Newt Gingrich just never got enough press?



slvemike4u -> RE: Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/2/2009 5:29:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

I have to wonder if Woodward and Bernstein would have gone with the Watergate story if the sitting president was a liberal democrat ? They were out to take down a republican. I'm thinking they would have buried the story.


Did you feel that Whitewater and Ken Star and Monica Lewinski and the impeachment got too little media coverage?

Or perhaps that Newt Gingrich just never got enough press?
Perhaps only one partisan poster(such as myself) can recognise the symptons inherrant in a little known disease called ....uber-partisanomia.....usually strikes a poster when his party is out of favor,thus excacerbating all sorts of feelings of powerlesness...leading them to strike out in irrational ways......attacking even historical accomplishments(such as the Watergate Investigation)and making silly comments in defence of our only Presidential criminal(Nixon).
The disease is known to linger for years and years...especially if the favored party remains in the political wilderness for a great stretch of time.In this case servant might be suffering for a good long time.



TheHeretic -> RE: Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/2/2009 6:57:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anarrus

Basically, what I'm wondering is if such a politically charged and scandoulous set of events were to happen today, would there be credible and mainstream journalists willing to investigate it thoroughly and report on it, but more importantly, would the current media outlets have the journalistic integrity to put it out there for public knowledge and scrutiny? Moreso, has America as a whole become politically complacent and politcally correct enough (personal political leanings aside) that high caliber journalism and reporting has taken a back seat to reporting only what happens to be the political or newsworthy flavor of the week?





Of course.  Journalists might be a liberal sort of bunch, but they all know the way to the top of their game is to bring down a government official.   Watergate is the Grail. 






EbonyWood -> RE: Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/2/2009 7:06:43 PM)

Well, the liberal journalists actually took it pretty easy on Nixon.
 
Turned out covering up a break in was an impeachable offence, but carpet bombing Cambodia and toppling a few democratically elected South American governments was relatively overlooked.
 
"My mother was a saint"



Musicmystery -> RE: Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/2/2009 7:12:01 PM)

quote:

the way to the top of their game is to bring down a government official.


Coverage of Vietnam certainly didn't help LBJ much.

Rich is right.



Moonhead -> RE: Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/3/2009 5:41:25 AM)

Carter hardly got an easy ride from the press either, and (despite what the neocon element of the board says) Obama isn't getting a snow job from them either.
To return to the OP's point, am I alone in thinking that the shift from print media to television news has a lot to do with this problem? There's far less space for any content or analysis in depth, so everything is offered predigested. The thrust of most American television news seems to be to tell the viewer what to think, rather than giving them anything to think about.



tazzygirl -> RE: Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/3/2009 6:02:16 AM)

Seems to me that those with the ability and time offer content are far more interested in ratings and scandal.



Moonhead -> RE: Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/3/2009 6:03:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Seems to me that those with the ability and time offer content are far more interested in ratings and scandal.

Well, that's the problem in a nutshell, isn't it?



tazzygirl -> RE: Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/3/2009 6:05:57 AM)

The problem in a nut shell is .. us. We have cultivated this... we are now reaping the harvest.. so to speak. It has all turned into reality TV and entertainment tonight... and we still tune in.



Anarrus -> RE: Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/3/2009 8:00:51 AM)

Hi tazzy

As Tim pointed out earlier short budgets may contibute to part of the problem. I agree also with his comments about news as entertainment. That in itself and America's preoccupation with "celebrityism" is maddening to me. The"news" about film stars, recording stars and sports stars all too often becomes fodder for the front pages of newspapers and the main focus of broadcast airtime in many venues. Our government itself even becomes caught up in it through such noble ventures as congressional hearings on the use of steriods among sports stars and congressional moments of silence for fallen "idols". But that's a whole other rant unto itself.

Tim also asked the question of "where are the editors". I often wonder that too. But asking that leads to another question that should be asked.....Are the editors there, but prevented from doing their jobs with integrity by the corporate hierachies due to concerns of bottom line profits and conflicts of interest? I really don't think it's paranoid at all to ask the question. Anymore, most of the major newspapers, periodicals and broadcast venues are corporately owned mega conglomerates who most likely have boards of directors with broad and far reaching financial interests as well as other corporate interests. They in turn have to answer to advertisers and shareholders. It makes one wonder if the editors and reporters are simply the little fish in a much larger pool of big fish who really call the shots.

edit - sp



Moonhead -> RE: Watergate, Journalism and the Media...then and now (12/3/2009 8:45:17 AM)

Most likely, though in few cases (Murdoch is notorious for this) only editors who are happy to tow the company line without coercion are ever appointed in the first place.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125