Pat_Nasty said:
Anyway, I believe I do know what I'm talking about. I am, at present, a working (usually) writer and reporter. As a young guy trying to get into the game, I am frustrated at the direction journalism is going in now, whether it's politics, sports, or entertainment. It's all about access these days.
Ah, an idealistic journalism major. Let me let you in on a little secret that the lib journalism profs never told you: reporters are whores. It has been that way since time immemorial. If you're not ready to lay down, you're in the wrong business.
The Whitehouse heavily favors reporters who support its agenda with it, and take it away from those who refuse to let the government control what they print.
PUH-LEESE. That must explain all the pro-Bush articles I am always seeing in the paper. Do you really think think that the current administration INVENTED access ? The last one raised raised it to a fine art, practically pedaling access for cash, along with the Lincoln Bedroom, cabinet positions, 'executive orders' and photo ops. After the Lewinski story broke (on the Internet, after the story was suppressed by Newsweek), Clinton didn't have a public press conference in over a year - but plenty of softball 1 on 1 interviews. Where were the hand-wringing journalists decrying access then ? Not a peep.
If you think that GWB is the biggest threat to journalism, you are seriously naive, deluded, or both. Ever heard of Jason Blair ? NY Times reporter who made up stories while sitting in his apartment high on crack ? He wasn't caught for years because the stories all had perfect liberal spin. How about the CNN executive, who admitted that they didn't air stories about Sadaam Hussein's genocide against the Kurds, because it would have precluded getting interviews (access) with him ? How about the obviously fake National Guard documents that CBS tried to smear GWB with a few weeks before an election ? How about the AP photojournalist who was just caught doctoring his photos to make them more dramatic (and anti-Israeli) ?
Do you know what 'stringers' are, and how they are used ? Those are the unheralded underpaid people that actually DO the legwork, interviews and fact checking (what reporters are SUPPOSED to do), which is then turned over to the 'star' national reporter to actually write the article that will be published (with the correct editorial spin) with that reporter as the only one in the byline. Isn't that extermely dishonest ? The person telling you the story is telling you facts that he or she didn't collect themselves, but pretends that they did ? Your probably too young to remember, but prior to the journalism scandals, you NEVER saw the stringers get credit. Now at least, you will see a little blurb at the bottom, saying so-and-so 'contributed' to the report.
My guess is that your journalism profs didn't spend much time on these issues. Journalistic ethics as it is practiced by today's MSM is an oxymoron.
Look, I'm not saying that Reiss doesn't work for his living. He does, very hard I'm sure. I'm just saying that by giving up some independence in terms of what he chooses to write in return for greater access to the team and information, he's working a little less hard than maybe he should be, and, what's worse, guys like him make it harder for everybody else, who aren't the "pet" reporters of whoever controls the access to whatever it is they're trying to cover.
You decry tabloid and entertainment journalism, but then criticize Reiss because he doesn't engage in it. Far be it for me to suggest that journalists engage in hypocrisy.
We like and trust Reiss because seems to present a balanced set of facts that coupled with a reasonable knowledge of the game of football. He clearly states when he is stating a fact and when he is giving an opinion. He doesn't engage in sensationalism for it's own sake to sell papers or self-aggrandizing. Case in point - when most of local and national media sensationally reported that Tom Brady had criticized the FO re: Branch, Reiss reported the ENTIRE interview, which clearly showed that he was misquoted and taken out of context. He obviously puts in a lot of work, as his Blog clearly shows.
Sounds like spoiled grapes to me. You could learn a lot from Reiss.
Of course thanks to the Internet, people like us aren't wholly reliant on people like you to spoon feed us information - information that YOU feel is important and presented in a way YOU feel like presenting it. Gone are the days when a few monolithic (liberal) media outlets monopolize what we know and think. We can get information from a variety of sources, judge them on their merits, and make our own decisions.
R
