Reporting that can be lost

This past week my ENGL004 class took a look at Gary Kamiya's "The Death of the News." In it, Kamiya takes on the now "old news" (to steal the aptly bad pun) that the newspaper/print media world is dying, but he does so from a slightly different angle, saying,

What is really threatened by the decline of newspapers and the related rise of online media is reporting -- on-the-ground reporting by trained journalists who know the subject, have developed sources on all sides, strive for objectivity and are working with editors who check their facts, steer them in the right direction and are a further check against unwarranted assumptions, sloppy thinking and reporting, and conscious or unconscious bias.

And so when Kamiya aptly says, "If newspapers die, so does reporting," we're left with a scary thought, or are we?

It's no lie that here in the logorrheaic mire of my mindspace that Kamiya's threat of an anti-reporting distopia becoming "a postmodern world right out of a seminar taught by Jaques Derrida...[where] Nietsche's credo that 'there are no facts, only interpretations' will become our epistemological motto" is one that I would whole-heartedly embrace simply for the sheer interest such an plural version of our reality would bring to me. But then again, good god it'd be hell to win an argument.

But I digress,
Kamiya says that newspapers and reporting are intrinsically linked. And to that I agree, but Kamiya is a professional, a journalist, and someone who knows the industry from the inside. His definition of a reporter is one that is perhaps too specific for "real" world application.

On the beat, reporters to all us gloamish nodes can range from true newspaper journalists in all their monochromatic glory to the tv pundits that irk Michale Lind so much (mentioned in my last entry here). So while Kamiya may be on to something, he's fighting the good fight.

I don't fight the good fight. And I don't think all reporters need saved. Newspapers aside, there's some sneaking shit that needs a severe kai-bosh. And what irks me the most (for the moment) is this whole process of growing speculative journalism.

Let me set the stage.
Wednesday, I turned on NBC to watch the State of the Union at about a quarter after eight, mainly because I couldn't remember if Obama's speech started at eight or nine. I was greeted with a craptacular "pre-game" show for the president's speech. I know this has been going on for a while, but what the fuck? Have we as a population become so incredibly bored that we don't even want to watch some shitty syndicated sitcom from the 90s until the State of the Union comes on? Couldn't NBC find something, maybe the Slap-Chop infomercial to air before Obama took the stage?

Yes, I could have changed the channel. But in my defense, I was only half listening (thank god for that), and I was chasing my daughter, so by not changing the channel, I could keep a lazy eye in the direction for the speech to commence whenever that was supposed to happen.

In my half listening, whatever hack journalist/pundit/guest/whatever happened to be talking began to go into this analysis of Obama's speech before it aired. Now, everything I've ever learned about cutting someone down revolves around the idea that you at least let the person you're attacking get an opportunity to make an ass of himself first.

Instead, I heard this jerkoff pundit going on and on about how Obama's speech is too long, and how the American public does not have an attention span for anything beyond 40 minutes or so. Now, without having seen the speech, which I'm guessing this guy hadn't (I'm sure the president had to release the timing so the networks could set up their scheduling, but I can't see why he'd say a whole lot else about it), how can anyone speculate on whether or not the speech will hold the collective attention of the country? Especially when Obama is relatively well-known for his ability to actually speak in front of an audience (unlike his predecessor). Secondly, the lesser masses of our country, upon hearing that 1. the speech is long and 2. they can't stand listening to something that long are going to take this guy (who has to be both smart and correct because he's on TV) as being generally correct, and thus tune out to the State of the Union.

This is a huge disservice to the American Public. Not only is it advertising a subversive bias against Obama and his agenda, but also it's undercutting our population as being both ignorant and too stupid to be able to make our own decisions.

This sort of journalistic speculation, of course, isn't limited to just the State of the Union; it happens all the time. Think about it. How many times have you heard reporters saying something like "President Obama is expected to announce X, today?" No harm in that. It's objective, and newsworthy, but often what follows is speculation on how whatever X may be will affect us. This, while perhaps ok for some talk show, isn't news.

But that's kind of the problem anymore, isn't it?

The news (on TV at least) has morphed into this monster, where every fact must be vetted through an unacknowledged bias before fed back to us. Can you imagine turning to any news network and seeing only objective stories for more than 15 minutes? Oh wait...that's CSPAN. But no one watches CSPAN.

So as I'm rambling here, let me cull things down to a single point: Kamiya wants to save reporting, but we need to make some distinctions, because the speculative crap on TV is some of that bathwater that needs thrown out. It's like a parasitic Siamese twin to real reporting...you know one of those things that's nothing but a heart, an empty brain case with teeth, no eyes, and a whole lot of hair growing inside your stomach like you're pregnant, but it's your twin, and it's eating you.

But perhaps, thinking back on Kamiya's argument, this is exactly why he he fears for the loss of the real journalists. The newspaper doesn't allow for this kind of inane speculation, as newspapers are generally behind the times, reporting on past events. Their analysis then can be based on objectivity, on some sort of traceable facts.

But it sure would be nice to turn on the State of the Union and not, even if you're half-paying attention, have to hear some jerkoff droning on about how much the upcoming speech is going to suck without any real proof to back it up.

And the speech? Obama's a charmer. I'd be real happy to see just about everything he said happen. But I'm jaded to. We need more than two parties to get any real change in government. I'm looking forward to some good times ahead, but I'm not holding my breath.