Media Culpability - the Fourth Estate

There was a time, I think, when being a reporter was considered an honorable profession. Honor means, in part, self-restraint. Honor also means truthfulness and honesty, even if it means you sell less papers or your own personal point of view doesn't carry the day.

Sayin' that the media are just giving us what will sell best to my mind is another way of saying that the media are not honorable. They've lost sight of that fact that they aren't just an advertising, money-making engine. They are the 4th Estate, the folks in a democracy charged with the uniquely important role of keeping their fellow citizens well-informed, for the sake of the nation.

Beavah, you are stereotyping too: local newspaper reporters are not the same as national news anchors and smalltown newspaper publishers are not the same as international media conglomerate corporations. What goes on in "the media" in terms of ratings and selling papers has nothing to do with the actions of individual reporters and everything to do with changes in the industry where stockholders must be appeased and shrinking markets with media monopolies holding sway. Those changes were effected by newspaper and broadcast media owners, with the help of the government that loosened the regulations on media acquisitions and mergers. To blame those changes on reporters is, again, an easy dodge. We have the media we allowed to develop. It's specious to blame the street reporters for what has happened at management's upper levels.

Yah, scoutmomma, I'm not willin' to let the reporters that far off the hook. They're the ones doin' the writing and choosing what to say, eh? And they, like all of us, have their personal views ... which they can let become an "agenda" if they're willin' to give up a bit on integrity.

But sure, I extend the comment to the whole 4th Estate, eh? Media ownership, stockholders and all that are just excuses for behavin' badly. Corporations simply reflect the choices of a few individuals that run 'em, eh? Those individuals should act with honor. They should recognize that news media have a special role of trust to play in a democracy, and should put that first. Ahead of corporate profit. Ahead of personal gain. Ahead of advancing their own ideas.

You know. Honor. What we try to teach to boys every day in Scouting. I suspect that if your SPL brought a 20-lb bag of chocolate chip cookies to camp to give to all the kids, you'd have some words with the SPL, eh? Even if he argued "but gee, it makes me popular" or "but scoutmomma, it's what they wanted!". That's because an SPL has a responsibility to the group, by virtue of his position.

OGE, for example argues that it's not Hollywood's fault for making lewd entertainment available. But I'm not sure I agree, eh?

Is it a drug dealer's fault for making drugs available, or is it the purchaser's fault?

Probably both, eh? But I reckon there's some culpability for those who try to make money off of people's prurient interests, and weaknesses. Just not honorable.

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Thank you Beavah for the spin-off. I tend to lean towards the media losing its perspective more often than not, influenced, as you note, by the ownership and profits. There are still many smaller papers that make an effort to be more traditional, but they tend to be very localized, and often are completely dependent on local advertisers or a personal purse.

Media on the air, seems to me to be pretty biased one way or another in almost every instance. Few really good give and take programs that seriously get into issues; mostly perhaps because it is too expensive due to small audiences. Of course, that then brings us back to the viewers, most who are either too lazy, too poorly educated to understand, or too jaded to care.

In SC right now, in Santa Barbara, there is an interesting case in the courts where the newspaper staff and union has sued the owner. The owner claims she has the right to dictate, and a large part of the staff disagreed and have been fired or forced to choose or quit.

I am continually annoyed by what our local press seems to feel is of interest and not of interest, especially when they almost totally exclude scouting, other than prepared items from Eagle presentations. Even though local politicos and business people are involved, they never publish anything on the council Eagle dinner or awards at the annual meeting. And this year, a local native, in his 90's was recognized at the annual auction affair, and not one word was in the paper. Granted, part of this falls on the council itself for not preparing stuff perhaps, though I have been told the press knew of all of these. They just are not important enough to assign a reporter I suppose. But should the council need to "write" the stories? Meanwhile, the local county chapter of LGBT had an awards dinner and it was prominent on the front page of the local news section, and had a reporter byline. So, is there a bias?

Hey, to paraphrase something gays and atheists always hear in re: the Boy Scouts -- if your local paper excludes scout articles, just start your own newspaper.

if your local paper excludes scout articles, just start your own newspaper.

Yah, that's one approach, eh? That approach got us Fox News. And soon, perhaps, da New Wall Street Journal.

The other alternative to creatin' multiple smaller outlets appealin' to various (often polarizin') constituencies, yeh teach honor and responsibility the ones that are already here. You know, puttin' community information and reportin' ahead of personal agenda and all that, eh?

BG

What's dishonorable or irresponsible about not printing stories about scouts?

Merlyn; No one said it was dishonorable, simply biased. A local newspaper should print local news, no matter if it relates to current PC infatuation or not. There is far wider spectrum of families, those people to whom the paper markets itself, who are interested in scouts, and other youth oriented organizations. So should they not be equally covered?

Oh, but that might get me critism from the PC police, so I will simply overlook their activities unless they are handed to me already written; and then I will publish them weeks after the event and bury them in a back section somewhere. That seems to be a common practice in the larger print media.

Skeptic writes:

Merlyn; No one said it was dishonorable, simply biased.

I was replying to Beavah's statement "The other alternative to creatin' multiple smaller outlets appealin' to various (often polarizin') constituencies, yeh teach honor and responsibility the ones that are already here," which seems to be saying that the media outlets that are already here are excluding scout stories because they lack honor and responsibility.

There is far wider spectrum of families, those people to whom the paper markets itself, who are interested in scouts, and other youth oriented organizations. So should they not be equally covered?

Oh, but that might get me critism from the PC police, so I will simply overlook their activities unless they are handed to me already written; and then I will publish them weeks after the event and bury them in a back section somewhere.

Maybe newspapers prefer not to write fluff pieces about discriminatory organizations.

Depends...

Coming from a mom who was one of the first women to get a BS in Journalism way back when, (Chicago Trib in the 20's). Growing up,

I sat and watched her write for a local paper. ("Daddy, what's a typewriter?" And what's this package? Car Bon Pa Per...")

In her 'declining years' she was a 'stringer' for no less then 3 local papers (two of which are still in business).

She would pick up on ANY activity/personalnews or item of local interest and the papers would publish it. Awards, service project, athletic endeavor, fun times, school play, church social,she would

put it in good grammatical order and in some section (as appropriate) it would appear. Scouts, second grade, PTA, little league, state rep kisses farmer Johns pig, she'd do it.

I doubt if the present papers (or other media ) are any different, they need CONTENT and they need INTEREST. Depending on their own BIAS (and yeah, each will have a bias) there will be some niche for your Scout news. But no paper will print stuff they don't know about. Each unit has to rattle the media cages to get their attention. Don't be bashful about it.

You might not get the NYTimes to go gaga about Troop xyz doing a cleanup of the Northwest Branch, but I dare say the Podunk Chronical will. Make the call.

We've had articles about Pinewood Derbies, trips to historic sites, Webelos Cross Overs, Cub Scouts Renovates School Courtyard, Troops go to Philmont, all you have to do is get the basics together and call it in, fax it in, email it in. Natchurlee, they like it neat and pretty and "in format", but they will talk you thru it if you try.

Who, What, Where, When and Why.

Call back person and number.

"The Scouts of Troop xyz will stay overnight aboard the USS Constellation the weekend of 25 January. The Scouts look forward to learning how the Navy of 1855 did things. They will sleep in hammocks below decks, swab the decks and serve watches much as the navy of 1855 did.

The Uss Constellation is the second oldest US Navy warship still afloat and is part of the USS Constellation Foundation

in Baltimore. Troop xyz is sponsored by the Third United Umteen Church of West Side. Mr. John Smith is ScoutMaster and may be reached at 123.456.7890."

This is the generic "release" that we used. It led to an interview of some Scouts and a longer article. I have no idea if it led to boys joining , but it was fun seeing it in print.

MiS KiF YiS

Maybe newspapers prefer not to write fluff pieces about discriminatory organizations.

Yeah ya don't see too many articles about Powder Puff Mechanics! There should be more!

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

Used to be that I could sit on the tube (London Underground) on my way to work and by looking at what newspaper the other travelers were reading be able to make an educated guess as to what their political affiliation might be.

The last time I was on the tube, I was taken back by how few people were reading a newspaper. They all seemed busy with their cell phones.

Where I live now the newspapers are owned and ran by hard-line conservatives. I'm aware of that and make my own mind up as to what I want to agree or disagree with.

I like watching and listening to PBS and NPR. Again I'm very much aware that at times the views expressed are left wing views.

I don't trust Rupert Murdoch, I don't like Fox News but I'm not a great fan of Michael Moore.

Network news here in the USA seems to be more concerned about rating than about news. I can't off the top of my head think of a network documentary that offers real news. (60 Minutes does at times come close.)

Of course most of us choose what we want to see, hear or read.

I'm not going to get my news from the 700 Club, because I made the choice not to.

I do have a lot of choices, if I choose not to just take what is offered by the networks or the media giants.

Saying that the media doesn't cover Boy Scouting is to my mind much the same as saying that the media doesn't cover Golden Retrievers and the good work that they do.

If I want to read about Golden Retrievers I can if I make the effort find all sorts of interesting stuff. If I want to read about Boy Scouts I can read Scouting Magazine.

I do worry that more and more people seem to be willing to accept that because something was on the radio, TV, newspaper or even on the web that it has to be true.

With any luck everyone will learn from the weapons of mass destruction that this isn't the case.

Eamonn.

At first I thought the title of this thread was Mea Culpa and I was confused.

If Media giants slant news, there is a cure, for people when they find out the truth to boycott the purveyor of the trash. For a group that talks a lot about personal responsibility, there sure is a huge tendency to blame others for our ills and claim there is nothing that can be done about it

If Media giants slant news, there is a cure, for people when they find out the truth to boycott the purveyor of the trash.

Yah, now how exactly are the people going to find out about it, eh?

One person may know or may do the work to look something up on their own. But a boycott requires lots of people being informed. And that requires media!

Even in this internet age, the average guy has to work pretty hard to become properly informed on issues, the voting record of politicians, the judicial decisions made by judge candidates and the like. It's more than a full time job if yeh want to stay up to date. And most of us have full-time jobs already, eh?

I think it's fine to hold politicians or individuals in the general population responsible for their role. News media hold a special public trust as our eyes and ears and informants. It's also just fine to hold them responsible for livin' up to that trust or not.

Beavah

If Media giants slant news, there is a cure, for people when they find out the truth to boycott the purveyor of the trash.

Yah, now how exactly are the people going to find out about it, eh?

Well, when they really blow it, they do get caught. Anyone remember Dan Rather and the fake letter? How about the NY Times reporter making up interviews? Or the false CNN report about soldiers using gas in Vietnam?

Luckily, our local weekly paper will run stories about Scouting. The last 3 paragraphs are about one of the local Troops' camping trips. http://www.thecrier.net/articles/2008/01/02/front/teasers/02tease.txt

"With any luck everyone will learn from the weapons of mass destruction that this isn't the case."

Eamonn, would you mind elaborating here?