• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

Layoffs at the OWH?

TnHusker87

Red Shirt
Side note since this thread has gone way off topic ...
Guilty as charged ... sorry about my previous rant.

I just think of journalism as a whole as a 'profession' is lacking some of the expectations of what that means -- ie, standards of conduct, enforcement mechanisms for bad behavior, etc. ... what I expect from lawyers w/ their American Bar Association, doctors (AMA), licensed engineers and architects, CPAs, military officers, etc, etc ... guess that is misguided expectations of 'professions' in today's world.
 
Last edited:

beans

Scout Team
15 Year Member
Fifty years ago the word "professional" had a connotation of holding the trust of others and working on their behalf. Now it seems to describe the fact someone makes a buck at doing what they do. Not only have we downgraded the meaning of so many words in our language, we've downgraded ourselves. It's gone hand in hand. In the end, trust is the most valuable commodity any of us have. You only attain it by having a long term outlook, virtually impossible the way we choose to live and think, imho.
 
I haven't looked into all of the above, but I think that we'd all be disappointed to know how much the criticisms that I had above were true for the legendary people, too. It's been the norm for quite some time for the prima donnas to do none of the work and to know little of the background before putting themselves in front of a camera to talk about it like some sort of expert. The WW2 correspondents that are so often praised admitted freely afterwards to self-censoring bad news so as to keep the public's morale up while supporting the war back home.

I don't know what the proper balance is, but I at least want the person who's taking credit for the reporting to be able to intelligently discuss what they're reporting, and that has rarely ever been the case.
For sure the media censored themselves back in the day if it was in the best interest of the country. FDR was the right man for the job as history has told us and the media kept his paralysis a secret. WW2 was funded with war bonds sales, the war funding would have dried up if people at home really knew what was happening. It was a well known secret amongst the media that JFK had women all over yet nothing was reported. Many point to Watergate as the changing point in regards to the media taking on the government. I believe in the idea that it was Cronkite’s in depth Vietnam report in 68 that gave the media the guts to contradict and go after the government regardless of the consequences. Shortly after that report aired Johnson threw in the towel.
 

Yoda

Junior Varsity
2 Year Member
When the Atlas storm pulverized western South Dakota and its surroundings, almost every interview from the first several days was made within about 45 minutes of the Rapid City airport, and almost every image of dead livestock was taken from the same main road and/or interstate. Also, almost every story felt that the most pressing concern for those who had just lost their livelihood was that the government was shut down, and so it couldn't help. A couple ballsy folks were being fished for a quote about that, and basically asked back in response, "How in the hell is the government going to bring my cows back to life?" It's the same pattern. Because they had flown in from D.C. or NYC where the government shutdown was all that they were talking about, it MUST be in some way connected to a story about an early winter storm on the Northern Great Plains that killed trainloads of cattle.

I was overseas at the time, so I genuinely wanted to follow what had happened, and what was happening afterwards. At least for the first two weeks afterwards, the ONLY true reporting on what happened came from some Louisiana public TV show about agriculture because they had taken the time to call up a bunch of people who had been affected across the whole region.

It was a local story that obviously didn't deserve 9-11 levels of tragic coverage, but if they could have just actually reported what happened while shutting the heck up about the government shutdown ... it would have been appreciated.

Now Nebraska went through a different flavor of the same thing with the flooding. I now wish that they'd just stay away. I'd prefer it if local people would refuse to be interviewed by them. They don't really care about what you have to say beyond getting the quotes that they want to fit the narrative of the story that they had already devised before they ever arrived.
The funny thing about that, and other similar stories of weather events in the FO states, is that they miss the real story after the big event. You know, how folks persevere, help neighbors, don’t sit and wait for help, self reliant, etc.
 
The funny thing about that, and other similar stories of weather events in the FO states, is that they miss the real story after the big event. You know, how folks persevere, help neighbors, don’t sit and wait for help, self reliant, etc.
Yep, we’ve been helping ourselves here in Western Iowa everyday since the March floods and May reoccurrence yet I can only remember 1 national news story about it
 

Farmer Jake

Recruit
Y'all have touched one of my hot-buttons with the exchange above ...







Used to have three 'professions' lumped together ... used car salesmen, prostitutes and politicians ... one sold junk, another sold flesh and the third sold BS ... somehow, the journalism profession (if you can still call it a profession) has become a class of their own.
It still has to be factual, the legal department demands it. But a slanted story is a whole different thing. A well placed adjective or adverb can change the whole meaning. One recent story, one TV station made it sound like a hit and run. Another station stated that the person driving the vehicle involved called 911, applied first aid, waited for first responders to show up and take over, but left before police finished talking to him. Both stations stated nothing but facts. Just by the one station omitting some facts made it sound like 2 different incidents. I have seen other situations like this. That is why it is a good idea to get news from a minimum of 2 sources, preferably with 2 different political viewpoints.

As for professionals, it was drilled into me long ago that professionals got paid for whatever product or service they provided. It doesn't mean they were any good, or even tried to be good. Or even belonged in the field for which they got paid. This part of our society today has gotten very sad indeed.
 

Farmer Jake

Recruit
Any time I have read a news story by local media, that I knew the details of the event personally, was written inaccurately.

In fact, I've been quoted in an article, for an interview in which I was not present.
This is the stuff that really irritates me. It can also be how law suits get started.
 

Farmer Jake

Recruit
I haven't looked into all of the above, but I think that we'd all be disappointed to know how much the criticisms that I had above were true for the legendary people, too. It's been the norm for quite some time for the prima donnas to do none of the work and to know little of the background before putting themselves in front of a camera to talk about it like some sort of expert. The WW2 correspondents that are so often praised admitted freely afterwards to self-censoring bad news so as to keep the public's morale up while supporting the war back home.

I don't know what the proper balance is, but I at least want the person who's taking credit for the reporting to be able to intelligently discuss what they're reporting, and that has rarely ever been the case.
Self-censoring is one of those things a lot of people should do. Especially myself.
 

solesrfr

Varsity
5 Year Member
I agree with this statement, but integrity isn't as popular as it used to be (my opinion).
Very true that there is a shift to sensationalism in journalism, if one wants to find integrity though it is out there with very good quality to the reporting. One just has to dig harder as they will not find it on the evening news.


C
 

Huskerthom

All Big 10
5 Year Member
There is still quality journalism with reporters that have integrity, one just has to look for it but it is not hard to find.


C
The only person I have seen do everything right down the middle lately is Chris Wallace who does Fox News Sunday. He always takes the contrary point no matter who his guest is. If he has a republican on he asks questions as if he were a Democrat. If a Democrat was on he asks as if he is a republican. His father was Mike Wallace of 60 minutes fame. That is the only Sunday show i will watch now. The others are terrible and partisan.
 

solesrfr

Varsity
5 Year Member
The only person I have seen do everything right down the middle lately is Chris Wallace who does Fox News Sunday. He always takes the contrary point no matter who his guest is. If he has a republican on he asks questions as if he were a Democrat. If a Democrat was on he asks as if he is a republican. His father was Mike Wallace of 60 minutes fame. That is the only Sunday show i will watch now. The others are terrible and partisan.
Maybe for mainstream but there is plenty of quality reporters out there not in the mainstream media.



C
 

Show Me State Red

Red Shirt
2 Year Member
Very true that there is a shift to sensationalism in journalism, if one wants to find integrity though it is out there with very good quality to the reporting. One just has to dig harder as they will not find it on the evening news.


C
Dig harder or let others dig for you. Anymore I prefer to start with sites that collect stories from multiple sources about one topic instead of those with a central editorial room.
 

Show Me State Red

Red Shirt
2 Year Member
For sure the media censored themselves back in the day if it was in the best interest of the country. FDR was the right man for the job as history has told us and the media kept his paralysis a secret. WW2 was funded with war bonds sales, the war funding would have dried up if people at home really knew what was happening. It was a well known secret amongst the media that JFK had women all over yet nothing was reported. Many point to Watergate as the changing point in regards to the media taking on the government. I believe in the idea that it was Cronkite’s in depth Vietnam report in 68 that gave the media the guts to contradict and go after the government regardless of the consequences. Shortly after that report aired Johnson threw in the towel.
Cronkite is the example used when talking about how video media changed history. Print media has been attacking Presidents since our country's founding. Teddy Roosevelt says hi. Watergate is a print media example of when day-2-day reporters used investigative journalism to dig beyond the story and get to the truth, which led to getting a president removed from office and two reporters becoming rich celebrities. Print, then pajama media have been chasing that standard since. It used to be the sensationalism was in the headline and editorial page but the stories through the paper was fact based. Now sensationalism is cover to cover.
 
Top