Category Archives: Journalism

Part II: American Newspapers Dying Of Self-Inflicted Wounds. Good.

Affirmative Action, English, Internet, Journalism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media

Why is the newspaper industry moribund and, we hope, beyond resuscitation? Veteran journalist William Murchison tells the story “of a profession invaded and subjugated by a type of journalist far less like the average reader than like, well, the members of a political science seminar at an upscale Eastern or West Coast university. That’s irrespective of whether such journalists ever caught sight of a college seminar room.”

“They tended to see journalism as a platform for identifying, investigating, exposing, and addressing social and political grievances: such grievances as often enough the customers didn’t see for themselves, but here was a new breed of newsmen to show them what they had missed.”

“The old-style newspaperman whom I came to know face to face in the ’60s was a differently colored nag. He — he usually was that — had far likelier attended a state school than Yale or Harvard or Berkeley, assuming he went to college at all. He was jocular and irreverent in a newspaperly sort of way. Never slugged down a drink of whiskey he didn’t like. Dressed with minimal attention to fashion.”

[SNIP]

I know exactly of what Murchison speaks. Back when I attended journalism school, my lecturers were tough, middle-aged, ex-army men (no women, mercifully). They smoked, drank, and dressed in rugged jeans. They taught you how to write a mean lead (or “lede”). If it didn’t spell out the Who, Where, What, When, and How of the story—well, you heard about it. If the superlatives flowed and your prose was flowery instead of succinct—you were mocked. You were taught a craft, not an ideology—although it was well understood that the richness of your frame of reference would enhance your writing.

“After Watergate,” continues Murchison, “the paradigmatic reporter was a man — or, now, a woman — with a high-minded mission; namely to instruct society concerning its tastes and habits; to improve things. No problem there — a little improvement never hurt anyone. Problems arose only when the bearer of news arrived at the home of the recipient of news with the look of a doctor preparing a rabies injection.”

The complete, American-Spectator story is “Authors of Their Own Doom.”

Part I of the post: “American Newspapers Dying Of Self-Inflicted Wounds. Good.”

American Newspapers Dying Of Self-Inflicted Wounds. Good.

IMMIGRATION, Journalism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Multiculturalism, Outsourcing, Propaganda

I join Peter Gadiel in celebrating some creative destruction–the demise of the newspaper industry.

Writes Gadiel on VDARE.Com:

“American newspapers are dying. Let us celebrate, since in their extinction lies the only hope for journalism.” …

“Newspapers were largely owned, edited and to a considerable degree staffed by people who actually were from the town about which they wrote. Thus, when you got the Sheboygan (Wis.) Press, The Indianapolis Star or the Florence (Ala.) Times-Daily it was a pretty sure thing that when you read an editorial, the news pages, the women’s page—whatever—you were reading something written or at least edited by someone who had roots in that city.”

“Not so today. The people writing the editorial in the Hendersonville (N.C.) Times News or “reporting” about events in the Asbury Park Press are corporate gypsies who come from someplace else via some school of journalism located somewhere else. They are all waiting to move to a bigger paper in a bigger city on the way up to starting the trip all over again back down in the small towns as assistant editor.”

“What’s worse, the gypsies who staff those papers are hired by people who are answerable to the likes of ‘Pinch’ Sulzberger of the NY Times…”

More.

‘A’ For Al Jazeera

Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Journalism, Media, Middle East, South-Africa, The West, War

I’ve said it before: The Al Jazeera news network practices better journalism than its American cable counterparts. Al Jazeera is as partisan as the local cable cretins, however, it does know news–the art of reporting.

Writes Eric Calderwood, for the Boston Globe:

[I]n a larger sense, Al-Jazeera’s graphic response to CNN-style “bloodless war journalism” is a stinging rebuke to the way we now see and talk about war in the United States. It suggests that bloodless coverage of war is the privilege of a country far from conflict. Al-Jazeera’s brand of news – you could call it “blood journalism” – takes war for what it is: a brutal loss of human life. The images they show put you in visceral contact with the violence of war in a way statistics never could.

For an American, to watch Al-Jazeera’s coverage of Gaza is to realize that you’ve become alienated not just from war, but even from the representation of war as a real thing. As Americans, we’re used to hearing the sound of heavy artillery, machine guns, and bombs in action films and video games. Yet here on the news, they seem strangely out of place. You could argue that Al-Jazeera uses images of civilian violence to foment public outrage against Israel. This might well be true. At the same time, these images acknowledge human suffering and civilian death and stand strongly against them – and in doing so, foment outrage against war itself.

The complete essay is well-worth reading.

Worth watching is Al Jazeera’s “Saving Soweto”, a superb report detailing the heroic work of Christian and Jewish medical men in ministering to the multitudes. What would South Africa do without such people?! (Scroll down to “DESPERATELY SEEKING BOLLYWOOD’S BRANGELINA”)

'A' For Al Jazeera

Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Journalism, Media, Middle East, South-Africa, The West, War

I’ve said it before: The Al Jazeera news network practices better journalism than its American cable counterparts. Al Jazeera is as partisan as the local cable cretins, however, it does know news–the art of reporting.

Writes Eric Calderwood, for the Boston Globe:

[I]n a larger sense, Al-Jazeera’s graphic response to CNN-style “bloodless war journalism” is a stinging rebuke to the way we now see and talk about war in the United States. It suggests that bloodless coverage of war is the privilege of a country far from conflict. Al-Jazeera’s brand of news – you could call it “blood journalism” – takes war for what it is: a brutal loss of human life. The images they show put you in visceral contact with the violence of war in a way statistics never could.

For an American, to watch Al-Jazeera’s coverage of Gaza is to realize that you’ve become alienated not just from war, but even from the representation of war as a real thing. As Americans, we’re used to hearing the sound of heavy artillery, machine guns, and bombs in action films and video games. Yet here on the news, they seem strangely out of place. You could argue that Al-Jazeera uses images of civilian violence to foment public outrage against Israel. This might well be true. At the same time, these images acknowledge human suffering and civilian death and stand strongly against them – and in doing so, foment outrage against war itself.

The complete essay is well-worth reading.

Worth watching is Al Jazeera’s “Saving Soweto”, a superb report detailing the heroic work of Christian and Jewish medical men in ministering to the multitudes. What would South Africa do without such people?! (Scroll down to “DESPERATELY SEEKING BOLLYWOOD’S BRANGELINA”)