WiKiLeaks Vs. Journalism
Posted: Thursday, December 02, 2010
by George Stay
The latest controversy generated by WiKIiLeaks and its dispersal of heretofore secret communications by diplomatic personnel makes me remember a similar furor raised by a similar leak: The Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg
That leak of confidential information was all about troops involved in the Vietnam War and the leak by Ellsberg, a former Marine, helped undermine already weakening support for the war here in the U.S.
That newspaper spent a lot of time verifying the veracity of what Ellsberg gave them and then spent time deciding what, if anything, they should do with them. Having worked in several newsrooms, I can pretty much predict what that was like. The reporter or reporters rushed in saying they have this great story that is going to shake the nation to its core because this guy has given them secret, confidential information that no one else has and it is earth shattering stuff. And if you let them, they'd run the whole thing, as is, without a second thought.
Luckily, there is someone there to provide that second thought. He or she is the editor. They stop and ask what it is all about and do they understand what the importance or significance of this leak is and do they even understand what the story is, or are they just enamored with the leak and with getting one over on the government, or "the man," whomever he really is. The editor is there to not only offer a second thought but also, if need be, block the way. He or she will determine if there truly is a story here, what the story is and then if it needs to be published at all. Trust me, not everything a reporter thinks is a story is worth printing. Some of it may be libelous. Some of it simply may be not worthy of the ink. And then some of it may simply be wrong.
That's what was lacking in the WiKiLeaks affair. No one bothered to ask if this stuff should be leaked to the rest of the world. They just knew they had some stuff that would embarrass the U.S. and cause a ruckus in capitals around the world and they never bothered to ask if it was anything that needed to be seen and read.
They obviously did not have an editor.
That said, this event is only further evidence of the decline of journalism, especially here in the U.S. And we have no one to blame but ourselves. Or, at the very least, our younger selves.
Because newspapers and newsmagazines, the stalwarts and bulwarks of real journalism for the past few decades, decided some time in the 1990s that they simply had to lock down the 18-25 age group, come hell or high water. They saw the change in informational demographics, how young people were so enamored with the Internet and their computers and they feared they would lose this generation for good if they did not capture them early. So they listened to all of those so-called experts who said to give the news away for free on the Internet and become the place these young people turn to for information. Then, sometime later, we'll figure out how to make this pay for itself.
Eventually some of them tried. They tried to charge for the news. And the young people just went somewhere else, where the news still was free. That's if they were paying any attention to the news at all.
These news organizations forgot one continual truth: Most young people don't give a damn about the news until they settle down, have a family, get a house, have kids. Oh, there will always be those who were ingrained in the news from an early age and become junkies. Those will be with always. They grow up to become politicians or journalists. But most young people don't care about the news until they have a stake in it, until it matters to their daily lives.
News organizations kept giving the news away for free on the Internet, grooming an entire generation to assume the news was and always should be free. That, of course, did not affect television or radio news, where the appearance has always been that the news is free, even though we pay for it in other ways. But it badly hurt newspapers and newsmagazines. And what has happened is something my grandfather always believed in: You get what you pay for. And since we were paying nothing for the news, eventually that was what we got: Nothing. Or close to it.
The level of competency and quality in journalism has sunk so low in some places as to be completely laughable. Because if, indeed, journalism was alive and well today WiKiLeaks would be almost unnecessary, because journalists would be getting these stories out. As it is, only in places like Russia, where journalists routine are killed for telling the truth, is anyone doing any regular exposing of corruption and malfeasance that used to be the source of pride among news organizations in this country. Instead, where there once was Iran-Contra, Watergate, the Pentagon Papers and the like, we are regularly offered who did what on Dancing With the Stars and what Lady GaGa's upset about. And the news people are doing this because we asked for it. Time after time, in survey after survey, news organizations were told people wanted "good" news. So they gave it to us.
The problem was, people really didn't want it. I remember a young person once complaining to me, during the O.J. Simpson murder trial, how that was all the news people wanted to talk about or write about. I asked him about two other top news stories of the day, things that should have caught at least a speck of his interest, and he did not know a thing about any of them. But he knew the Simpson trial story from top to bottom. Why? Because he wanted to know it all. The news is both like and is a train wreck. Your better side says not to look and not to gawk, but you can't help yourself. You want to know every last detail. Because you'll want to talk about it later along with everyone else.
Now there's no one talking about such things because no one is covering them, or reporting on them. And it is not some editor's fault. It is ours. We asked for this, the younger generation helped it along and now we have successfully knocked journalism and news gathering back a century or more. And brave pioneers like Edward R. Murrow, Walter Kronkite and David Halberstam are turning over in their graves faster than a newspaper left blowing in the wind.
And where journalism used to be a calling, akin to government service and being a priest or minister, it is now a business, dedicated strictly to the bottom line and making profits. So the companies that own the newspapers and newsmagazines are following the lead of the news networks and local stations. They'll only do this if they can make money at it. No longer is it something that simply should be done, for the betterment of the world, society and the nation. Never mind that while the companies are squeezing profits out, the journalists are being asked to do more for less, if anything at all. So, once again, we get what we pay for. And we aren't paying much, if at all.
So don't be shocked at things like WiKiLeaks. These places will thrive and grow, doing their damage here and there, until the day comes when either nobody can be certain of the truth in anything they hear or read, or we, as a people, decide it has to change.
I wonder which it will be.
This Article has been viewed 1,821 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsPoliticians and Government of the United States are spending millions dollars to make fun of their people by half-baked publicity of misleading information through press releases repeated. Journalism of US was acting as their agents. TV and Mazinnes of US continue to display it because of his income. Repeated this tragedy to make it believe the truth ...... Wikileaks has exposed all that, the U.S. embassy in the world range is exposed. Failure of diplomacy is more dangerous than losing a war........
It will have repurcussion long US relationship with many countries. That's why Clinton is in touch and expreesing regred to many countries in writing and by telephone .....
Wikileaks does not give half baked stories that journalism is presenting to you on television and mazaine, is evidence of the secret recording of the U.S. government which is contrary to his words and committed to Many countries in press releases .......
Wikiland reveals many secret documents of the United States concluded that the display of arrogance and misleading information about many countries like India, it created panic in the public mind of people in the world ...... In my opinion, its repurcussion can cause more damage in the United States that recssion recent ...... .
US has been claiming Champions of freedom of expression worldwide, which is exposed? Teatment Julian Assange exposes it.
The whole secret record US has become naked wordwide Embassy America, how can you compare this journalism?
George Stay, perhapes you are not seeing the reaction in press worldwide. To day Army chief India snubbed US embassy what is recorded in its records and US government is regretting it....
George, the subject is almost too much to respond to. I haven't gone to Wikileaks myself because I do not want to add my click to the publicity. Where does the "People's" right to know end? (I believe when the info will cause more harm than good).The Internet has opened the door to the Wild West in publishing, without a doubt. For the "unvetted" journalists (those without an editor), readers who find the article will definitely come back with corrections to erroneous information. Of course that is after the fact rather than pre-publishing.Digital Journalism seems to have changed the whole concept of news. There is so much information available that even Google has designed a way that readers can be notified only of news, publishers, and writer's they are interested in.I think the thirst for old style, vetted news had to start at home-- with young people having seen parents open a newspaper and discuss topics with the young person. The thirst could be further fueled if the schools had a few teachers that have time to have a "current event" discussion.
Wikileaks sure isn't journalism, but you highlight the general demise of journalism. Report now and then correct later. Unfortunately many don't see the corrections, only the initial sensationalism. The latest leak was not nearly as embarrassing as many hoped it would be.
George - a great piece that truly educated me! Thanks for sharing this!
Hi George.
Sensationalism has taken over. That's really all this is about, in my mind.
Great article! Great points.
And, hey, thanks for joining my fan club. I really appreciate that.
Hugs and keep up the great work ... actually, I've no doubt that you will.
Dianne
"...if, indeed, journalism was alive and well today WiKiLeaks would be almost unnecessary, because journalists would be getting these stories out. As it is, only in places like Russia, where journalists routine are killed for telling the truth, is anyone doing any regular exposing of corruption and malfeasance that used to be the source of pride among news organizations in this country."Yours is one of the most brilliant takes on the WikiLeaks story I have seen or read: That the success of WikiLeaks accentuates the failure or absence of real journalism in our day. Thanks, George, for taking the time to craft and post your views here. ~mogama~
Great article. Editors are a necessity. You are totally right about the young not being interested in anything until it affects them personally. I know a few adults like this as well. This is part of our problem as well. Thanks for the article.
Today's journalist needs to be reorientated to seeking the truth and nothing but the truth.
This article is well thought out and thoroughly presented. Its focus is on the journalist of today and how all of journalism evolved into the massive disservice to the public that it is today. Thankfully this article does not dwell on amendments rights and freedom of speech etc. It brings focus to a root cause of journalistic decay. I believe Rush Limbaugh says it well in just a couple of words when he calls media, journalists, even editors "Drive-By Media". Much of the reporting is indeed irresponsible.
Dear Mr. Journalist, I'd like to see the Who What Where When and Why resurrected. Tell me the facts at hand. I'm not interested in your personal take on anything. I consider you a messenger, a reporter of fact and that is what I expect. Me
Oh well, we have what we have. Your last paragraph sums it up exactly. And I agree, we as a people, have to decide to evoke change.
I don't think that I want to completely trash journalism, or ourselves. I think we're always moving towards a better understanding of ourselves and our world. And I believe journalism is still a calling for many, and that there are plenty who have a lot of integrity.
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.