Have the news gathering organizations gone soft?
I know it's a stupid question. Of course they have. As one who remembers how journalism got pumped-up in the wake of Watergate, it seems the fall has been quite hard.
No doubt there came a time when every J-school graduate imagined himself as the next Dan Rather, or Woodward & Bernstein, to the extent of creating conspiracy stories where there was none. But, beyond a few snarky reporters these days, the profession seems to be populated with, in the lyrics of Don Henley, "bubble-headed-bleach-blonde[s]", who have little command of facts or the subjects they're covering.
What increasingly rankles me is the ascendance of the trivial. I don't give a tinker's dam about the latest misbehavior of Paris, Britney, Miley, Amy, Lindsay or any of a host of other "celebrities", that, honestly, I've never heard of. Yet, these seem to be the focus of legions of news-hounds, to the point where it's difficult to find any meaningful news.
Before I get tagged as wanting only "hard" news - I remember well the question "Why don't the media ever report any good news?" The answer, of course, is that news, definitionally, is that which is unexpected, or out of the ordinary. This past week a minor newsblip appeared that exemplifies this: A story about Dallas Cowboys' quarterback Tony Romo, on his way home from the airport after a football game, stopping to change the tire of some stranded motorists in Irving, Texas. In view of the seemingly typical behavior of present day pro-athletes, this is a good story, if only for a day or two. But please, spare me any more reports about his relationship with Jessica Simpson.
More later on this subject.
.jpg)
