The Province, The Vancouver Sun, The Globe and Mail… canceled, canceled and canceled… subscriptions that is.
Perhaps the public doesn’t feel so hungry for the news coming from the “established” journalists, Frances. Maybe they crave opinions and reports from independent investigative sources, whistle-blowers, bloggers, opinionated commentators like Alex GTakumis, Vivian Krause, Glissando Remmy.
Sorry, but I think considering the way MSM reported last year’s biggest events (the Riots, the Election…) that the MSM is DEAD!
Or on the ventilator.
I’ve already pulled the plug. Journalism is something else these days.

I watched “All The President’s Men” when it was on TCM (That’s Turner Classic Movies, for the unititiated — best movie channel on the air) the other night. Oddly enough, I’d never seen it; been meaning to for decades (although I lived through and vividly remember the events portrayed, and as such, viewing the film seemed a bit redundant). Great flick. I found tears coming to my eyes at times at how much has been lost in journalism since that time. The ferocious intensity and dedication Woodward & Bernstein– and Ben Bradlee, their boss– brought to old-fashioned investigative journalism (a lost concept if ever there was one) as they slowly uncovered one of the biggest political scandals of the century, risking their very lives in the process– it’s impossible to imagine it happening in this ultra-cynical age. So much has changed in (North) American journalism in the short decades since Watergate. That drive and determination to uncover the truth, and to communicate it to the masses, backed by a wholly supportive and truly independent news organization– all carried out in a whollly non-partisan manner– is something that has almost completely been forgotten in the Digital Age (or the age of Fox News, if you prefer). I mean, Bob Woodward was (and is) a conservative Republican. That didn’t stop him from having enough rock-bottom professional integrity to pursue a story that ultimately brought down a conservative Republican President, venal and wholly corrupt toad that he was. Can anyone really imagine that happening in these times, when “news” and “journalism” is merely a tool to push hyper-partisan political agendas, whether those of Roger Ailes or Pierre Karl Peladeau?

Sorry, Frances; I can’t share your optimism. What passes for journalism now, in the USA at least (and increasingly in Canada), threatens to engulf us all in the flames of social apocalypse, eagerly fanned by the likes of Fox News and Quebecor Media.
gmgw

Hi Frances,

Good journalism, and good writing, is needed more than ever, and is still alive and well in many places.

I’ve perhaps got a biased view in favour of journalists, spending the first 10 years of my adult life in the profession, but the evolution of the digital age has, I think, only highlighted the premium that I think many people pay for both good reporting and good writing.

Case in point – if you go down and see the film “Page One” you’ll see a scene in there where one of the journalists is on a panel lays out a compelling case why large news organizations are needed to finance the grunt work of having people on the ground, going into tough places, and doing the heavy lifting, while commentators and bloggers and others from the cheap seats can then provide their opinion. That scene alone should be required viewing for anyone with thinks the MSM is gone.

One final note – let’s not confuse delivery with product. Much of what you still see in the main dailies is still good writing product. The way it gets delivered, and the way people access it, have obviously changed.

There is room, of course, for blogs like yours and others, and the viewpoints that they bring to the table. Yet, in way too many cases, the views expressed in these blogs are hidden behind the anonymity of of nicknames and screens. And, as a result, they have to be discounted, and although the views may be interesting, the fact that those people expressing those views are not comfortable enough to attribute their name to them has to lessen the effect.

There are no anonymous writers in the mainstream media. Facts are checked, and when mistakes are made, apologies are printed. Not the case in the blog world, as we all know too well.

So, Frances, we have to commend those journalism students, and others who help them on their way, for the work they’re doing. Yes, it’s tougher to make a living in journalism now then it was before, but that’s the case in hundreds of other industries as well. Adapt or die. But, journalism, like the other industries, will not die. Those who survive will simply be smarter, better, more accountable, and rendering us a huge service.

@Frances#9: In the 80s and early 90s, when we spent a couple of weeks each Christmas way out in the California desert with my snowbirding in-laws, I used to think nothing of driving a 40-mile round trip to the nearest store that carried the LA Times to get my media hit. Back then it was still one of the great papers in North America. Seen the LA Times lately? I wouldn’t walk across the street for it now (though I regularly look at the LAT website to keep up on SoCal news, in the same way that I read the Sun to keep track of local issues).

When we were in Seattle last spring for the first time in seven years, I was shocked at the deterioration of the Seattle Times, never a great paper, but a good one. I’m not speaking only of the pisspoor news content. I mean the overall look of the Times, which now resembles a clumsily-assembled community weekly with ugly layout and antiquated typefaces.

In our many travels in the States I’ve often had occasion to observe how poorly served Americans have long been by their non-digital media, both print and broadcast. It’s no wonder, in the absence of proper newspapers and news shows that value content over flashy superficiality and sensationalism, that the Internet and talk-show demagogues command the audience that they do. They give that audience’s members just enough hard information to foster the illusion that they’re actually staying informed. Then they hit them with the lies, distortions and fake sincerity. Result: An army of mindless, angry zombies who genuinely believe that Rush Limbaugh is a man of honesty and integrity, fighting the good fight against tyranny. Fundamentally, Americans love to be lied to, as long as the lies are packaged attractively. Where all this will ultimately I don’t know, but I find it terrifying to contemplate. It’s getting darker and colder all the time out there, and there’s very little time left to save ourselves from the deadly consequences of mass ignorance (wilful or otherwise).
gmgw

Damn…. oh, damn. I wish I wasn’t going to work today. I’d have something really fun to say about the art of journalism, or lack thereof………..

Was just in Seattle and got a pang on nostalgia driving past the Post Intelligencer building. Their name, the wacky Superman globe on top of the building (especially in its old site where you could juxtapose it in a photograph with the Space Needle, and Joel Connelly reporting on KCTS, were all part of one package for me.

They are still there, just on the web now.

Now, that film festival is next on the cross-hairs of the digital renaissance. Too bad, since it looks like the tradition will pass just as we were going to be able to sip a cold one at the movies.

There are no anonymous writers in the mainstream media. Facts are checked, and when mistakes are made, apologies are printed.

Unless you’re Fox News, et al. In which case, not.

As for the point about anonymity…

…why is it not disclosed when members of the media are married to people who work for or are contracted by political parties (it’s not just the CBC’s Stephen Smart locally), or accept speaking fees from industry groups they report on?

I think that sort of non-disclosure is far more pernicious.

Also, and.

When did the tar sands become the oil sands, and why?

When Postmedia adopted Ezra Levant’s style guide.

@ Rick Peterson

‘ Yet, in way too many cases, the views expressed in these blogs are hidden behind the anonymity of of nicknames and screens. And, as a result, they have to be discounted, and although the views may be interesting, the fact that those people expressing those views are not comfortable enough to attribute their name to them has to lessen the effect’

OK, Rick if I told you that I was sitting behind you at “Page One’ does that make me more ‘legit’ even though I use a screen name here? 😉

Let’s be fair: if anyone opines—as we all do—and someone comes along with data or evidence that disproves our opinion, well, then a little crow eating is in order.

Why should a screen name make one’s comments less worthy than those who sign in as themselves? Yes, people can try and take advantage and be manipulative, profane or even libelous in these forums, but a good gatekeeper either lets their goofiness stand so as to show how utterly ridiculous they are–or removes it, if in their judgement it doesn’t add to the discourse.

And I will dare to suggest that just because someone signs in with their real name hardly makes their comments any more ‘legit’ than those using nom de guerres. Because I think that it’s rare that one can be totally uninhibited in their comments in a public forum, for a variety of reasons. So all the same rules of “evidence’ and “analysis’ and “opinion’ apply to both types of commentators, as far as I can discern.

BTW, too bad you didn’t join us, the masked, down at ‘Bitter’ for a brewski, a few weeks ago!

Okay, I’m here at Vancity awaiting Citizen Kane. Rosebud!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Silly Season, I did buy a drink. It was a bottle of orange juice. Haha!

BB, where you the bald guy wearing a dapper trilby hat?

And yep, print media is dying the slow death of a thousand cuts. But hey, that’s okay. Even the film shown before the discussion touched on how investigative journalism was going the way of the dodo. Puppies and kitties are where the news is going. Beyonce and Rhianna sell papers. Bummer news drives sales down.
I lost so much respect for the media today.

I don’t know who else went there today, but Wayne Moriarty was there. Was I the only one expecting him to jump up with a microphone in his hand and wail “Roxanne” ? Is he Sting or is he a newspaper editor. Maybe he’s both.

But yeah, sorry, any respect I have for any newspaper went out the door today. I vow to never buy another paper.

I guess we’ll both have to agree to disagree.
To me the film showed how the New York Times was adapting to declining readership and declining ad revenues by mortgaging off their own building and staff lay-offs. And no, you’re correct, the New York Times still presents itself as being far above ‘puppies and kitties’, that was what was happening with the rest of the media. In fact wasn’t it Sam Zell who wanted more stories on ‘Puppies’ in his news papers?

So yeah, the New York Times may be able to tread water for a while longer, but what does that do for the ‘local’ story that could benefit from some investigative journalism? How many local papers have gone under or have so severely cut back their newsrooms that all they do now is run stories from CP or AP or some other news service. And these news services in turn go with the ‘If it leads it bleeds’ mantra.

@Bill Lee: Thank you.