Rendall hopes that “media economics would not cause an exodus of journalists going over to the dark side” but believes “it’s inevitable that we’ll see some of that.”
Whatever the future holds, McBride said, “As a society we are going to have to educate ourselves about what’s really news and what is information that’s meant to do something different than news.”
With a burgeoning army of out-of-work journalists to lure with lucrative PR contracts and the simultaneous explosion of viral media, corporations are well positioned to gain from journalism’s loss.
A legion of Gene Randalls “reporting” is certainly an unsettling future.
At this point, whenever I hear of a journalism venture coming from a School of Communications, I get very cynical - it seems awfully unclear on the concept.
#1 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Tue 16 Jun 2009 at 01:43 PM
Explained, eh? Good verb. Imparts a sense of objectivity.
I watched the 60 Minutes segment and have been to Ecuador on Chevron's dime. My view of the segment.
You quote Norman Solomon and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting? Very amusing. Otherwise, this article is imbued with the same arrogance that has brought mainstream media into disrepute.
#2 Posted by Carter Wood, CJR on Tue 16 Jun 2009 at 03:59 PM
Elaborate please, Carter Wood. In what way was Pelley's report biased?
#3 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Tue 16 Jun 2009 at 06:37 PM
Great article on an important topic. Expose the shills!
#4 Posted by Pwning Faces, CJR on Wed 17 Jun 2009 at 05:38 AM
Most people don't question the integrity of their news sources. Is that because we never really had to b/c news sources were less biased a few years back? Is this trend of biased and implicitly deceiving so-called "news" stories new? Or just being put into practice more often and more skillfully?
#5 Posted by Michelé, CJR on Wed 17 Jun 2009 at 10:19 AM
Carter: specifically, what are your problems w/ the criticism of Gene Randall for "playacting" as a real reporter? Remember, he hasn't been a real journalist since 2001. You have no problem w/ what he's done? Should Jacobson have quoted media critics like the insane Brent Bozell from the Media Research Center or someone from the ridiculously named Accuracy in Media? Those are propaganda outfits. Norman Solomon and Steve Rendall and others from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) have shown themselves to be real media critics dealing in facts. Tell us when or where they've been shown to be inaccurate or biased. They hold the MSM's feet to the fire. Seems like this piece follows in that same tradition.
#6 Posted by clashbeat, CJR on Wed 17 Jun 2009 at 12:58 PM
Re my comment above ("At this point, whenever I hear of a journalism venture coming from a School of Communications, I get very cynical...") - ok, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about...
(in this case, it's a safe guess)
#7 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Thu 18 Jun 2009 at 09:14 PM
Thanks to articles like this, I hope it'll be twice as hard for ex-reporters such as Randall to pull these PR stunts. During J-School, I don't think our classes held enough talk about reporters drifting towards PR, but that idea/ Jacobson's kicker sends a chill down my spine.
#8 Posted by Audrey Tran, CJR on Tue 23 Jun 2009 at 11:27 PM
I have lived the past 4 years of my life in Ecuador and have been present there while all this turmoil has occurred. During this time I have spent at least 1 year of traveling in the jungle areas of Ecuador. When there some locals showed me that they could literally light the surface of the water on fire because of the amount of oil present in the river. I don't think that corporations such as Chevron should be able to launch such a false story in order to improve their public relations image. An oil company, A VICTIM??? Come on.
#9 Posted by Daniel, CJR on Sun 25 Oct 2009 at 12:19 PM