Mike_LowELL: Fark's two-step process for questioning the integrity of journalism:
Step 1: Complain that mainstream journalism sucks.
Step 2: Label any source outside the mainstream as "your blog sucks".
Step 3: Um, yeah.

You forgot: "Use biased source that I agree with to attack the bias of source that I disagree with."
That's an important one.

·"because he feared Mr. Khan might take revenge"

I don't know about you, but I would not want to face Khan's wrath.

too many gawker articles

The thing is journalism has always been a shady business. It was just romanticized in the early/mid 1900's so we think it's always been this stalwart of truth and justice.

"Where pimps and thieves run free and good men die like dogs"

The Journalist and the Murderer is a great little essay. It was on at least one list of the 100 best books of the 20th century.

Is journalism dead? No. but it was coughing up blood last night. That was my answer back in the 80s.

Journalism could enter a new golden age if a reward system for bloggers similar to the Pulitzer Prizes existed, but it doesn't. If we could support a dozen or so I.F. Stones, we'd be in good shape.

Previous golden ages:
The emergence of the penny press.
The muckrakers.
Watergate to the birth of USAToday.

FlashHarry: modern journalism sucks for one reason: balance. or, put another way, the need to give equal time to the guy who claims it's raining when it's actually sunny outside.

There's also the implicit assumption that there are two sides to every issue.

For reporters, the point-counterpoint format makes for good articles and television, and it helps the audience pick which side they agree with.

Let's say you have to write an article about Obama's jobs bill.

The current practice is, you interview an administration official, then a Republican and a Democrat in Congress. One side says "pass it." The other says "don't pass it." Nice and tidy.

Now imagine interviewing several people in the middle, then describing the particular provisions with which they agree or disagree.

Then, imagine including in your article the opinions of people who critique the entire system of government and culture, then justify your discussion of the jobs bill despite their critique.

The whole thing quickly becomes a mess, and neither journalists nor the public has a taste for it.

In short, the medium is the message.


With a shout out to Marshall McLuhan

You described the content, not the medium. According to McLuhan, the content doesn't matter.

To claim - as some one above did - that 'Watergate' reporting was part of the 'Golden Age of Journalism' shows that some is living in a dream world.

If anything the romantization of reporting brought on by 'Woodstein' has caused much of current problem: reporter as hero/reporter as 'world changer'.

What a load of crap.

If reporters kept to reporting instead of editorializing in even the most mundane of reports the entire field would be better served.

I used to get the Sunday NYTimes and put up with a lot of bullshiat opinionating where it was uncalled for.

The final straw was about 6-7 years.
I was reading a book review of 19th century recipes and the reviewer took timeout to write some rather insulting things about GW Bush.

In a book review.
Of 19th century recipes.

So fark you NYTimes. And good luck staying in business.