Loss if integrity in news reporting. A question.

chic

chic

SF VIP
Location
U.S.
I grew up in the 1960's and saw the news everyday because my parents wanted to watch it. I mention this because many of you will remember these days. The news reported everything from politics to crime to the war in Vietnam. They covered weather events and even geological events like earthquakes and volcanoes. They reported the deaths of famous people.

They never told us how we should feel about the news they reported. There was no right way or wrong way to react to it, their job was to inform. This was a wonderful idea and I miss this kind of integrity in our modern world. How do you feel about this? Do you miss the news reporting of yesteryear? What's your take on it?
 

Last edited:
I went to school for Journalism and today's Journalists violate everything we were taught in terms of integrity.

When people are victims of crime or scams, the reporter wants to know how they feel about it. How do you think they feel about it? Is that what everybody wants to know?

The media likes to perpetuate the idea that we're all defenseless victims with no power or control over anything.

Then if someone shows initiative and prevents being a victim, they are celebrated as brave heroes we should all be lucky to emulate.
 
Last edited:
I prefer to have the facts without the spin.

Growing up we had three channels and a small window of time to present a quantity of information. The major networks also maintained news bureaus around the world that helped to give a bit more in depth reporting on international events.

Today we have an unlimited number of channels and not enough quality information to fill the time. That seems to make the spin more important than the facts when it comes to filling time.

Another peeve of mine is local news programs filling time with news clips from the national networks. IMO they should stick to local news even if itā€™s only weather, traffic, and high school sports.

I suppose that one of the interesting downsides from the old days was the integrity or perhaps survival instincts of professional reporters to leave out many provocative and salacious details about the lives of famous people.

šŸ˜‰šŸ¤­šŸ˜‚
LBJ Meets the Press
 
Last edited:
chic said:
I grew up in the 1960's and saw the news everyday because my parents wanted to watch it. I mention this because many of you will remember these days. The news reported everything from politics to crime to the war in Vietnam. They covered weather events and even geological events like earthquakes and volcanoes. They reported the deaths of famous people.

They never told us how we should feel about the news they reported.there was no right way or wrong way to react to it, their job was to inform. This was a wonderful idea and I miss this kind of integrity in our modern world. How do you feel about this? Do you miss the news reporting of yesteryear? What's your take on it?
Click to expand...
I feel like your statement "loss of integrity" is an assumption that couldn't possible be proven one way or the other and the rest of it is pining for another time when some took everything fed to them by network news as unbiased gospel when it really wasn't that at all.
 
Recently I had the opportunity to pass along some "wisdom" to one of my sons.

"Everything you hear, and everything you read, has some degree of bias in it".
and
"Rarely, if ever, you will hear or read the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

I think I shook him up a bit, for he said I had a good point......
 
againstthegrain said:
I feel like your statement "loss of integrity" is an assumption that couldn't possible be proven one way or the other and the rest of it is pining for another time when some took everything fed to them by network news as unbiased gospel when it really wasn't that at all.
Click to expand...

Keep posting againstthegrain. Sometimes we need reminding that the good old days were not as good as they are old.
 
againstthegrain said:
I feel like your statement "loss of integrity" is an assumption that couldn't possible be proven one way or the other and the rest of it is pining for another time when some took everything fed to them by network news as unbiased gospel when it really wasn't that at all.
Click to expand...
There's no arguing that broadcast journalists back then omitted facts such as precisely why the US became involved in Vietnam and what the CIA was up to, for example, but they clearly distinguished news reports from editorials/opinion pieces. They literally announced "And now, here's editorial journalist Anne Smith," or whatever. They don't do that anymore. Not on national broadcasts, anyway.
 
chic said:
I grew up in the 1960's and saw the news everyday because my parents wanted to watch it. I mention this because many of you will remember these days. The news reported everything from politics to crime to the war in Vietnam. They covered weather events and even geological events like earthquakes and volcanoes. They reported the deaths of famous people.

They never told us how we should feel about the news they reported.there was no right way or wrong way to react to it, their job was to inform. This was a wonderful idea and I miss this kind of integrity in our modern world. How do you feel about this? Do you miss the news reporting of yesteryear? What's your take on it?
Click to expand...
I still have that on the national broadcaster, the ABC, affectionately known as Auntie. The news is straightforward and there is plenty of behind-the-news programs and commentary. The ABC is government funded and free to air on television, radio and on the internet. We can watch or listen to federal parliament in session without commentary. The ABC is an antidote to the Murdoch empire which is why Rupert has tried so hard to destroy it.
 
I won't say that I was a student of the news reporting but I was certainly aware of, actually dating back to the 50's. My first clear memory was the frequent walks that President Truman had in DC with the press firing questions at him as they walked. Later on I watched every event surrounding the assassination of JFK. I had already developed a liking for the young president reading the Weekly Reader at school, newspapers, and watching the evening news on one of major TV networks.

In my early college days I was watching the reporting that surrounded the Vietnam War, not realizing at that time that I was destined to see it up close and personal. As a result I learned that not all reporting even then was completely accurate. There was a degree of subterfuge behind the scenes driven by the unpopular war and cost both in lives and spirit of the country. I'm now more than fifty years beyond those experiences, but free from it.
 
againstthegrain said:
I feel like your statement "loss of integrity" is an assumption that couldn't possible be proven one way or the other and the rest of it is pining for another time when some took everything fed to them by network news as unbiased gospel when it really wasn't that at all.
Click to expand...
By loss of integrity I mean they tell people now the acceptable way to react to the facts that they report and this should never happen. In my youth a journalists job was to report the facts and that was all.

I remember Walter Cronkite reported the death of JFK and he waited with the viewing audience for AP to confirm it. That was responsibility. And he didn't tell anyone how they should feel about the assassination either. It just wasn't done back then. That's what I miss. Integrity.
 
Murrmurr said:
There's no arguing that broadcast journalists back then omitted facts such as precisely why the US became involved in Vietnam and what the CIA was up to, for example, but they clearly distinguished news reports from editorials/opinion pieces. They literally announced "And now, here's editorial journalist Anne Smith," or whatever. They don't do that anymore. Not on national broadcasts, anyway.
Click to expand...
Of course all that is true but what is really surprising me in these times is you can't report a newsworthy fact like a fire, an explosion or a shooting or something without drilling it into people that there is a right way and a wrong way to react to this news. We know that. So just report and leave us to ourselves.

This is just my opinion.
 
^^^Perhaps you're confusing 2 groups of people, journalists and those that appear on TV and talk about the news on the various outlets.

As far as recent example of "integrity" I'll have to hand it to Fox News Decision Desk (Arnon Mishkin) when he called AZ for brandon and stood up to the lambasting and pressure to change the call that followed immediately from all directions, including the President of the United States. It cost him his job.

Like I said there is no way to prove whether integrity in journalism has gone up, down, or side ways.
 
Cronkite, David and Brinkley are gone. We trusted them. They not only provided the news but they gave us, to some degree, impartial observation. Can't find that anymore. Don't trust any newscaster. Which one works for who? Which one is objective?? I don't need or want someone to feed me what I should believe. Just report. My only conclusion is that the AP is the best source.
In the age we live in, with social media, everyone has a voice. The problem is whose voice do you want to listen to. Therein lays the problem. A lot of people want someone to explain things to them. They may not have the time or ability to analyze what is being said. With Cronkite it was simple. But not anymore. Don't know the answer but the Information Age, as they call it, is not about facts or truth. It is simply about information provided by hundreds of thousands of people with opinions. Who do you believe, who do you want to believe and, bottom line........what really are the facts. Agree, disagree, don't care. There is no valid source or place that you can go.
 
againstthegrain said:
^^^Perhaps you're confusing 2 groups of people, journalists and those that appear on TV and talk about the news on the various outlets.
Click to expand...
I think you meant that for me.

Back in the day, TV news reporters were called broadcast journalists. Some of them did the actual leg-work, and if someone else did it for them, they bothered to fact-check their reports before reading them on the air. Their reputations depended on it.

Now, it's more important that they have great on-screen presence.
 
chic said:
By loss of integrity I mean they tell people now the acceptable way to react to the facts that they report and this should never happen. In my youth a journalists job was to report the facts and that was all.

I remember Walter Cronkite reported the death of JFK and he waited with the viewing audience for AP to confirm it. That was responsibility. And he didn't tell anyone how they should feel about the assassination either. It just wasn't done back then. That's what I miss. Integrity.
Click to expand...
As respected as Cronkite was, especially for this important stories, do we remember all the other reporters and their daily content. They didnā€™t have to compete with a multitude of other stations for advertising dollars. Maybe they werenā€™t totally unbiased because we didnā€™t have news coming at us all day from every direction.

Iā€™d really have to stretch my memory back 50 years to the days when I was dating a journalism student. The conversations he and his friends were having were about ā€˜getting the storyā€™ and how to pick a theme, etc. Nowadays itā€™s even more competitive.
 
Murrmurr said:
I think you meant that for me.

Back in the day, TV news reporters were called broadcast journalists. Some of them did the actual leg-work, and if someone else did it for them, they bothered to fact-check their reports before reading them on the air. Their reputations depended on it.

Now, it's more important that they have great on-screen presence.
Click to expand...
Nope Chic, sorry for the confusion.
 
Murrmurr said:
I think you meant that for me.

Back in the day, TV news reporters were called broadcast journalists. Some of them did the actual leg-work, and if someone else did it for them, they bothered to fact-check their reports before reading them on the air. Their reputations depended on it.

Now, it's more important that they have great on-screen presence.
Click to expand...
This may be the most on target response yet. Confusing a journalist with someone on tv. The quest for ratings is one culprit. In these times broadcasters view the new department or channel as a profit center. I'm not certain it rose to that level in the corporate structure back in the 50's or 60's. I may be looking through rose colored glasses but it at least seemed like more of genuine effort to inform without heavy overtones of editorial comment or bias. Some maybe too much of the programming today can't even be considered news programs.
 
Yes I miss it, I grew up watching the nightly news with walter cronkite, I would hear that stations music and my mama would be cooking supper.

I think certain stations are very vocal about liking or disliking certain people and they let it be known.I rarely watch the evening news now on any station.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top