Reviving journalism

Going from spin to facts, vagueness to specifics and inferences to full quotes. This is part of what it would take to revive journalism. Simple, right? In reality, hardly possible in a world where journalism schools have mostly been redesignated schools of communications, which is a completely different and oppositional field of study. Consider what news writing was intended to be--journaling the occurrences of the day. Keeping a public diary, in a manner of speaking, without personal commentary. "Communicating" emotions and responses to occurrences is what it has become.

Sensationalism is not reliable news

What we used to call puff pieces, human interest stories yanking at heartstrings, has replaced headline news. Rarely does a news story follow the old "who, what, where, when, why and how" guidelines of conveying information. The only aspect of the formula that's left is the "why" and that's been reconfigured to express opinion rather than cause and effect, which was the original intent. Most of you reading this don't need a refresher course on what journalism was and how it has been transformed over the last century. Yellow journalism is nothing new, but instead of being undesirable it's now the norm and called "clickbait" in today's nomenclature. Well do I understand the need to sell "papers" and in the digital world it comes down to clicking on links rather than buying a copy of the daily, rolled up and tucked under your arm. News reporting has never paid the freight, advertising does and it was, and still is, the lifeblood of a paper or a website. What hasn't changed is how sensationalism attracts attention whether it's a headline 'above the fold' or a chyron on the television or computer screen. Trouble is, sensationalism is not reliable news. It provides a brief instant of interest quickly dissipated when the lack of substance becomes evident. And this is what constitutes the communication of a story. It's no longer "journaled," it's editorialized and explained according to the writer's ingrained opinion and that opinion has been groomed and established by prejudiced professors teaching at the majority of colleges--like this Columbia journalism faculty who contributed to Hillary Clinton's campaign 40 times. There's also the problem with progressive billionaire entrepreneurs trying their hand at media manipulation. Unlike the Hearsts, Otis-Chandlers and even the Pulitzers who built their news empire from the bottom up and had their own political brand, the new face of news organization ownership is that of merchandisers and financiers with an agenda of creating facts rather than reporting facts. Interestingly, the more leftist politically motivated is the "news" in the modern era, the less profitable is the carrier. Things have gotten so out-of-hand that even the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post had to fire a reporter for, frankly, just plain laziness in lifting stories without crediting sources, among other no-nos.

---

News reporting demands responsible use of professional outlets

Then a seasoned reporter who knew better posted a sarcastic, and untrue, tweet that too many took as gospel regarding the Annapolis shooter dropping a MAGA hat at the scene of his crime. News reporting demands responsible use of professional outlets. Personally, I appreciate a bit of sardonic humor, but best be cautious how it's applied and can be construed, though it must be admitted that the Left can't distinguish what's funny from what's not, which is why the reporter's joke wasn't one. What didn't help the situation was a Reuters editor who tweeted that President Trump's words inspired the attack at Capital Gazette for which he had to eat his words after inciting a firestorm of rhetoric placing blame where it never belonged. Proof once more that emotionalism has no place in journalism. In response to the liberally motivated news media, hundreds of citizen journalists have launched websites but many of those suffer from a couple of debilitating drawbacks such as a lack of training in how to search out facts that aren't handed to them (inevitable with the uncorroborated internet reporting); and tainting so much of what they report with personal bias because there is no understanding of the difference between editorializing and straight reporting. Outrage keeps coloring the writers' and video makers' efforts on both sides of the opinion spectrum. The question is how we can reverse the trend that has undermined and virtually destroyed what used to be a rough and tumble scramble to get the whole story, the correct story, and write it with fact and flair. Being first in breaking a news story is the goal but getting it wrong used to mean humiliation. How many reporters now have no shame but revel in their mistakes and even try to convince the public that wrong is right? It's time to employ biblical standards for reporting.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

Biblical? Really? Yes, because scriptural standards are clear and were upheld by the many councils which determined the authenticity of the books that now comprise the Bible. There is one standard that doesn't translate to journalism--necessarily being inspired by God is not a requirement. We're talking reporting news truthfully and conscientiously, not composing a religious text. But the other standards are obvious: straight chronicling of events, using only primary sources, witness corroboration and context, context, context. Historical chronicles in the Bible were written by witnesses, those who obtained corroborative testimonies, and prophets who received the inspired Word directly from God. The books aren't filled with personal biases from the authors. They endeavored to painstakingly record what they saw and what they were told, and they regarded the circumstances under which events occurred without adding or subtracting information. For those who give credence to authors of history such as Tacitus, Thucydides or Pliny, it should be noted that surviving manuscripts are partial and fractional in number compared to the thousands of carefully made copies of canon, testifying to the preservation of highly regarded chronicles and their verity. The biblical model of reporting is one to be emulated and adopted, sans supernatural inspiration. It should be pointed out, however, that recording history, whether a community event or a gargantuan cataclysm, is a calling. It is ministering to society by relating facts not fantasy. Note: It is upon the basis of employing these biblical standards within the profession of journalism that I put forward a challenge to other like-minded recorders of fact to connect with me regarding the building of a School of Journalism based on what has been stated above. Serious educators, administrators, donors and experienced individuals may contact A. Dru Kristenev through CanadaFreePress.com. It's time Bible and Christian colleges trained journalists as well as ministers and teachers, don't you think?