The News is Making it Worse

I am now home for the Thanksgiving holiday. Yesterday, my Mom and I were in the car together. For whatever reason we were talking about the news.... I think it stemmed from talking about the decreasing gas prices (FYI, in Oregon it is still over two bucks for a gallon of gas). Anyway, she commented that the news makes everything worse lately.

She then went on a tangent about how the news makes everyone panic, which then causes the worse to happen. Like, the news will report that the housing market could collapse, and so all these people stop buying homes, and bam! It's crashing! Or, the news reports that a credit crisis could be looming, so people stop taking out loans, stop spending money, and then boom! Credit crisis! The news reports that Barack Obama is probably going to win the election, so people don't bother to vote for the opposing side and zing! Obama's our winner! And so on and so on. Obviously my mom was oversimplifying everything (as parents have a tendency to do), and we can't really blame the news for everything bad in the world (we already blame President Bush for that). But, I thought her tangent posed an interesting theory, which I am posing as a query to you all.

Can the news media predestinate the news? Does reporting possibilities cause them to turn into actualities? How much influence does the news have on current events?

Professional Wrestling Rings?

I recently read for another communications class an interesting quote.

Ralph E. Hanson, in his book Mass Communication: Living in a Media World, said, "Political talk shows are staged with props and costumes to generate the highest possible level of conflict. In essence, they are the professional wrestling rings of journalism."

So say I decide that commentators are indeed journalists. How can I take anything they say seriously? If they are merely on a stage in their proper costumes with appropriate props....and can be related to professional wrestling (something I will never take seriously), how am I or an average American supposed to distinguish between what is real and what isn't?

Our book author, Jeffrey Scheuer, says that "we must use journalism to see the world as it is."

I don't know what I am really getting at here, other than that I am confused. And if I am confused then so are millions of others across the country. What is journalism, what is not? Where is it okay to get our information? Where is it not? Do we label political debate shows as entertainment, or as news forums? Are bloggers journalists? Is journalism even applicable to the world that we live in? Like everything else within the realms of journalism, must our concept of the term change and evolve, or do we hold to the traditions and principles of the past?

It's all so confusing to me. I wish there was clarity. Maybe you can afford me some. Though Scheuer gives me little hope when he says, "journalism has blurry boundaries."

Journalists vs. Commentators

With the renewal of Sean Hannity, Keith Olberman, and Bill O'Reilly's contracts (see http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2008/11/olbermann_rewarded_with_new_co.html), I have been thinking.....

We've asked the question over and over again, "What is journalism, and who is a journalist?"

As we've discussed these questions and more we have touched on these guys, and guys like them, regularly. We've talked about sensationalism, bias, and heated "debates." Often we view them as how not to be objective in news.

But, are these guys journalists? Just because we throw them in front of a camera and have them spout off some of today's pressing topics, does that make them journalists? If we do consider them journalists, then are they good? Yes, they have high ratings (okay, maybe not Mr. Olberman), but does this make them good journalists?

We talk often about blogging. More and more reporters are turning to the web to reach their audience. Six-pack Joes with a blog can be called journalists.

But really, are these folks journalists? I would like to suggest that they are not. I would rather call them commentators. Instead of Bill's intro "Number one show in cable news," I think it should say "Number one show in cable commentary." I think MSNBC did right when they took Olberman and Chris Matthews off of post-debate coverage.

What do you guys think? Should we label them journalists or commentators? And if commentators, how do we go about making sure the rest of America sees the distinction?