Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Joel McKay's avatar

Really enjoying this series - thank you for bringing in guest PoV's. As a former Vancouver journalist (community papers and BIV) I think there are two things often overlooked in this conversation:

1) The so-called 'Golden Age' of Journalism - the post-war period until Y2K, roughly, was able to exist for a key reason: massive profit margins allowed for significant organizational breathing room and that resulted in maximum independence for editorial departments. As soon as those profits were squeezed, the owners had to cut-back, reduce independence or both.

2) The Golden Age is actually a relatively short period of time in the history of the news business. Pre-war and earlier journalism was surprisingly similar in form and function as what we're seeing enter the 'news' space today. It's possible the Golden Age was the anomaly, the norm is this.

Lastly, as a former business journalist I can say one thing you get good at is analyzing businesses. It was hard not to analyze the industry and media companies I worked for/interacted with when I was in the newsroom. It was obvious to me in 2011/12 that if I wanted to get ahead in life (you know, own a house one day), sticking it out in the news business was a poor bet. I love the news business, still do but a lot of the good talent left for some basic reasons and that's undermined the business as well (No, I don't count myself among the 'good talent').

Expand full comment
Wayne Liston's avatar

With Dad at Stanford during the development of the internet, a Defense Dept. project to provide secure, redundant communication channels during an enemy attack, the irony that it became the major channel to breach security, is overwhelming.

For a brief period it was very informative in being able to translate the emails of sites such as the Brigades of the Martyr Izz el-Deen al-Quassam "militants" lament that their 2011 anti tank missile attack on an Israeli school bus at the end of its route had not killed a full busload of kids, only a single student remaining at the final stop, not in the frame of most news coverage.

My ideal of impartial or broad spectrum news coverage was reversed when the CBC replaced BBC Northern Ireland coverage with their own stringer, whose lionization of Gerry Adams and contempt for the "British" was clearly evident in her delivery. Her bio details disclosed that she came from "a strong Republican family", had fundraised for Sinn Fein in Boston and believed that good reporting demanded a "passionate personal point of view". When Tony Burman initially showed interest in my concern but eventually responded that he had "full confidence" in her, I decided that bias was really inevitable and a clear, open declaration, (which as others have pointed out, was the norm for newspapers for decades past) was the best that could be hoped.

When Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger in 2015 announced that the Guardian, having sold the profitmaking Autotrader, was no longer a "newspaper" but becoming "a campaigning organization" against "Climate Change" and would no longer publish anything contradicting "consensus science" it was at least openly inverting C.P. Scott's iconic 1921 editorial principle of dealing fairly with opposing views. But establishing the "Covering Climate Now" consortium which now coordinates "urgent climate stories" to ensure that all 500+ media partners distribute a uniform message to their 2 billion audience, is without suitable notice.

Like the old K-Tel guarantee that your " Best of 100 classical works" would contain "no unfamiliar music", it seems to be profitable.

Expand full comment
16 more comments...

No posts