Originally Posted by Pete F.
There's a reason the media has an issue with opinion pieces and classifying the people who do them as journalists, here is the difference between reporting and opining.
The "media," not sure what that means anymore, and that is a huge part of the problem that the "media" has created. The "media" has re-classified various "classifications," such as extremism, racism, radicalism, lying, and a host of various words that used to mean other things than what the "media" now says they mean. The "media" gives tacit, and even open, approval (is that being a sycophant as Shelley classifies Tucker Carlson?) to things unproven without the skepticism that journalists are supposed to have in many social matters such as "Black Lives Matter" and transgender issues for example.
Shelley wants to make a distinction between reporting and opining. Trouble is, when the "reporting" consistently leaves things unreported which would shed a different light, that amounts to de facto opining.
"Anchor Chris Wallace sat down with the Russian president and pressed him about his track record, the statements he made during the news conference with Trump, and why many of his critics often end up dead or near death.
Wallace was unrelenting, asking the questions many U.S. public officials had been clamoring for Trump to ask. (Trump is not a journalist, and journalists don't negotiate with world leaders where journalistic tactics are not practical) It wasn’t easy, it wasn’t pretty, but it was responsible journalism. Most important, Wallace avoided becoming part of the commentary by following the journalistic process.
Conversely, Fox News’ Sean Hannity kicked off his post-Putin news conference interview with Trump by complimenting him: "You were very strong at the end of that press conference," Hannity stated.
If he indeed was strong at the end, would it be responsible for a "journalist" to point that out?
While much of the rest of the world reacted in near universal outrage to Trump's performance in Helsinki,
Are weasel words such as "much of the rest of the world" and "near universal outrage" language that responsible journalists should use. And referring to it as a "performance" is a slanting technique that responsible journalists would avoid.
Hannity provided an interpretation of what happened through Trump-colored glasses.
More negative slanting and framing. How about saying that Hannity said what he thought. Right . . . right, a sycophant isn't allowed a personal opinion.
He didn’t press the president to explain why he sided with Putin on denying Russian interference in the 2016 election, when U.S. intelligence showed otherwise.
Why is it framed as "siding" with Putin? Trump "sided" both ways at different times. Obviously, he wasn't siding, he was giving his opinion, which changed, back and forth. I suppose, by Shelley's view, Trump was siding with everybody.
Rather, Hannity stuck to talking points that supported the president’s agenda.
He seems to act as a passionate foil to Anti-Trump agendas. Oh . . . the horror!
As the leader of the country’s largest association of broadcast and digital journalists, it is my job to protect and explain the role that responsible journalists play in facilitating the public’s right to know, and how they function as an important balance of power for those who serve on our behalf.
Sometimes, phrases like "the country's largest association of broadcast and digital journalists", are scary. Seems like a huge conglomeration of influence peddling. And it seems that the "media" are a "balance of power" against those not on board with the Progressive agenda.
It is also my job to call out opinion media professionals like Sean Hannity. Do not be confused — Hannity is not a journalist. He is an analyst with an opinion. And he has a right to that opinion, but he does not have a right to claim he is reporting on stories that expose problems in our communities, or that he is transparent and unbiased.
It's scary when powerful media associations proclaim that someone not in their camp does not have the right to say he is reporting on something. And Hannity has investigative "reporters" who provide him for much of the information he comments on.
Has Hannity claimed that he is unbiased? And he seems quite transparent to me. Apparently, Shelley has a strong personal opinion on who Hannity is and what he is allowed to say. Not very journalistic.
Tucker Carlson also distinguished himself Tuesday night as a Trump sycophant with his softball questions and supportive analysis of the president's performance at the Helsinki news conference.
How dare he have a "supportive" analysis! Surely, he doesn't actually believe his own analysis, he is just supporting Trump. I wonder if Shelley ever has "supportive" analyses. Maybe only if he analyses "journalists" who support his agenda (which we are to assume he doesn't have).
As journalists, our enemy isn’t the president who calls us out. Our enemy is the lack of public understanding about the important role we play.
Perhaps, just maybe, the public doesn't understand the "important" role they play because Shelley's so-called journalists so often stray from that role and become advocates, and allow their personal hatreds to slant their reports and their analyses.
We, as responsible journalists, must double down on transparency, inviting the public into our process of asking the hard questions and reporting the truth. We must also hold ourselves publicly accountable for any mistakes we may make, as any human being should.
When has that happened?
To paraphrase Washington Post Editor Marty Baron: We're not at war ... we're at work."
Dan Shelley is the executive director of the Radio Television Digital News Association.
|