Mainstream vs Point of View Journalism

I have to say that after reading the two articles, nothing really seems clearer in my mind. On the one hand, objectivity by the definitions given in the articles and subscribed to by the newsrooms does allow the reader to make their own conclusion from the information present, which I find enticing--it is the reason I enjoy MPR so much. They bring the guests, and ask the questions allowing the listeners to chime in to offer their points of view. I am, however, impressed with the radio journalists, and journalists in all mediums who have researched what in my mind are the burning questions and are without reserve in asking them--especially when they have a particularly controversial guest. I personally feel under served if the questions aren't asked. I really enjoy the questions that challenge my ideas and make me defend or change them.

If important questions aren't asked because someone is afraid of sounding partisan or losing their job, then they may be just buckling to the grand machine of what they think is public opinion or employment preservation and should probably become a politician instead of a journalist. This seems to be the reason that comedian-journalists are having so great an impact since they say what everyone else wants to say, and should say. They address the issues in a manner that shows the absurdity of issues and allows the real issue to surface in a more subtle and memorable way. Their jobs are safe and they have huge followings and huge salaries--the best of everything.

I personally have never been one to back down from a well thought-out and supported position just because my employment has been threatened or I might create a stir. I have often treated that as my call to action to try to instill change-- first through thoughtful communication, and if the organization still seems destined to make itself obsolete, I am happy to get out of the way. Unfortunately, I am not a comedian. While I have lived as I speak, I am also not afraid to make paradigm shifts in thought when new and better information is integrated into my knowledge network, in other words, one can't have tunnel vision either.

I guess that my answer to the question is that the reporter can play devils advocate and grill the person on the important questions that need to be raised whether public "says" they want it or not. Advertisers will be more interested in advertising without the "fringe benefits" if they see the readership or viewership has returned. It takes courage though--something that seems to be sorely lacking in today's newsrooms as the writing between the lines of the two articles we were assigned seemed to indicate.

The Iraq war was talked about in the Cunningham article and I remember back to the time when this was big news and none of the journalists that I saw were asking the tough questions. I remember thinking--"What's going on here--are they on the payroll of the White House?" I am all for deference and respect where due, but not at the sacrifice of progress in the service of the greater good. This seems to me to be the reason the public respects the news less--the trust has been lost and needs to be regained with the confidence of old-world journalism. I think Mike Meyers said a similar thing in our last class, so I apologize if this sounds like an echo, but he made sense.

Maybe the public needs to be retrained not to over-react to issues or maybe the journalists are doing a slight disservice in just presenting the sides of an issue without the meat of research and interpretation. In not expressing their own well thought out and carefully crafted opinions, maybe they are leaving the interpretation wide open. Its like putting a frame on the wall and asking people to comment on the art it contains. While many artists have done this kind of work in the past, without the understanding of the artists intent, the real communication is lost.