How journalism can abandon what little relevance it still holds

Brent Cunningham is a narrow minded individual. Hopefully my saying this will automatically sway public opinion to agree with me. I am, after all, a journalist, and according to Cunningham in his How journalism can regain it's relevance piece, journalism has "more important" roles than "emitting an endless stream of incremental developments and story frames."

Um, WHAT?! By definition, Brent, journalism is, "writing characterized by a direct representation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation. That is one version of the Merriam-Webster definition. Note the phrase created by the words I chose to emphasize, "direct facts without interpretation." That is what journalism is supposed to be; the principle of objectivity that each of us learned in our first semester of dedicated study.

The reason people don't read the newspaper anymore isn't because we don't give them enough of our own opinions. The reason no one reads the paper, or watches the evening news, or listens to WJR on their way home from work, is that we have totally over saturated the airwaves with our own beliefs and the public is tired of us telling them what to think.

Brent does however go on to contradict himself. "Many of the good ideas we (America) take for granted are not the only good ideas." What do you know; finally some objectivity. The downfall is in the fact that if we combine this idea with the idea of crusade journalism discussed above, we can deduce that what Cunningham means to say is, "Journalists know what's better for Americans than Americans do." So much for being "by the people, for the people."

Cunningham later points out that, "in short, they (the press) would need to convince the public, by words and deeds, that they are on its side." Great, now we are trying to make best friends with the people we don't think are smart enough to interpret raw facts without our overwhelming wisdom. Give me a break. Are we trying to turn journalism into an institution with even more bearing and political power than the government itself? I could be mistaken, but I thought we were opposed to that.

Cunningham also states that journalists need to be, "clear about what they stand for and what they stand against." How about our age old creeds of truth, and helpful information? Probably not important; it is, after all, the 21st century.

I don't want to see the day when everyone believes that a Time Magazine editorial about a particular subject, "just isn't enough." Our job as journalists is to let the facts be known in order for people to make their own decisions about how they feel, not to force submissive agreement. If this is really where my field of study is headed, then I want a refund because every one of my professors has lied to me. I won't get on board with publishing 60 pages of opinion everyday, the editorial page is just that for a reason.