WHY WE HATE THE NEWS MEDIA

The news media used to be the “watchdogs” but now they seem more like “lap dogs”. Once known exclusively for exposing elitism in politics and the business world, many journalists today admit, amongst themselves, at having become elitists themselves!

The TV journalist, now virtual celebrities, may too often come across to viewers as smug, aloof, out of touch, rich people. It was a smart idea for the corporate conglomerates to make these so-called journalists into rich people and dependent upon the corporations for more and more riches so they will end up thinking like the corporations instead of thinking against the corporations.

Some TV journalists take home tens of thousands of dollars for just one speech at industry dinners and political lobbying events which by the very nature of human nature corrupts how one thinks and thus shapes and compromises future news stories. Some journalists even openly contribute money to political campaign funds which used to be against a news organization’s code of ethics! Whatever happened to the so-called objective, non-partisan distance reporters were supposed to maintain from legislators and business leaders so the reporters could remain relatively unbiased when reporting news and information.

Well-paid celebrity journalists claim they are not affected by the “moonlighting” money they earn at speaking engagements, but just try and convince the public that there is absolutely no potential ethical compromise. Perception is reality.

Honest journalists admit there is bias in news reporting but these days they may just laugh it off as part of the entertainment side of their job. The fine line between “showbiz” and objective reporting has today possibly been irrevocably blurred. Journalists have seemingly too often become one with the politicians, business leaders and corporate conglomerates they report on and we all know where politicians rank in credibility public opinion polls.

Business, industry, lobbyists and politicians may feel they are buying potential immunization from future “bad press” reports when they pay journalists to do speaking engagements as well as pay them a huge income so the journalists can live more like the capitalists that the journalists are supposed to be objectively reporting on.

Too often the public may be told more of what suits the media owners and advertisers. Since media owners and advertisers bankroll the media, it is no surprise that newspaper, magazine and radio/TV broadcast advertising managers and editors will not readily admit that they have had media owners, supervisors, advertisers and advertising agencies try to influence or “kill” certain news story content that may directly affect the media owners’, advertisers’, business and government interests.

Unlike in the past, today, news reporters and editors may try to avoid potentially controversial reporting that may adversely affect big business and big government interests. In fact, it may even be in the best interest of all those involved to do news stories that attract advertising revenues, not drive them away. Critics charge that this is trading integrity for revenue.

The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment was designed to protect the citizens from an uninhibited press and government control but this does not apply in business. Every day big business and big government may be doing what it can to deny consumers access to information necessary to make good, sound consumer decisions and choices.

Fighting for the almighty advertising dollar in these highly competitive times in the news gathering business, being less controversial when it comes to media owners’ and advertisers’, business and government interests may be necessary to even survive.

Reporters may even fear losing their jobs and editors may fear clashing with their owners over advertiser interference, so why risk it? Advertising revenues may influence editorial content so much so today that the public may never get the whole story. Remember, big business upholds their right to free speech but may try to inhibit free speech if it adversely affects its revenues.