This week's readings, an excerpt from Sperber's biography of Edward R. Murrow and part of Katherine Graham's autobiography, focus on challenging the United States government. The piece about Murrow focuses on his famous "See it Now" expose on Senator Joseph McCarthy, where Graham's piece talked about the decision to run the Pentagon papers.
By contrast, this piece by The New York Times from 2004 addresses how it was weak in covering the run up to the war in Iraq.
Compare and contrast the journalistic approaches from Murrow and Graham and The New York Times. Discuss what you think, if anything, has changed from the era of Murrow (1950s) and Graham (early 1970s) and today.
In my opinion, the war in Iraq represents one of the biggest failures of the United States in recent decades. I think that the entire country was responsible for this error, from the Bush administration to ordinary complacent citizens. The piece from The New York Times discusses many of the mistakes that were made in the coverage leading up to and during the beginning of the war. Although the piece is specific to The New York Times, it represents the errors of the large majority of news organizations during that time. News organizations were complacent with their sources, and were quick to run stories, many of which turned out to be completely false. During this time, journalism fell into the role of the lapdog for the government and failed to thoroughly question a very questionable war.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I think that there have been many changes from the era of Murrow and Graham to today. Specifically, Murrow and Graham were non-complacent and were willing to challenge the government. Murrow’s Harvest of Shame exposed McCarthy and the anti-communist movement. Similarly, Graham’s release of the pentagon papers revealed the inner workings of the government behind the Vietnam War. The government’s lack of transparency changed how many people viewed the war and how they trusted their own government. However, during the beginning of the Iraq War, it seemed as though very few news organizations were willing to challenge the government’s actions. On the contrary, the news turned out to be one of the biggest supporters of the war early on. As the Times piece states, journalists easily fell for misinformation (The New York Times, 2004). Murrow and Graham, although both anxious about the consequences, ran their pieces, fulfilling their journalistic obligations.
In recent years, especially during the beginning of the War in Iraq, it seems that journalists were too complacent in their efforts, and failed to successfully fulfill their duties as journalists. However, I do think that it is good that The New York Times acknowledged their past failures and apologized. Because they are aware of their mistakes, they are less likely to make them in the future.
I'm happy you pointed out how the large majority of newspapers were complacent with their sources, running the stories quickly without fact checking them first. It is a very scary thing that happened that our newspapers were told lies by the government and wrote them without second thought. Reading that article was so disheartening. The news did support the war and from this point in time, it's looks awful. I agree with you when you said that there have been many changes from the era of Murrow and Graham to today. Your comparison of them being non-complacent and were willing to challenge the government is very accurate. Both of these people did fulfill their journalistic obligations well.I think saying that the ordinary complacent citizens are also responsible for this error is a little strong. Could you possibly explain what you mean?
DeleteLike Caroline, I also liked that you pointed out that the New York Times was not alone in their sub-par coverage of Iraq, but that it was many other newspapers as well. Newspapers are always checking to see what the others have, which can be good or bad (in this case bad and many others, bad). There is a sense of competition that cannot be avoided, but must be kept in check because inaccurate news, such as this, can occur.
DeleteThis makes me think of the coverage of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. NPR, Fox News, CNN, the Huffington Post, and many other news organizations declared Giffords dead, but she wasn't! Once one outlet declared her dead, other organizations went with what everyone else said without holding out to get more information. Giffords own family was served wrong information via the media, which is just deplorable.
I found your blog post as well as Caroline's comment very interesting. I also enjoy the fact that you pointed out that the New York Times was not alone in this. However, are they alone in the apology- we know Fox isn't apologizing for any sort of misinformation. I believe the article is truly admirable, and shows that there is hope of investigative journalism like Murrow and Graham's occurring today.
DeleteI agree with Ryan, it's interesting to look at the New York Times and see how quick, and efficient they were with owning up to the misinformation they spread, but Fox doesn't apologize for their fair share, it's interesting. Also, I believe the American public allowed for this misinformation to lead the nation into the Iraq War.
DeleteThe terror attacks of 9/11 left Americans seeking justice, and were supportive of whatever the President did. In international relations and political science, this scenario is described as the "rally effect." It explains how American Presidents gain short-run popularity during times of international crisis, similar to the events leading up to the Iraq War. Therefore, when considering the rally effect, it makes sense that the Bush Administration was able to persuade the American public so easily, because Americans were more interested in getting vengeance on behalf of the victims of 9/11 than they were with making sure they were going for the right people.
I feel that true investigative journalism would have been more successful at giving the American people important information than news organizations at the time did. An investigative journalist would have taken the time to do the boots on the ground reporting that would have served critical in derailing the Bush Administration's sights of war with Iraq.
The biggest difference between the journalistic approaches of Murrow and Graham, and the New York Times is that Murrow and Graham treated the government as something to be investigated while the New York Times used the government as a source of information to support their articles. Murrow and Graham were conducting investigative journalism while the New York Times didn’t seem to be investigating much of anything. If Murrow and Graham were examples of watchdogs of the government, the New York Times would be the lapdog of the government.
ReplyDeleteThis is a concern for so many reasons, but the concern that comes to my mind is this a change in journalistic integrity? The New York Times seemed to be more concerned with having a story instead of having the accurate story, which they admitted by saying they were “too intent on rushing scoops into the paper” (5th para.). For this reason, it seems that a lot has changed since the times of Murrow and Graham. Journalism served a much higher purpose in their times than our current purpose of having the biggest story. I don’t care if other papers reported the same or similar stories; just because they are all doing it doesn’t make it more accurate. There is something else missing in the New York Times coverage. Murrow and Graham accurately and successfully exposed aspect of the government, but not without hesitation. Murrow was haunted by the question to run with the story or not for days and Graham and her people went back and forth on the decision to run the Pentagon Papers. Where was the Times hesitation? Why were they not hesitant to take the government’s word for it?
Journalism’s purpose to inform the public on issues that will help them make decisions to make informed decisions as citizens is as important as it ever was, but was officially lost due to the coverage of Iraq. Issues of big business could be affecting this, lazy journalism could effect this, and most concerning, the treatment of government is definitely affecting this.
The New York Times did use the government as a source. I don't see anything wrong with this as long as they fact check. Our government shouldn't be lying to us, that's the biggest issue I have with this. Journalistic integrity is important to, had they fact checked before writing, history might have changed. However, I'm most disturbed that the government out right lied in giving information to the news media.
DeleteYou wrote that the New York Times seemed to be more concerned with having a story instead of having the accurate story. That is disturbing as well. I feel as though this will continue to happen in our news media. After reading that piece from class yesterday that says that online journalists are going to have to write 5-10 articles a day, I don't think our news will be as fully accurate as it once was and could be.
In the times of Murrow and Graham, they held stories to make sure they were correct, useful to the public, and sent the right message. They performed long hours of research as seen in All the President's Men. It was a different era. I hope, similarly to you, that lazy journalism doesn't continue.
I agree with both Sabrina and Caroline. I think that the New York Times, as well as almost the entire press failed during Iraq. I agree that there is nothing wrong with using the government for sources, as long as the facts are checked and there are alternate sources as well. Caroline, you are right, the government should not lie to us the way that they did, and the fact that these lies weren't uncovered makes these failures that much worse.
DeleteI think that Murrow and Graham, as well as the coverage of Iraq show how important journalism is in our society. Journalism, as Sabrina says, is suppose to inform the public of facts so that we as citizens make smart, informed decisions. On the one hand, Murrow and Graham were successful in this respect and held the government accountable. On the other hand, the coverage of Iraq failed in this respect, which had negative consequences.
Caroline, in my post I stated that ordinary citizens were somewhat culpable because I think it is not only the responsibility of journalists, but also of every American to question information, especially with consequences like war. I think that people too easily accepted the war and the information from the press, much like journalists easily accepted information from the government. Therefore, people should always be skeptical of things that have heavy implications. In this way, I think as a nation we were complacent.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne major difference that I noticed between Murrow and Graham, and the New York times was how they looked at the government when using it as an example in the newspaper. With the New York times it was set up to be more of an informational source with no question or interrogating but with Murrow and Graham it was investigated and searched through asking several questions to the government. This showed the reader that the New York time did not question or try to prove the government wrong but just used the government as a source while other journalist sat there and tried to investigate the government through journalism. It was very interesting and surprising to me to see that journalist could actually stand up to the government in such ways and something could be published from this. I think it was really interesting to see that journalist are now trying to challenge the government to get the truth out there in the papers. One thing that stood out to me in class was when Ms. H had said the example how does one person write ten stories in one day. She explained how this could be done if you do not care about the information that you are putting into the article or how well it is written. She explained how if there were five articles you could do a good job with this and get the right information and this is exactly what we see with Murrow and Graham and the New York Times. The New York Times care more about just getting a story in the paper and to them it does not really matter if it is accurate or has truth or not. The New York Times is such a publicized paper so it is all about getting stories in the paper so people will read them. With Murrow and Graham in older journalism it was more about getting the right story and it did take some time but the papers were much more accurate with factual events. There was much more of a longer decision period of whether or not to put the article into the paper but this to me was better for journalism because people were getting the right information. When people need to read a story it is really important that there is an accurate and correct story to give the public. It is vital that the readers get the correct information so they can make informed decisions for the future of themselves and the world. It is a scary thought to think that some journalist may be posting false information to the public in such a huge newspaper like the New York Times where so many people get their information from. Clearly it looks like a change must be made in the regulations of journalism because it has gotten worse over the years and this is not acceptable.
ReplyDeletePaul, when reading these I made the same connection that you did to Dr. H's discussion of writing several articles in one day. I pictured the New York Times executing the article as quickly as possible, without regard to how accurate or "in depth" the coverage is. Personally, I rather read one article that gives me all of the facts, a more in depth analysis of the events, rather than several articles that just skim over semi-important facts of a story. I do believe, however, that the fact that the New York Times published an apology such as this one, shows that there are journalists who have faith in reporting the whole truth and quality analysis of the truth. I found the article very comforting because of this.
DeletePaul, I agree with your ideas on the contrast between journalism of the past and the present. I think that the political power journalism used to wield has indeed been hindered since the days of Murrow and Graham.
DeleteI disagree with your thoughts on the New York Times, however. I think that it is too critical to put all of the blame on the New York Times for the controversial and inadequate coverage of the War in Iraq. Who would've been inclined to believe that the government could be feeding it's people lies? At the time, I don't think such behavior would have even been anticipated. It was an age of terrorism and nationalism where the country as an overall unit was panicked and shaken, but also united and on guard in wake of the events of 9/11. I think that the New York Times wasn't, and generally doesn't aim to just get stories done for the sake of having stories. I think they were trying to keep up with the development of all these events that were occurring leading up to the war, and they knew how important it was to keep their readers informed and up-to-speed. They had no reason to mistrust a reliable source like the government at the time. In retrospect, it is evident that they should've been more skeptical. However I don't think that their true intentions were to misinform people based on lies. Also as a side note, I think that the fact that the New York Times is one of the few big papers in America that has managed to survive the decline of the newspaper is a commendable fact that is a testament to the strength of their reputation despite rough patches like the coverage of the Iraq war.
I think hope for journalism lies in the aftermath of this event at the New York Times. It's a very modern example of how journalism and government are not meant to be partners working together--they are meant to be individual and powerful entities that help to keep one another balanced. I think that many people were appalled by how inaccurately the New York Times had been reporting the facts. But if anything, the whole ordeal serves as a learning experience and a lesson to all to avoid having a similar incidents in the future.
I agree with Ryan I would also like to get all the information in one article than having a lot of articles that don’t “skim” over the information. I also agree with Keith and Paul about the political power of journalism is has weakened since Murrow and Grahams time. I think Keith has the right idea about not completely blaming the New York Times. Newspapers have to work with the public to inform the people of facts, but they also have to make sure that they keep readers. When 9/11 happened the country came together and grieved and wanted to seek justice for those who were murdered. They turn to the government for leadership not the newspaper, in my opinion if the New York Times did accuse the government they would have lost more than their readers. They probably would be accused of being against America. But when the true surfaces I wonder which would outcome would have been worse; being hated for doing their job and telling the country what it needs know, or the action that they took going with the nation? And Keith I agree that they should be balanced I don’t think that is always possible, with the different situations.
DeleteThere were a few differences between the approaches in journalism that Murrow and Graham took compared to the New York Times. Murrow and Graham took their jobs as reporters, and used investigative techniques in order to give the public the most valid depiction of the story. They worked hard to get to the bottom line. On the contrary, the New York Times used government as support for their articles, as well as their main source of information.
ReplyDeleteI believe using the government as sources for information is acceptable, as we the public should be capable of trusting them. However, the New York Times had a duty to its readers to publish writing that had been cross checked for inaccuracies. Murrow and Graham performed investigative journalism and produced a revealing article and published it, which was a courageous move on their part. Personally, I would prefer investigative journalism to the other alternative, which is the New York Times method of being complacent with the first information they are capable of receiving.
It all boils down the motive of the producer. Murrow and Graham were concerned about publishing truth and facts. On the other hand, The New York Times was concerned about publishing news to the public in the quickest way possible. I believe that journalism has a duty to inform the public on issues. This is important in order to aid them in making decisions and forming opinions on important subjects in our country. The accepting of news from the government without fact checking leaves no “checks and balances” system or watch dog over the government.
I like your specificity here when you state how Murrow and Graham's style is different from the New York Times because they used actual techniques as opposed to government support as a main source of information. Investigative journalism is of the highest quality when it is done the "old fashioned way," that is, as we saw in "All the President's Men," when Woodward and Bernstein used what they knew and who they knew to get to the bottom of the Watergate Scandal and publish a factual and correct investigative piece.
DeleteI agree that Murrow and Graham wanted to follow this technique and only print the truth. I think this correlates with the workings of Woodward and Bernstein. When I think of investigate journalism, I cannot help but think of those two, especially after our readings and movie watching in class.
Overall, nice summary, points and end note of the "checks and balances idea." This is so crucial when reporters tackle large stories that need some investigating to be properly published and told.
I like the way you described the Times as being more complacent and allowing any facts to be used in their articles. I also don't find a problem with using the government as a source, but sometimes there has to be some kind of fact checking. I don't always believe that the government has an alternative agenda (although that can be the case sometimes) and they can get caught up with an issue they feel strongly about that they too overlook facts. The job of the press is to make sure that they get the facts straight, and in the end, the government and society are better off for it.
DeleteI completely agree with you, Ryan. I also do not see anything wrong with using the government as a source; however, just like any other source they should be checked. It is not as if that was the first time the government has ever lied. Yes, we should be able to trust them, but the lack of honesty in the past should have been taken into account. I find it admirable that the New York Times apologized for their mistakes and brought them to the publics attention. I realize that newspapers nowadays want to be the quickest to inform the public of information in order to remain on top; however, no matter how quickly we are informed it is automatically negated if not accurate. I would much rather have investigative journalism that is made sure to be thorough and precise than to over a series of information thrown at me over a certain amount of time that did not require as much diligence and may contain falsities.
DeleteAfter reading all three works, Sperber’s Murrow and Graham’s and the editors of New York Times’ piece, there are significant differences. In the Murrow piece, Murrow accomplished what I feel is the true duty of journalists and even went beyond that, as he not only exposed Senator McCarthy’s irrational behavior and inconsistencies, but also captured how the nation felt at the time. The real stinger of this piece is the line from his broadcast that says “Cassius was right. ‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” This statement indicated something of true value to the American public, as our fear of government and their power is deeply rooted in us. That politics and the wrong doings in government are of our own doing. He highlights here that it is not just the media or the government who is the lapdog, but we as a public are the lapdogs to both media and government. However, what made Edward R. Murrow’s work so powerful and inspiring is that he and his crew went out or as Dr. H says “boots on the ground” and did true investigative work. This is further highlighted not only within A.M Sperber’s piece but also in the film from 2005, titled Good Night, and Good Luck. In Graham’s piece they too did what Murrow did, which was expose the wrongdoings in government and went the lengths to do so, by fighting supposed laws and conducting true investigation. What I found to be perhaps the strongest part of this personal history is when the DOJ encountered Gesell asking for the documents, Gesell responded with “I don’t have to give you the Papers. I want to read them.” Furthermore, Graham mentions that by publishing the papers they had journalistic integrity, it was their purpose to publish the papers. She even says, “what we did mattered to the press and to the country.” As we know NYT is considered to be a reliable source because it uses its information from press releases from the government, However, I feel that NYT article was more like an apology for not having journalistic integrity as they did not have their information verified. All in all, I feel that as years pass, journalists are losing sight of the fundamental ideas of journalism.
ReplyDeleteSydney, I think that you are correct when you say that there is sort of a skepticism of our government that is rooted in the American public. I think that it is natural for us to want the facts and not accept blindly accept everything that the government tells us. However, I think that during the months leading up to and during the beginning of the war in Iraq, journalists as well as citizens lost sight of this. Journalists didn't really do their homework, and it led to a war which had horrible consequences and cost us billions of dollars. I do think that because of this war, both journalists and citizens have regained this sense of skepticism, asking for a more transparent government. In addition, sites like Wikileaks have led to leaking of classified documents that have also given rise to a higher skepticism. It is important that journalists continue to question power, like Murrow and Graham, rather than fall prey to misinformation as in the case of Iraq.
DeleteI believe that a lot has changed since the times of Murrow and Graham to the current New York Times. Murrow and Graham lived in a time where journalism’s purpose was more clear and concise: to serve the American people and provide them with all information necessary to live a free life. While this goal is still the main objective for newspapers today, I think that their purpose has gotten muddled with the need for readers and publicity, as well as growing competition with other media sources on the internet such as blogs. I also feel that the idea of protecting American citizens from any unfair influence of the government has been put on the back burner, and getting stories that create unity and patriotism are prioritized.
ReplyDeleteDuring the time of Murrow and Graham, the need to expose any injustices seemed to be biggest concern of news companies, especially American injustices, where higher ups were providing unclear facts to get their way, such as McCarthy, or hiding important documents from the public, such as the Pentagon Papers. They did not stand for anything less than the truth, and made sure to expose as much as they could in order to create a fair society. Although America was dealing with international crises during those times, the newspapers did not stop their publishing. They did not lead the American public to believe that the government’s way was the best way, and instead let them see the facts and decide for themselves. The facts were always headliners.
It’s evident from the Times article that journalists were writing headlining pieces that did not have completely verified facts, and were geared towards administrative goals. Even though they might not have been doing this purposely, the sources they received were generally verified by the administration that was eager to get the U.S. involved in Iraq. When they did get facts verified that conflicted with earlier articles, they put those contradicting pieces in the middle of the paper, where viewers would not see them as clearly. I think that this has to do with gaining more readers and publicity, and the Times could have felt pressured to keep their stories consistent so as not to lose readers. However, if they had done research on their sources a little more in depth, like they would have in Murrow and Graham’s time, they might not have had to deal with that. The extremely fast paced environment of today’s news due to technology has created a much more stressful and high pressure situation for journalists to deal with, and could be why the news is less thought out and investigative.
Murrow, Graham, and their staffs did not have the same high pressure environment to deal with, yet I think that if they saw the news coverage being published on Iraq, they would have blamed journalists for succumbing to cowardice and laziness. Still, the situation is drastically different, and journalists today just need to take a step back and reflect on the news they want their society to hear.
As others have pointed out, the major difference between the journalistic approaches of Murrow and Graham versus the approach of the New York Times is that the former two acted as watchdogs of the government while the Times acted as a lapdog. While Murrow and Graham led intensive investigations of the government and refused to take information from the government at surface value, the Times accepted and printed information from the government as factual without deeper investigation.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that since Murrow’s and Graham’s eras, investigative journalism has been on the decline. The same point was made in class when we struggled to come up with examples of investigative journalism that had led to real world changes. This, however, seems ironic given that today, more so than ever before, journalists have access to an incredible amount of information through the internet and they can reach a bigger audience than ever before. I think there are two major reasons for the decline of investigative journalism despite the advancement of technological resources available to journalists. For one thing, as we have been discussing at length in class, no one is paying for the news and, as a result, no one is funding the human capital that goes into the news. Fewer people are being professionally trained to produce quality journalism, the kind of training that might equip one with the tools to perform investigative journalism. But even more significantly, the development of the internet and mobile technology has led to a demand for news stories to be produced at faster rates. Readers want the news as soon as possible for their immediate consumption. Journalists are no longer slaving over stories for days at a time – as we read in class, they are instead producing, in some cases, five to ten stories a day. This ultimately leads to less depth in their stories and a great deal of pressure to get the story out as soon as possible, making it easy to accept information from official sources at face value without further investigation. As the Times said in their retrospective look at their coverage of the Iraq War, newspapers were also looking for the best and most interesting story to attract readers. It was not only easy to report on the government’s stated rationale for the Iraq War, it also made for an attractive story that did not require a lot of effort.
I think there is, however, one similarity between Murrow & Graham and the Times. Murrow and Graham published their controversial work because they believed in the integrity of the news and its critical role in preserving democracy. I think the Times also values the democratic function of the news, which compelled the editors to write retrospectively about where they went wrong. The problem is that the Times was a little too late in working to preserve the integrity of the news. I would hope that the editorial would be a sign of the paper’s commitment to better journalism as is called for the in the last paragraph…but I’m not so sure that journalism has evolved much since 2004, due to the continued challenges posed by the internet.
There are several differences between the reporting done by Murrow and Graham and the reporting done by The New York Times on the war in Iraq. The biggest difference I noticed was the nature of the information published by the Times and Murrow and Graham. The information gathered my Murrow and Graham was harder to obtain. The information they published was something that they had to work to get. While information that is going on in Iraq is not easy to obtain, The Times states that the information they published came largely from government sources. Murrow and Graham’s reporting was almost the opposite, in that it sought to reveal the inner-workings of the government. They could not rely on information given to them by the government if they were working to expose the truth of what the government was doing. I think that if The Times had done this in their reporting of the war in Iraq, it would have resulted in more successful stories. The biggest difference I saw between the types of news was that Murrow and Graham were focused more on investigating, while The Times did more reporting.
ReplyDeleteAlthough The Times could have done a better job in their reporting of the Iraq war, I do think they deserve some credit for acknowledging their mistakes and attempting to rectify some of their lapses in reporting they made in the past. In my opinion, some of their mistakes can be attributed to an attempt at good reporting that modeled after historic examples, such as Grahams and Murrow’s. In Katherine Graham’s autobiography she writes, “The Pentagon Papers may or may not have been the compelling case we all thought it was, but it set in motion certain trends” (p.253). I agree with what Graham has to say. The release of the Pentagon Papers set an expectation for journalism to publish inside, breaking news quickly. I think that some of the mistakes of The Times occurred because they were attempting to relay shocking news at a fast pace without thoroughly checking their sources.
The Iraq War is seen as the being possibly the largest mistake in American history. The fact that the American president, George W. Bush, was able to push an entire country towards the thought of war without anyone seriously questioning the factuality of these claims identifies a fault line in American history. This mistake should not only be taken as one by the national media, but also the American public. American’s allowed for such misinformation to be spread, and they chose to buy the amount of it that was being spread by the Bush Administration. While the American people allowed such misinformation to serve as credible reasoning, it was still the job of the American media to question the information and check it for accuracy. The New York Times would ultimately own up to the inaccurate information they published in a press release, evening saying they published “information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged” (3rd para).
ReplyDeleteThe failure to question such information identifies the main difference between the journalistic approaches used by Murrow and Graham and the New York Times. It seems as though the New York Times were more interested in satisfying their readers, rather than reporting the most accurate information of the time. Murrow and Graham were more efficient at fact checking, were more critical of the information they received and were willing to take the time to fact check before publishing stories. Murrow and Graham were more interested in protecting the American people from the corruptions of the government, while the New York Times seemed to not care about where the information came from, and trusted it because it came from the government, giving them trust that allowed them to push America into an unwarranted war against Iraq.
Also, while Murrow and Graham were more skeptical of the government, they were also conscious of the impact the Pentagon Papers would have, prompting them to hesitate before publishing the Pentagon Papers. This also shows a difference between the two, because where Murrow and Graham hesitated, the Times seemingly had not.
It appears from the texts that Murrow was more interested in fighting unfair assumptions or accusations that politicians such as Senator McCarthy were making about others. Murrow was able to listen and read McCarthy's speeches to pinpoint the skeptical information or accusations he was making. It seems Murrow was able to provide his analysis and insight about the info McCarthy was making. I think he also allowed audiences to make their own judgement by Murrow supplying McCarthy's speeches on air.
ReplyDeleteKatherine Graham appears to be interested in uncovering government's processes and actions. Her determination was to inform people what the government is doing. Knowing and identifying government actions allow people to make their own judgements about the government and question the government's actions (if they are right or wrong). As a democracy, don't people have the right to know what the government is doing? What is the reason for hiding certain information from others when we know that information affects us and our futures, and country?
Journalism doesn't seem to be like it used to. The New York Times was said to report some skeptical or questionable data. Some reports seemed to lack credibility and lack support or verification of some info. Why has journalism taken a turn to not be as investigative as it was in the past. I ponder if technological advances and convenience may be a factor. Either way, journalism and reporting seem to not make the efforts as it once did. Given this situation, what is the source of lack of credible sources and info? How do we go about fixing or reinstating the strong model that investigative reporting once had? What can the system do? What can the journalist do? What can the people do? What can I do?
The news media, the Times included, were among the main proponents and supporters of the government in regards to Iraq (often using them as sources), whereas Murrow and Graham challenged the government and made readers question those in power. Murrow and Graham both struggled to release the information they had uncovered to the public; it was not an easy decision. But, as is evident, journalism is not intended to be easy, rather accurate. Lazy or easy journalism leads to the weakening of both the purpose of journalism (to inform the public so that they might make informed decisions that affect their lives) and its core values. It seems as if modern journalism has lost its integrity from the ‘golden days’ of journalism seen in the film “All The President’s Men.” Perhaps investigative journalism ceased to exist in this capacity long before its budget was cut from various publications and news sources.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times’ letter from the editors “The Times and Iraq” was both an apology to their readers and a promise to raise and maintain the standards of their journalism going forward. I found the piece to be both noble and humble as the Times ‘shed light on itself’ and admitted to (providing examples) their shoddy journalism. It gives me a level of respect for the Times knowing that, while capable of error, they can own up to it and move forward with every intention to improve. I wonder how many other publications and news sources (if any) admitted to playing the role of lapdog as opposed to watch dog during the time surrounding the investigation of Iraq. It’s good to know that the Times is conscious of its mistakes and gives me hope for the future of journalism. Pushing for accuracy and confirmation of details rather than publishing as many stories as possible should be the ideal.
To not become repetitive of the points that people have made above, and in relation to Dr. H's comments in class on Wednesday, I believe the difference in quality of investigative journalism from Murrow to now the NY Times lies in time allotted for pieces. As Dr. H said, NY Times reporters are being forced to pump out articles at record speeds, and unfortunately need to rely on un-checked sources. "Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper." I believe that given the circumstances, in comparison to Murrow and Graham, war time journalistic-ally is a time for quick responses and on demand news. People need to know the newest updates every day, and journalists truly do not have time to spend even two weeks on a single article. This will of course cause many stories to contain some falsities, especially considering the extremely large subject matter.
ReplyDeleteI think investigative journalism such as the type done by Murrow and Graham is completely dead. The reason for this is because no story can be broken in it's entirety with the new mediums for producing news. Any modern day piece or story has probably been leaked onto the internet or Twitter for weeks before it is released. This does not have the same effect as a single article that is broken for the first time on a shocking subject. When people expect a story to be produced it is no longer shocking. As well, journalists are no longer given time to produce lengthy pieces. They are instead forced to mass produce articles and expose corruption in bits and pieces in daily publications.
Hopefully everyone can understand the argument I am trying to make.
After reading about Murrow and Graham, and then comparing it to the New York Times, there were a few significant differences that stood out to me. The way in which Murrow and Graham dedicated their efforts to their investigative style of reporting was very impressive, and I was not impressed after reading the Times article. Having just watched All The President’s Men, it was clear how serious Woodward in Bernstein were in terms of getting correct information, nailing down sources, and producing important facts to the general public. All their hard eventually paid off, and it was no surprise to me that Katherine Graham was publisher of the powerful Washington Post at the same time that Woodward and Bernstein were cracking the Watergate case. Just how Woodward and Bernstein wanted to get the truth out, Graham and Murrow had the same mentality. Graham said she would go to jail if she had to just to expose President Nixon on his involvement in the Watergate scandal, and she wanted sure people knew what really happened in that scandal.
ReplyDeleteIn investigative journalism, it is the reporter’s job to go out and discover every little detail that may have happened in the story. If reporters do a mediocre job in reporting, then some important details may never be found and the overall story will be weak. Graham and Murray were constantly digging deeper and deeper, always taking risks with the government, in order to represent the truth in their articles. In the New York Times article, the apology they put out to the public was said because they knew they did not do enough research to expose the government for the war in Iraq. This was a very weak showing of investigative journalism done by the New York Times, and after reading how passionate Graham and Murrow were about their investigations, an issue like would have never occurred in their work.
I think the main difference between the approaches of Murrow and Graham regarding the Pentagon Papers and the New York Times approach on the Iraq war was just authenticity. What I got from the article and reading was basically that Murrow and Graham used investigative journalism to explore military involvement in Vietnam and used researched to convey to their audience what was really going on, while the NYT relied heavily on government sources, and without any cross-checking or research, put what the government conveyed to them in the paper.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the two biographies and comparing it to the NYT article it seemed that the main difference was that the two journalists acted as reporters and challenged the government, while the NTY reporters or authors, acted as compliances with the government. For example, Murrow and Graham used the Pentagon Papers to prove that the Lyndon Johnson administration had been lying about what exactly had been going on in Vietnam. The times solely accepted the government’s word as for what was going on in Iraq and fed it to their audiences. I’m not saying the Government should never be trusted or relied on ever, I just feel as though; the government should never be a sole source. I think the government will only convey what they want conveyed, or more or less share one side of the story which will happen to be theirs. The newspaper and journalism as a whole should look to explore and convey both sides never relying on any one source, but instead relying on research and sources from both sides of the spectrum as did Murrow and Graham.