Troubling Trends for Journalists

What’s the difference between a politician and a journalist? If you think there’s no difference, you have a lot of company.

First, there are the CBS executives who hired resigning Rep. Susan Molinari (R-N.Y.) for a still-to-be-defined role on a weekend news program.

Second, there’s The Times’ television critic Howard Rosenberg. As he pointed out in his column, superstar network anchors (like ABC’s Barbara Walters) and interviewers (like CNN’s Larry King) are members of the same power elite as the Washington politicians they are supposed to cover (Calendar, June 2).

*

Third, there are the 1,500 Americans who responded to a Roper Poll earlier this year. When asked to rank the ethical standards of various professions, they gave high scores to doctors, teachers and clergy. Journalists ranked down there with politicians, lawyers and corporate executives--all seen by the public as having their own agendas to advance.

It’s the latter group that means trouble ahead for the profession of journalism. Americans consume vast amounts of news and information. But they are less and less likely to trust what they see and hear. In the same poll, 88% responded that big corporations influence news reporting. An overwhelming 90% said the media’s hunger for profits improperly influences the news.

Even scarier, a large segment of the public has lost the connection between journalists and the public’s right to know. In the Roper sample, only 15% could name freedom of the press as part of the 1st Amendment.

It’s been a long, sad slide from the pinnacle of the Watergate years, when public opinion of the press was at an all-time high. No longer is the journalist seen as the crusader for the ordinary citizen. The search for truth has been preempted by the quest for ratings. Why not have Tom Cruise or Michelle Pfeiffer read the news, as long as they draw a crowd?

It’s a troubling question for the next generation of journalists, as they toil on college newspapers and work as unpaid interns in TV stations. They pay their dues in small markets where the starting pay for reporters with college degrees can be as little as $10,000 per year. They learn to cover the cops, the schools, city hall. They experience the joy of telling a story that changes someone’s life for the better. They learn how hard it is to be tough but fair. And the result? They are all dressed up with no place to go.

The hiring of Molinari sends a loud and clear message that learning the profession of journalism is no longer a prerequisite for the most prestigious and visible journalism jobs in the country. We should have seen it coming when a Texas judge named Catherine Crier traded in her gavel for anchor chairs at CNN, ABC and Fox News without bothering to detour through journalism school. Or when former political players like NBC’s Tim Russert started taking over the weekend interview shows.

*

You wouldn’t dream of getting heart surgery from someone who hasn’t been to medical school. Why get your news from someone who has no professional training? Worse yet, why get your news from someone with a political agenda to advance?

Molinari has the right to take her chances in the marketplace of ideas. Fair and objective journalists will wait until she has actually anchored a few programs to assess her talent. But the Edward R. Murrows of the future won’t get their chance to inform the public if politicians take over the anchor chairs.

Viewers already complain that the news is too biased, negative and insensitive to the pain of real people. To bring viewers back, we need more qualified journalists who exemplify accuracy and fairness. That comes with education and experience, not from the partisan warfare of Capitol Hill.