Forget about hyper-partisanship. Let's talk about a different kind of hyper: the hyper-journalism of this 2008 Presidential Election.
Journalism has gone beyond being neutral and has found many political journalists waving their pro-Obama or pro-McCain flags everywhere. Not that this is a problem, but political fighting has gone beyond the candidates and into the news arena. Instead of reporting the news, journalists are being drawn into battles of words, quick video edits and blogs.
And it isn't pretty.
Journalism has gone beyond being neutral and has found many political journalists waving their pro-Obama or pro-McCain flags everywhere. Not that this is a problem, but political fighting has gone beyond the candidates and into the news arena. Instead of reporting the news, journalists are being drawn into battles of words, quick video edits and blogs.
And it isn't pretty.
Take for instance the controversy surrounding a recent column written
by Cynthia Tucker in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. In the piece, Tucker hits at Bill O'Reilly's contradictory opinions on teenage mothers.
On Jamie Lynn Spears' teen pregnancy, O'Reilly blamed the parents, but
has recently gone on record to be nothing but supportive of the Palin
family. Even The Daily Show picked up on the inconsistencies with
O'Reilly and used it as part of a news segment.
Of course, O'Reilly has to hit back hard, so what does he do? He talks about both Tucker and Daily Show host Jon Stewart on his show and sends a reporter to Tucker's doorstep to get answers on why she is "comparing Bristol Palin to Jamie Lynn Spears."
Of course, this sets the blogosphere on fire. With the arrival of reporters on Tucker's doorstep, O'Reilly is only perpetuating the hyper-journalism that is surrounding the election: the audience is treated to a saturation of coverage. News is extending beyond newsmakers and onto the news writers. We are thrust into media mudslinging on an appalling amount of platforms such as blogs, television, newspapers -- if you couldn't already tell from the multitude of links I included.
What makes hyper-journalism controversial is not the journalistic infighting, but the effect it is having on society at large. The drone of journalism seems to be reaching fever pitch in these elections, with fights such as O'Reilly and Tucker adding more noise to the cacophony.
One interesting side effect of hyper-journalism, however, is (what seems to be) a rise in commenters on the opposition's web site. One (of many) comments against Tucker appeared in her own paper's website, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Where do we go from here? Well, if we're to look at the recent firing of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, then you're meant to believe that networks may be trying to make the trek back to "neutral." MSNBC seems to be doing a lot of backtracking for remarks made by Olbermann, that often betrayed his true political tendencies. In an Associated Press article by David Bauder, Olbermann "sarcastically dismissed GOP pundit Pat Buchanan on the air after Buchanan said the GOP had been enlivened by the entrance of a conservative Republican."
The trek back to neutrality is not a bad idea in the midst of all the journalistic/political mudslinging -- in theory, at least -- but this thinking may be faulty. Can television truly be a neutral medium? With moving images to supply additional info to support a story, can't a new organization create a slant to a story unnoticeably? As a film studies major, I learned that cameras can suggest certain things by angles and lighting; O'Reilly already pointed out that The Daily Show used several edits when juxtaposing the two O'Reilly opinions. Already, we are media savvy and realize it's necessary to be attentive to details like that.
So where are we left, in terms of hyper-journalism? Although the journalistic infighting may be a byproduct of the escalating ratings war on political coverage, hyper-journalism is here to stay. We are now facing a media that is an endless hall of mirrors, each reflection a response to the last. Whether this will strengthen journalism's image or ruin it remains to be seen.
Of course, O'Reilly has to hit back hard, so what does he do? He talks about both Tucker and Daily Show host Jon Stewart on his show and sends a reporter to Tucker's doorstep to get answers on why she is "comparing Bristol Palin to Jamie Lynn Spears."
Of course, this sets the blogosphere on fire. With the arrival of reporters on Tucker's doorstep, O'Reilly is only perpetuating the hyper-journalism that is surrounding the election: the audience is treated to a saturation of coverage. News is extending beyond newsmakers and onto the news writers. We are thrust into media mudslinging on an appalling amount of platforms such as blogs, television, newspapers -- if you couldn't already tell from the multitude of links I included.What makes hyper-journalism controversial is not the journalistic infighting, but the effect it is having on society at large. The drone of journalism seems to be reaching fever pitch in these elections, with fights such as O'Reilly and Tucker adding more noise to the cacophony.
One interesting side effect of hyper-journalism, however, is (what seems to be) a rise in commenters on the opposition's web site. One (of many) comments against Tucker appeared in her own paper's website, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Cynthia Tucker has no business being an editor. She displays the sloppy, left wing journalism to promote the liberal agenda that is a big problem with major newspapers these days. The AJC has no reason to be proud of this editor.
Where do we go from here? Well, if we're to look at the recent firing of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, then you're meant to believe that networks may be trying to make the trek back to "neutral." MSNBC seems to be doing a lot of backtracking for remarks made by Olbermann, that often betrayed his true political tendencies. In an Associated Press article by David Bauder, Olbermann "sarcastically dismissed GOP pundit Pat Buchanan on the air after Buchanan said the GOP had been enlivened by the entrance of a conservative Republican."
The trek back to neutrality is not a bad idea in the midst of all the journalistic/political mudslinging -- in theory, at least -- but this thinking may be faulty. Can television truly be a neutral medium? With moving images to supply additional info to support a story, can't a new organization create a slant to a story unnoticeably? As a film studies major, I learned that cameras can suggest certain things by angles and lighting; O'Reilly already pointed out that The Daily Show used several edits when juxtaposing the two O'Reilly opinions. Already, we are media savvy and realize it's necessary to be attentive to details like that.
So where are we left, in terms of hyper-journalism? Although the journalistic infighting may be a byproduct of the escalating ratings war on political coverage, hyper-journalism is here to stay. We are now facing a media that is an endless hall of mirrors, each reflection a response to the last. Whether this will strengthen journalism's image or ruin it remains to be seen.
Leave a comment