MICHAEL O. ALLEN

Tag

Journalism

End of an Era, Indeed!

By HomepageNo Comments

The New York Times published the note below at the end of a strange story about the reburial of Richard III. I revered to Times journalists as a young journalist. Unlike many in my generation who came into journalism because of Woodward and Bernstein, Harrison Salisbury was my initial inspiration. Then, John F. Burns became a hero because, like Salisbury, he would go anywhere, cover any story. He seemed to always get to the scene way before any journalist of his day and cover the story longer and better than anyone. The Times says Burns is retiring and becoming a freelancer. He was the finest one. The attached story is a classic.

“With this article, John F. Burns concludes a distinguished career spanning 40 years with The New York Times, 39 of them with the international desk. Beginning with South Africa in 1976, Mr. Burns reported from 10 foreign bureaus and was chief of the Baghdad bureau during the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. Along the way, he wrote more than 3,300 articles and collected two Pulitzer Prizes for International Reporting, one in Afghanistan and the other in Bosnia. His portrait of a cellist playing on Sarajevo’s main pedestrian concourse while artillery shells exploded nearby is considered a classic of modern journalism. He will continue to contribute to the international and sports desks, among others.”

 

Howell Raines is Neither a ‘Liar’ Nor is He Crazy

By HomepageOne Comment

In this Sunday’s Washington Post Op-Ed, he asks questions that have long needed to be asked.

Take this one, his first:

Why haven’t America’s old-school news organizations blown the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a propaganda campaign against the Obama administration — a campaign without precedent in our modern political history?

It is not enough to ignore Fox News anymore because, clearly some people are watching and they are forming their opinions of what is happening in the world based on what that outlet tells them. The question that Raines asks is this: In the face of silence from all known authorities, when every credible voice is silent, who will tell the people the truth?

Of course, much of Raines’ cherished media is either in dire straits and/or too compromised to do much of anything about any issue of importance facing the nation. A case in point being Raines’ old shop, the New York Times.

Why has our profession, through its general silence — or only spasmodic protest — helped Fox legitimize a style of journalism that is dishonest in its intellectual process, untrustworthy in its conclusions and biased in its gestalt? The standard answer is economics, as represented by the collapse of print newspapers and of audience share at CBS, NBC and ABC. Some prominent print journalists are now cheering Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corp. (which owns the Fox network) for his alleged commitment to print, as evidenced by his willingness to lose money on the New York Post and gamble the overall profitability of his company on the survival of the Wall Street Journal. This is like congratulating museums for preserving antique masterpieces while ignoring their predatory methods of collecting.

Why can’t American journalists steeped in the traditional values of their profession be loud and candid about the fact that Murdoch does not belong to our team? His importation of the loose rules of British tabloid journalism, including blatant political alliances, started our slide to quasi-news. His British papers famously promoted Margaret Thatcher’s political career, with the expectation that she would open the nation’s airwaves to Murdoch’s cable channels. Ed Koch once told me he could not have been elected mayor of New York without the boosterism of the New York Post.

The rest of the piece, which continues here, is just as sharp and on point, despite Bill O’Reilly’s protestations.

Check This Out!

By HomepageNo Comments

Write It Long, But Well By Michael O. Allen

It’s about newspapers and news writing: By all means, get rid of slipshod, encrusted and encumbered conventional political writing (even as I needlessly encumber my sentence). Does doing this necessarily lead to shorter news stories? Shorn of the “conventions that don’t add to your understanding of the news,” you could, conceivably, write newspaper articles twice or three times as long as the offending New York Times and Washington Post pieces that Mr. Kinsley cited. Would they then be the right length? Or, must news stories be short at all cost? How short?