Spin Off

I won't repeat McCluhan's oft quoted assessment of the media but what he wrote has become blatantly true, without a doubt. Tacking a journalism degree at the end of a name doesn't give some reporters the authority to report what is mostly fiction and fully meant to get attention but not to clearly enlighten. Too many young news hyper wannabees don't get it. They seem ignorant of what the general public wants. Sure, there are those in the audience who hunger for dirt but most people want facts from reports: facts applied with taste and talent. Some of our newbie journalism grads seek fame by shoving  their names under "breaking news" that hasn't yet happened. But that's nothing new. Just look at the top newspaper archives of headlines down through the years, they've had to pull due to that kind of enthusiasm. Those "buying" the news these days, and not all is printed on paper any more, is reporting that tells us what really happened with no errors and no imminent post apologies. We want facts. We will do the piecing them together when we have heard from  good reporters and primary sources. Give us truth, and give it plain and simple. We'll be the "judge and jury". We don't need to be insulted by your spin, thank you very much. Give us photos for sure but ones that enhance the facts, all of them, not just the amateur cell phone mavens' tiny slice of  reality. These pics are useful, but only if the publisher scrutinizes them for ethical standards. Those that are picked up by respectable journals shouldn't ignore ethics that have good reasons for being there. A picture of other human individuals is a highly personal and private matter, not something to be done for Press to make money, spite or fame. Professional journalism is not social media junk. Lately, that has gone way beyond good taste. Another thing I regret is that media folk have taken up "investigative" reporting. The two are not synonymous. Reporting is telling the truths. Investigating is a process for finding the truth, but is not truth itself. I find these kinds of journalistic speculative ventures,wieldy. The first step is examining whether the reporter is trustworthy him/herself. I am seldom impressed with the biog under the piece that tells me the writer "has a keen interest" in the subject. I want the ones that state what the reporter has actually done in the field he/she reports on. Since most investigative reporters are merely empathically nosy and bold, doesn't make what they print and photograph necessarily unbiased and factual. Firstly, what they say is meant to shock and gain your attention as a reader or viewer or listener, and secondly, it presents only one side of any story. It has thick spin without the necessary fully proven factual needed exploration. Every single act of the best reporting must show both sides objectively and leave the decision as to its veracity up to a critically thinking audience. Or should.