Journalism: "I'm not dead yet!"

I have to admit it, I had an ax to grind with journalists for a long time.  I think it started in high school sometime and was probably a result of some really bad portrayals of journalists in various fictional scenarios. Maybe it was a trend of some sort, but in the 1980's it seemed like reporters were always portrayed as pushy and driven sorts who mostly just ended up getting in the way (think Lois Lane in the first Christopher Reeve Superman movie).  Reporters were either sharks who smelled blood in the water, or incompetent talking heads who got their place by being pretty.  I wonder if it had something to do with the fact that television was taking over for print journalism, and with the transfer to a visual, rather than a written medium, priority was being given to good looks rather than journalistic integrity.
There was definitely a time when it seemed like the main requirements for a TV news person were a good head of hair and a winning smile.  By the 1990's it would have been laughable to put someone as ugly as Walter Cronkite on TV.  I suppose that is changing, inasmuch as I still see TV news accidentally, there are some people who do not appear to be animated Barbie and Ken dolls, but the stereotype of journalists as pushy and often intrusive is still alive and well.
I have personally dealt with news people who were trying to cover several rather tragic incidents in the community, and I know, there is still that odor of a sensational story that can create a frenzy of curiosity that leads the people supplying the coverage of those events to act in ways that violate some basic human principles.  Very inappropriate requests can be and often are made in the name of getting the scoop, and often speculation and conjecture gets reported as truth, and in these cases people can get hurt.
But there are times when journalists rise up and become the voice of the people, which is the noble calling at the heart of what they do.  The journalists who are in the fray in Ferguson are giving us a really top flight picture of the real ambiguity of the situation there, with some sympathy for both the protesters and the police, but with a definite edge in the direction of driving away the haze that would allow the authorities who are being questioned to operate with impunity.
And we have the case of James Foley, who was executed by the Muslim regime in Iraq and Syria, as some sort of twisted proof that they are the servants of Allah.  Meanwhile, most of the Muslim world recoils in horror, because they are pretty sure that serving Allah has nothing to do with beheading people.  It is significant that Foley was a journalist, because it is almost always the case that corrupt and wicked powers hate anyone who tells the truth.  If you find yourself persecuting journalists, then you probably ought to check yourself, because you are probably afraid of the truth.  This goes for corrupt governments and for the guy who had the "I don't believe the liberal media" bumper sticker on his truck.
It's important to distinguish actual journalists from pundits and opinion-casters.  Journalists report on what is happening, sometimes with a commentary on what it means or how to interpret the facts.  Pundits present their opinions and only present the facts that endorse their opinion. Do journalists have biases?  Yes, they do, they're human beings, and no one really believes in the false idol of pure objectivity anymore.  But for a journalist a bias is something to be recognized and balanced.  For a pundit a bias is their raison d'etre, and this makes an awful lot of difference in how you process what they are saying.
Unfortunately for all of us, television doesn't do us the solid of clearly noting who is a journalist and who is a pundit.  Newspapers (remember them?) kindly put opinions on the editorial page and label them clearly as such, in fact they get the stink eye from other newspapers when they blur the lines.
The Interweb is even worse than TV, because here there is absolutely no accountability whatsoever.  I don't have to run this blog by an editor, and I can say anything I want.  Most people who read what I have to say will notice that I'm just some guy who likes to bloviate about random stuff.  I don't have my feet on the ground of any particular situation and thus, my opinion is worth about as much as it costs to read this blog, which is basically just an investment of time, not money.
All of us have had to learn how to process information in the electronic age.  We have learned to consider the source, fact check and perhaps even to reserve judgment.  It is a peculiar thing, in an age when we can get the "facts" so quickly that we must now learn to wait to find out if those "facts" are actually facts.  You might notice, if you've been reading this blog for a while, that I very rarely write about something that is "breaking news."  Current?  Yes, but I never just fire off a gut reaction to some headline or another, because headlines are deceptive, sensational and often worthy of hitting the trash bin.  Learn about how the Interweb works, about terms like "clickbait" and actually think about how and why people are putting out the kind of misleading or downright false information that gets around so quickly.
It's because we want it.  We want Fox News and CNN to blow up about the latest sensational thing that's happening.  The National Enquirer polluted "news" stands for so long because enough people actually wanted to read about werewolves and bat-people secretly living in the sewers of Boise.  People Magazine exists because someone cares about Kim-Ye and whether or not Katy Perry wore underwear to the latest exercise in self-congratulation.
That doesn't mean it's journalism.  Journalism gets in the clouds of tear gas.  Journalism gets arrested.  Journalism sometimes gets beheaded.  Because Journalism is dangerous stuff, because the truth is a powerful thing, and because, while we may want bloated opinions, fear mongering and sensationalism, what we really need is someone to tell our story, warts and all.