Joe Scarborough is the latest MSNBC host to be suspended for political gifts, having been given the same punishment as Keith Olbermann: two days off the air without pay. The paltry suspensions give you an idea of just how seriously the network takes this violation of “journalistic ethics.”
But is it a violation? I submit that it is not, because neither of these guys is a journalist, or at least not what we generally consider to be journalists.
The Society of Professional Journalists includes in the Preamble to its Code of Ethics (emphasis mine):
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.
Show me where Olbermann or Scarborough have tried to provide “a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues” and I’ll eat my hat. The day they stopped reporting and starting injecting their opinion is the day, in my mind, that they ceased to be journalists. That goes for some of the revered “journalists” out there, including George Will, Paul Krugman, E.J. Dionne, Charles Krauthammer, and Leonard Pitts. They and others sneer at bloggers, saying that we aren’t journalists, while engaging in much of the same behavior that we do, albeit on a larger scale and by using fancier words.
I may respect their writing, their consistency of opinion, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know that their definition of “truth” is biased in favor of one side or the other.
My conversations over the past few weeks with members of the mainstream media have solidified in my mind the root of the problem: most of the opinion writers and commentors came up through the ranks as journalists. And it is hard for them to let go of the term, as this article, from Sunday’s Virginian-Pilot, makes clear. It’s not that the standards of journalism have changed; rather, it is the use of that term to describe people who are no longer engaged in its pursuit that is creating the problem.
I write a blog. I write a weekly opinion column which appears in the newspaper alongside these guys. But that doesn’t make me a journalist, because it is clear that I am writing from a left-of-center perspective. Journalists don’t do that. I vote in primaries – journalists don’t do that. I support candidates – journalists don’t do that.
Yes, I am committed to a standard of fairness and accuracy, something that Mr. Stein thinks bloggers are incapable of. But at the end of the day, it is my opinion that drives what I write. This blog or my columns aren’t news, which I agree should be as free of opinion as possible; in other words, the domain of journalists.
As soon as opinion is injected, I don’t think the writer can be called a journalist.
It’s time for a new term for these opinion folks. I’m open to suggestion. 😉
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Where to start, where to start?
I think Scarborough tries to present a fair and comprehensive account. Olbermann doesn’t try. Scarborough is a little more right of center than you are left of, but his show, and many of his comments are centrist. Neither of these gentlemen is a journalist. And shouldn’t be seen as anything other than the commentators they are.
I didn’t take Mr. Stein’s comments about questioning the Internet as questioning whether or not bloggers could have standards, but questioning whether most do. From what I have read in blogs, I don’t follow any religiously, the question is fair. Just places you above the norm.
But I agree, too many people who are commentators hold themselves out as journalists, as if jounalist is “better” title. It ain’t, just a different one.
Whether Scarborough tries or not isn’t the problem. We all know which way he leans.
As for Stein – I could say the same thing about any publication, or or off the internet. What about those rags that line grocery store checkouts? It’s not just blogs that lack standards.
I agree that this is appropriate in this case, in light of what happened to Olbermann, but not with your main point. These guys presumably signed contracts which made the rule clear and which — rightly or wrongly — applies it to them. They broke the rule to which they agreed; they are justly punished for it.
As I’ve said before, I don’t disagree with the punishment, because they violated a rule. Where I disagree is trying to hold non-journalists to journalistic standards in the bigger realm. And that’s the point of this post.
“Where I disagree is trying to hold non-journalists to journalistic standards in the bigger realm.”
You just put succinctly the business model of cable news. The goal is to have people pushing opinions as facts/news in order to get the right viewership and make money on ads. They have to hold these people to journalistic standards to maintain the charade of being a real news outlet. If people realized they weren’t watching news, ratings would drop.
To quote Frank Luntz, “It’s not what you say, it’s what they hear.”
I hadn’t thought of it that way, but you are absolutely correct.
Anything after 8 pm on Fox, or 5 pm on MSNBC (or whenever Matthews’ show starts) isn’t news.
I would argue minimal, anytime, on either Fox or MSNBC is news. Almost all commentary
I think some of the daytime shows on both channels would qualify as news shows (though they do have a fair amount of commentary as well).
The prime time stuff, though? ALL commentary.
Interesting debate today, what I’m getting out of this is that MSNBC is trying to set and maintain a standard and FOX is not.
Hi Vivian,
I believe that whether a journalist, or a columnist, both should offer a mix of fact – the columnist the least, but still an intelligent balance, as you do. If I wanted true non –fiction news (if there is such a thing), well?
It is not only important to recognize the venue, but it is also important to have some knowledge and/or ideas of the partiality that reeks from the source. Back to the if I wanted question, I would think myself intelligent enough to know where to find it.
You write,“Show me where Olbermann or Scarborough have tried to provide “a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues” and I’ll eat my hat.” I am sure that there are many people who could provide a subjective view implicating fair and comprehensive accounts. The art of Op ed is being able to ask, and truly consider yourself right – its called – Confidence. Which by the way, journalist do not necessarily need in order to report facts only
In acknowledging the preamble – SPJ, code of Ethics
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues
The Professional writer has an enormous obligation to seek truth, even if the core of the writing will be opinionated.
I do not think that it is necessary to change the term, after all blogging when sucessfully achieved is a form of. However, I suggest a new symbol that can be placed at the foot of a column, or behind the writer’s title. (much like © or ™) for marketing purposes.
Ok, I am a new blogger, I am enjoying reading your thoughts. I am looking forward to hearing what you are thinking next.
TOD