WingColors

Yes, actually, it does. Of course, it depends on the country you're in as to what your definition of "Quality" journalism is. In many countries journalists are neatly aligned with party lines: you know who's with who, and there's pretty much no question. Blogs, sadly, all-too-often follow this line of thought. (Except Donklephant, of course.) In the US, at least in the major media outlets, this line is a bit blurred, even though over the past few years, Fox News has started a trend of news polarization between the networks. (If you want unbiased journalism, you'll not get much better than PBS. I'm not sure whether to say "yay!" or "scary." If you want left-leaning news, watch NBC and -- sometimes -- NPR; Right leaning, watch Fox; somewhat centrist kind of sort of, watch CNN or PBS.)

(For the record, I'm not including sensationalists such as Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olberman as "journalists," although the type of talking heads a network employs is usually a strong indicator as to where their leanings are. Unfortunately for some in the "right" these days, reality really does have a "liberal bias," as Stephen Colbert observed. When the left starts acting as foolish as them, places like Fox News will be seen as beacons of light.)

To believe there is such thing as an unbiased journalist is to believe a fantasy: all journalists are biased if they are familiar with the subject. You can usually spot the biases by the formulation of their questions and the structuring of their sentenses -- if you know what to look for. Simply disagreeing with what's being reported is no grounds to discredit the reporter or report, and in this age of lightning fast news it has become fashionable to participate in knee-jerk opinionation on reporting, which of course leads to polarization and politicitazion (is that a read word?) of events which should not be politicized, such as scientific findings. (Neither the left nor the right are innocent here.)

There is still quality journalism out there, but you have to look for it, carefully. Listen to not just what a person is saying, but how they say it: that will reveal more about them than anything else. The best journalists are the ones who never believe anyone at face value, and who realize that people have two faces: the external and the internal. If I have to point out one person who has been able to do this particularly well is Bob Woodward, although I know a lot of people will disagree with me based on his latest book, which simply goes to show exactly what I'm talking about: listen to the words, but more importantly, listen to the message.

Freedom of information to many has also meant freedom of misinformation (which they'll lable under "opinion"). Given the ease at which information can be passed around today, obfuscation, not elimination, is the best way to hide information. Unfortunately, the price of this obfuscation, of the freedom of misinformation and the availability of information begets the belief that quality journalism isn't around any more.

It is. You just have to look for it, hard. Question your source always and you'll be on the right track to finding the facts. Decide for yourself then what is truth.

(NOTE: I know I've spun this in a political manner. Sorry about that. This is just the simplest example. Other examples include the idea of corporate-spun media where corporations essentially buy their media, as in the Dilbert cartoon, but this then becomes a very large, very annoying discussion in which we all end up agreeing that a lot of journalists aren't doing their jobs, mostly because there are a lot more journalists now than ever before, and as such there are a larger number of slackers and screwups in the ranks.)

And....that just sealed up the envelope.

I'm in journalism school and I find it extremely ironic when people who are in training to be journalists or are already journalists think that their craft is gods gift to the universe.

Because the truth is that a journalism degree is probably one of the easiest thing to graduate with. You don't need much math under your belt and in fact my University requires that we double major and or minor in something else that is not journalism because our major is incredibly broad and some might call wishy washy.

(For the record, I'm not including sensationalists such as Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olberman as "journalists," although the type of talking heads a network employs is usually a strong indicator as to where their leanings are. Unfortunately for some in the "right" these days, reality really does have a "liberal bias," as Stephen Colbert observed.)

An important clarification. I think with technological advances the line of what actually IS journalism is blurred. As a print journalism student I was always (and still am) wary of what is presented on television. The "quick hits" and short blurbs allow for far less absorption, in my opinion, than reading a newspaper. Condensing a 1,000-word article into a 30-second blurb allows for quite a loss of information. And you can interpret the information at your own whim.

It's gotten worse now with the Internet, as anyone can sign up for a free Blogger or WordPress account and spew forth opinion or facts gleamed from sketchy "news" sites or their own brains. And to the untrained eye, that can be construed as news.

Once you get past that and parse through what sources are reliable and which are suspect, you find that integrity still exists in the media.

As a print journalism student I was always (and still am) wary of what is presented on television...Once you get past that and parse through what sources are reliable and which are suspect, you find that integrity still exists in the media.

Bravo. You said in three short paragraphs what took me half a bible to say.

So I guess that journalism degree did me some good after all ;)

So I guess that journalism degree did me some good after all ;)

But that is what I am trying to say. A journalism degree doesn't necessarily guarantee that you will be a good journalist.

Michael: Funny enough, the best journalists I know don't have journalism degrees. Likewise with the worst journalists I know.

At the very least a journalism degree means you'll at least be competent.

But that is what I am trying to say. A journalism degree doesn't necessarily guarantee that you will be a good journalist.

Was that supposed to be a pot-shot?