At best journalism is a dialogue, but in the interest of its business it pretends it’s a definitive piece of work.
I guess my point is that journalism is a distinct entity from propaganda. Just because some media outfits are considered journalists or call themselves journalists does not make that objectively true. And I’m willing to go with a very loose definition of objectivity, here. Anyone using a modicum of inductive logic to analyze and categorize the mainstream media today can see that it more closely fits the definition of propaganda than journalism.
Journalism has been happening in some forlorn corners of the media during this election but, in the mainstream, what really happened is the enormous propaganda arm of the liberal elite failed to get their preferred candidate elected. That is an #EpicFail of a sort, considering how much money got spent in this endeavor, but journalism did not fail. Out on the fringes where it still resides, journalism was doing its job. CNN, the New York Times, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, Time Magazine, The Economist, NPR, PBS — these are not journalists anymore. They are glorified corporate marketing departments. It says a lot when a writer for Cosmo rocks the boat more during the election than any of the so-called serious news media, but that happened with Prachi Gupta, and it should serve as a real wakeup call — mainly to the consumers — that their eyes must look beyond the mainstream for the truth.
I’m reminded of how the news package emerged. Its average length is 2.20 mins in the UK. How did that come about? Not because 2.20 is enough to reconcile a whole story but because executives in the 1950s believed we’d get bored with watching anything longer. We’re stuck with that today. Journalism (traditional) certainly needs a reboot.
I think that is tactical, and a distraction from the real issue of propaganda being passed off as journalism. In theory, a given media outlet will adapt to or actively rewire the consumption preferences of the populace, or it will get left behind.
Unlike the sciences there is no square root of four equals two in this strange thing called journalism.
Perhaps I am too simple-minded, but I think there is: a mathematician determines that the square root of four equals two, and a journalist informs everyone about this discovery.