Esteemed journalist lectures on ethics.

L.A. Times Editor John Carroll spoke about journalism ethics and pseudo-journalism at the Gerlinger Lounge on Thursday.

Okay, so what makes John Carroll esteemed? Is it the fact that he is the editor for the Los Angelos Times? Oh, gee, that's a paper that I trust to be fair and balanced, don't you?

The media industry has been infested by the rise of pseudo-journalists who go against journalism's long tradition to serve the public with accurate information, Los Angeles Times Editor John S. Carroll told a packed room in the Gerlinger Lounge on Thursday. Carroll delivered the annual Ruhl Lecture, titled "The Wolf in Reporter's Clothing: The Rise of Pseudo-Journalism in America." The lecture was sponsored by the School of Journalism and Communication.

Wow, I thought - he must be admitting that Dan Rather and Peter Jennings are bending the news to their viewpoints - how cool. Someone in LA is 'getting it'.
Or, perhaps he will decry the Jason Blair's of the newspaper world, if he wasn't a pseudo-journalist, no one is.

"All over the country there are offices that look like newsrooms and there are people in those offices that look for all the world just like journalists, but they are not practicing journalism," he said. "They regard the audience with a cold cynicism. They are practicing something I call a pseudo-journalism, and they view their audience as something to be manipulated."

Wow, I can't believe someone from the big leftist media is admitting this! This is getting pretty damn exciting. Finally, someone from a large newspaper is being honest about what has happened to journalism.

In a scathing critique of Fox News and some talk show hosts, such as Bill O'Reilly, Carroll said they were a "different breed of journalists" who misled their audience while claiming to inform them. He said they did not fit into the long legacy of journalists who got their facts right and respected and cared for their audiences.

Arggghhh? Okay, I don't care much for Bill O'Reilly, but I have never considered him to be a journalist - just a whacky talk show host. Since when do talk show hosts have to be journalists? I wonder if he considers Oprah to be a journalist, or any of those talk show hosts on daytime tv? Odd definition.

But Fox News? This man accuses Fox News of not getting their facts right?
Please, tell me, Mr. Carroll, where do you get your facts?

Carroll cited a study released last year that showed Americans had three main misconceptions about Iraq: That weapons of mass destruction had been found, a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq had been demonstrated and that the world approved of U.S intervention in Iraq. He said 80 percent of people who primarily got their news from Fox believed at least one of the misconceptions. He said the figure was more than 57 percentage points higher than people who get their news from public news broadcasting.

Ah, a study. Well, that means it must be correct, eh? We all know that 'studies' (in this case it sounds like a poll) are always correct, don't we!

Oh, oh, and a study that compares Public News listeners to FOX News watchers? Ummm, I think those are apples and oranges there. You know, TV vs Radio - normal people vs elite snobs, that kind of thing. I'm just making a guess here, but this 'study' doesn't seem to be based on stats that are even closely related.

As far as his WMD statement, even John Kerry believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as did Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Jacques Chiraq and pretty much the entire world believed that there were WMD in Iraq.

Mr. Carroll goes on (and on, and on - kind of like that Energizer Bunny)

"How in the world could Fox have left its listeners so deeply in the dark?" Carroll asked.

He added that a difference exists between journalism and propaganda.

As he addressed some of the hard hits journalism has taken in the field of ethics, Carroll noted that anyone could be a journalist because, unlike other fields, journalism had no qualification tests, boards to censure misconduct or a universally accepted set of standards.

However, Carroll said a great depth of feeling remains on the importance of ethics that is centered around newspapers' sense of responsibilities to their readers.

"I've learned that these ethics are deeply believed in even though in some places they are not even written down," he said. When ethical guidelines are ignored, their proponents respond with 'tribal ferocity,'" he added.

"If you stray badly from these rules, you will pay dearly," he said.

He said while much media has ended up "in the gutter," the L.A. Times has a different philosophy and was dedicated to taking the "high road."

Gosh, I'm sorry - you all need to finish this for me, as I just felt my blood pressure zip up after reading that.

Must.Control.Fisk.Of.Death