This is journalism?

"Palin lukewarm to Ryan" - Headline on CNN

"Axlerod calls Ryan ideological" – Yahoo

I want to take a moment to examine what passes for journalism on what I suppose we are to consider mainstream news sites on the web. The first is from CNN and the second is from Yahoo.

Now, I understand the new media “blogs” apparently have different rules than traditional journalism, but I think that is a mistake. What I write and say as a commentator is, and should be different, from what I write and say as a reporter. When I am reporting, it should be who, what where, when, how, and if an explanation is needed why. Assessing that information should come in a separate article, or so I was taught way back when when I was studying journalism in college. Well, we all know now that such a standard has changed, but it doesn’t mean that this old editor can’t rail against it.

In the first article, the reporter(s) are reporting a news release from Sarah Palin (who the heck cares what she has to say anyway) in which she praised presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for selecting U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate (he will be nominated as the party’s vice-presidential nominee) and then, apparently, launches into her standard tirade why the current administration of Barack Obama needs to be unseated in the November election.

Now, a relatively objective reporter would have reported the news release in just about those words but, apparently, in today’s journalistic climate that is not sufficient. Instead, the reporters have to apply their own perspective to the news. Let’s see, she only used Romney’s name four times and Ryan’s name three times in a 1,100-word release. Obviously, according to the reporters, Palin is not enthused about Romney or Ryan. (Is she supposed to be doing cartwheels in the street – I am definitely sure that is something I would not like to see a picture of) Oh, and we need to point out that in the Alaskan primary (months ago) she said she voted for Newt Gingrich (like that has anything to do with the story). The point of the spin is to make it look like Palin doesn’t want the Romney/Ryan ticket to win. She is just going through the motions.

You want to know something you silly reporters? I will make you a small wager that come November, about 50 percent of the people in the U.S. who are going to vote basically will be just “going through the motions.” They will not be voting enthusiastically for anybody, but wearily voting, merely glad the whole election campaign is over. They will be very tired of the overheated rhetoric, the claims that if the other side wins the world is going to come to a calamitous end immediately (which is entirely and utterly bovine scatology … it might wait until December 21 when the Mayan calendar ends it current cycle). That will be my bet.

Now, if the reporters were sympathetic to Romney and Ryan, the mere fact that Palin even mentioned them in the same release and said kind words about them would be being trumpeted as word from on high. Nope, that is not going to happen, except over the back fence between people who happen to like Sarah Palin (GASP! You mean there really are such Neanderthals? You mean there are people so clueless that don’t know she is now the third greatest threat to modern mankind?)

Now, the second article: I guess it serves a purpose, just like the talking heads that appeared the Sunday morning news talk shows on television. The Republicans said what they were going to say and the Democrats said what they were going to say … and any semblance to reality ends right there. For those who support Romney/Ryan, it was all pretty much how great the selection was. For those who support Obama/Biden, it was how evil and terrible and catastrophic the Republican ticket was going to be.

Guess what? Neither side is right. For those who are watching the U.S. elections from the outside, let me say this: This catfighting is normal for Americans. It goes back to the dawn of the republic. If you think it is bad now, you should have seen what passed for campaign rhetoric in say 1800, 1832, 1860, and any number of other elections.

Not that it is all that becoming, because it isn’t. But it is the way politics are played. I almost coming to the conclusion that the line I quoted my Pappy saying in an earlier post is most appropriate to apply to what is passing for journalism and political rhetoric today.

“Methinks the lady doth protest her innocence too much.”

Dr. O, Mr. B., Mr. M. and all my other mentors and professors in college: Where did we go wrong?