Basically, if even just half, even just one third of what Bernard Goldberg documented in his book Bias is true, the MSM is SERIOUSLY compromised. So what was the MSM's response to the book? EXACTLY what was to be expected. In other words, don't bother talking to me about journalistic integrity. Either prove it, day in and day out, consistently, in PRACTICE, or don't waste your breath.

Beguiled?

Dude.

Thank you for making an easily missed point. In 1968, we had no internet and little talk radio. We had three tv networks from which to cull the truth. Cronkite knew that and abused his responsibility by swaying many.

As for Cronkite, his mainstream buds and the shrill relentless leftist subversives, many of whom are enjoying their zenith of power today - is this the lefties' 'Top of the World, Ma! moment? - we can place trust in the fine words of General Giap: "Whenever we found ourselves losing, we could always rely upon our friends in the American Peace Movement and their accomplices in the press...", as G. Gordon Liddy has loyally reminded listeners for years.

Paul Vincent Zecchino
Manasoviet Key, Florida
19 July, 2009

We do. It's our job as citizens to find out all we can about our elected officials. I read the NYT, Wall Street Journal, National Review, Washington Post, The Miami Herald, and various liberal and conservative blos every morning. We draw our conclusions based on what we read. It's tedious and time-consuming, but that's the rub.

Journalists are not superior beings. They make grievous mistakes all the time. Walter Lippmann, Herbert Matthews, Judith Miller, among many, many others are all examples of reporters beguiled by the powerful. After their disastrous attempts to report just one side, it's no wonder the public doesn't trust them. That's why the Internet is the greatest thing to happen to journalism in the last fifty years: there are so many people who parse statements and government documents than were available when you and me were kids.

A journalist, as you correctly said, must "look, record, and report." Which also means taking public figures to task. If Mayor John Smith says, "I've saved this county $20 million in tax revenue," a good journalist records that statement, but also would say directly afterwards, "According to figures released from non-partisan county auditors, Smith saved $8 million."

Who takes the journalist to task?

Journalists are NOT stenographers. What is and is not real journalism is not that complicated. The government makes a claim. The role of the journalist is not to repeat it or merely report that the government claims it, but instead, to investigate it with skepticism to determine whether it is true, and then report if it isn't.

Who takes the journalist to task?

If an American president, no matter how noble his intentions, commits men and women to combat, it's the job of media to, yes, record his statements justifying the use of force. It also means reporting how many soldiers die and how much of our tax dollars are spent. That's non-partisanship. Reporting the deaths of soldiers shows the public that there's a real war in which real casualties happen. I just don't understand why you don't want to know these things.

Is it also the media's job to publish classified information that may be a direct cause of the death of military personnel?

We all know war is hell and that brave men and women die in war. And I dont think anyone here is insisting that either the costs of the war or the casualties not be reported. But just like Cronkite started his newscasts with, for example: "Up to date, US casualties in the war in vietnam are 10,000," he could have also included, on balance "Today, US forces saved 10,000 South Vietnamese from NVA butchering." That would be both sides of the story, no? And good "journalist" (It's almost hilarious in this day and age to see those two words stringed together like that) would report exactly that. One would think, following todays reporting, that Iraq is all death, all the time. But, lives are saved, infrastructure is built and rebuilt. Hospitals, schools, are erected and begun. But you dont hear about that in the news ever, especially every day.

But good news doesnt sell newspapers or tv advertising, does it? So, again, who oversees the journalist? Who takes them to task?

My whole point is that journalists - as proven by your responses here - think they are some kind of caped crusaders, morally superior, with the ability to make decisions for the world as their super power, because you all take on the BIG BAD GOVERNMENT (unless of course, its your candidate that won and sits at the White House), all under the pretext of ensuring that the big bad government answer to its people. But, WHO DO JOURNALISTS ANSWER TO?

Who did durante answer to? Who did herbert Matthews answer to? Who does the New York Times answer to? CNN? FOX News?

And why is it that "journalists" accept responses and data from certain governments as gospel, for example, Cuba and any "official" data, and forward same information almost verbatin to their "audience", while parsing word after word after word on whether, for example, the Vice Presidential Candidate of a political party is, in fact, the mother of a baby with Downs Syndrome?

From your answers here, all journalists need to do to be "good" is watchdog the US government. And we dumbass non-journalists types should just STFU, and take our "news report pills" like good patients because you all know better than we do about EVERYTHING.

Your comments reek of a moral and ethical superiority which A) DO NOT EXIST IN THIS DAY AND AGE and B) NO ONE GAVE YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Today, most people trust their media outlets about as much as they trust the big bad government. That, in and of itself, speaks volumes about "journalism" and "journalists".

Okay, Mr. Soto. I will ask you, not in your role as journalism teacher or journalist, but as a free man, what side do you come down on in the Honduras situation?

I really haven't followed the story very closely, but from the news reports I've read it's obvious that Zelaya had to step down, even if the constitutional means by which the military did so probably seems strange to Americans.

You're so entrenched in your political bias you can't see straight. I can't believe you're a 'college professor', on the other hand, I think that's the norm for those institutions nowadays - pathetic!

Journalists are NOT stenographers. What is and is not real journalism is not that complicated. The government makes a claim. The role of the journalist is not to repeat it or merely report that the government claims it, but instead, to investigate it with skepticism to determine whether it is true, and then report if it isn't. That's what some of you do on this site day in and out with Cuba, Obama, and Congress. That's JOURNALISM. This makes Mambi's following statement nonsensical:

What does unnecessarily reporting death counts have to do with 'tracking how federal dollars are spent' - nothing! It is conscious manipulation of the public in order to undermine a policy you don't agree with, and has nothing to do with being 'responsible'. In fact, it is irresponsible when you consider these wars were fought to provide long-term security for this nation after 9/11.

If an American president, no matter how noble his intentions, commits men and women to combat, it's the job of media to, yes, record his statements justifying the use of force. It also means reporting how many soldiers die and how much of our tax dollars are spent. That's non-partisanship. Reporting the deaths of soldiers shows the public that there's a real war in which real casualties happen. I just don't understand why you don't want to know these things.

And I have told them that's fine and honorable, IF that making of a difference is a byproduct and not a goal. If something good comes of a truthful, accurate, unbiased news report, then great. But if that difference comes from the whitewashing or tailoring of a news report - regardless of good intentions - as a means to an end, then that person is neither a journalist or reporter, but an activist.

Agreed, part of which means keeping track of how the federal and state government spends our dollars in war and peace.

Moreover, the wars mentioned in this thread have not been about dollars, nor should their cost be measured as such. There are young Americans on the other side of the world right now risking their LIVES, sacrificing their all for what most sane and leveled headed people - without the slanted influence of slanted, unelected media - would consider a just cause: the deliverance of a people from tyranny and oppression. Freedom.

If you think wars are explicitly about freedom and delivering people from tyranny, go back to school. You just contradicted everything worthwhile you said about journalism. Your statement basically says, "If President Obama claims that a war is about the deliverance of a people from tyranny and oppression, then it must be so." Bullshit.

Honey; you are a treasure and a pleasure. I love reading your comments. Keep up the great work!