Journalism has always been corrupt.
I think that journalism has always been corrupt. We just never had the tools to discern what we see now; to see “the sausage being made,” if you will.
Now that we do see it, it’s a very ugly sight indeed.
However, I propose two examples of journalism’s corruption: (1) When Lyndon Johnson said something to the effect of: “Well, if I’ve lost Cronkite, then I’ve lost the people. (or the election, or some such)”
A clearer admission of the sheer power of the major media “journalism” personalities of the day would be harder to find.
Next: (2) When Woodward and Bernstein brought down a sitting President (Richard Nixon). That was presented as an example of journalism’s “watchdog” function in action. But it was really a demonstration of the raw power of so-called “journalists.”
It should be noted that LBJ’s corruption made Nixon look like a campfire girl, and there was little to no coverage of that. But Nixon was brought down due to allegations of: corruption. The ability to present things as one wants to present them, when one wants to present them… or not, shows the extent of the power of “journalists.” And it can bring down presidents.
I use the scare quotes around “journalist,” because far, far too frequently the people ostensibly doing a journalism job are actually doing a power-broker’s job, or an activist’s job, or a powerful political insider’s job. None of which has anything whatsoever to do with reporting honestly what’s going on in the country.
In other words, so-called “journalists” spend far too much of their time being paid in a journalist’s job to do things that are not only not related to actual journalism, but are actually anti-journalism. So, the “journalists” are journalists, only to the extent that I’m an NFL player.
Many people have many different definitions for the term “journalism,” but I figure that none of those definitions include: (1) Lying to the public, (2) fabricating stories, (3) intentionally slanting their reporting in order to support a narrative, (4) suppressing/censoring reports on things/events/news that fail to support a narrative, (5) engaging openly in propaganda.
Many, many so-called journalists do only the above-mentioned five things.
I think it’s reasonable to define “anti-journalism” as: the above-mentioned five things.
Bottom Line: Many, if not most, of today’s “journalists” are journalists in the same way that an arsonist is in the construction industry.