Online vs. Traditional Journalism

The topic of whether or not online journalism is ruining traditional journalism raises a lot of emotions. My Journalism 425 teacher just got done telling my class that 15 percent of his newspaper's workforce was trimmed. People are angry that traditonal news is taking a backseat to instant, online stories, and perhaps rightfully so. They seem to think that online news lacks validity. However, I think traditional news reporters overestimate their own objectivity and dedication to 'straight' news reporting.

I find Dan Rather's assertion that the conservative blogger's attack of his Bush/National Guard story was purely politically biased to be incredibly hypocritical and borderline hilarious. In my opinion, Rather himself has been a politically driven journalist for years, and what people don't realize is that traditional news doesn't have as much integrity as they claim. Networks and newspapers are agenda driven. I'm not calling Rather as irresponsible as some blogger who sits in his or her basement and fabricates assertions about whatever is bothering them; however, Rather, O'Reilly, Brokaw, Drudge, and Huffington all practice a similar ways of reporting news, and other citizen journalists are no different. They are all biased and politically driven. I am too jaded to believe that traditional journalism holds some kind of sanctity that online citizen journalists don't understand. Traditional outlets have held the majority stake in news reporting for so long that they are afraid of what's happening to their industry and now they are scrambling.

It was accepted as fact for years (and still is in a lot of ways) that the talking heads of broadcast news were trustworthy honest newsmen. They are not-- at least not any more so than anyone else. The Rathers of this world don't have a corner on the market of honest reporting. They just want you to think they do.