From technology to politics to video games; these are the random thoughts of a geek with too much time on his hands
When did we lose honor in journalism?
Published on June 20, 2005 By Zoomba In Current Events
Starting on June 17th, the Mainichi Daily News began reprinting an article dating back from World War II that was never printed, that never made it past US Army censors. It was the account of an American journalist who snuck past MacArthur's prohibition against journalists through luck, and a bit of lieing and became the first journalist to enter the remains of Nagasaki after the atomic bomb had been dropped. This reporter was in the fallout zone days before the American science teams first arrived on the scene to begin studying the effects on the populace.

The article was 75 pages typed, about 25,000 words long. It never saw the light of day. Not because it was poorly written, or even too long for a newspaper. MacArthur, who was in charge of the occupation of Japan following its surrender, was outraged that anyone would break through the reporter ban, and was afraid that any reports on the human impact of The Bomb would create unwanted sympathy back home, maybe even a backlash against the nuclear attack.

I highly encourage everyone to go and read the reprinted article (linked at the bottom of this entry). It is a chilling sensation to have such a clear window on the past, on an event which we now as an entire race shudder to recall. It is written by a man with little scientific knowledge of what the bomb did, in a time where only a select few in the Manhattan Project knew what the actual impact or effects of the bomb were. We had split the Atom, but no one knew what that meant, what dangers there were.

The most interesting piece of the article (to me at least) however had nothing to do with the human impact, which only took a small piece of the overall article), but the reporters own take on the use of the bomb on Nagasaki. The opening lines of the article read:
The atomic bomb may be classified as a weapon capable of being used indiscriminately, but its use in Nagasaki was selective and proper and as merciful as such a gigantic force could be expected to be.

The following conclusions were made by the writer - as the first visitor to inspect the ruins - after an exhaustive, though still incomplete study of this wasteland of war.


Hardly the words you'd expect to hear from a member of the press who flaunted MacArthur's Law, who used illegal means to get into an off-limits area to shed light on a subject that the US Army felt the public had no business knowing.

But wait... that's an expectation we hold now... We live in a world now where reporters are mostly out to get the Big Story, to have some sensationalist headline to stick it to The Man. The goal used to be to enlighten the masses, to show them things they would never normally see, to teach them things they couldn't hope to learn living on a farm in Idaho. There was once a time where men in Radio, Newspapers and eventually Television were our only viewing portal on the world beyond our home towns.

FDR was never shown shanding, was never photographed unless he was behind a desk or podium.
JFK's affairs, while well-known to many in the press, were never spoken of

There was a time when there existed a sense of honor, a sense of proportion among the members of the press. They reported on the news, on the event, not the people, and not the items that were completely irellevant to the story. Even reporters breaking the law to enter an off-limits area were doing it for the spread of knowledge, not to "Stick it to the Man".

The journalists of today were what used to be referred to as muckrakers. The ones who just dug up dirt and tried to fling it in people's faces. They were reviled by mainstream media, they were relegated to small-time evening newspapers, they didn't get time on the radio, and certainly not television when it came along. Now, they dominate, they control all the mainstream media channels. If it's not sensationalist, if it doesn't stick it to someone, then it's not reported on, it's tossed to the side, put on page 23 below the fold, given a 1 line mention in the rapid-fire listing of news stories on noon radio broadcast, put in at the end of the evening news to fill time.

Back then... Presidents were respected, regardless of what party they were
Back then... the families of Presidents were off-limits... you didn't talk about them, you didn't follow them
Back then... you didn't shove a camera or a microphone in the face of someone who just lost a loved one
Back then... you didn't show just one side of a military conflict
Back then... you did your best to get your facts straight before going to publish

Now... We report on every misstep a President makes, both current and from decades past
Now... We follow the kids of Presidents, reporting all of their missteps and making it to be the fault of the father... we make fun of them... we make them public figures
Now... We are waiting at the airport when coffins come in, and pounce on wives and children to find out how they feel to see Daddy's body brought home in a box.
Now... We only hear about the mistakes, the losses in our wars in the Middle East and never about any victories.
Now... We publish first, fact find second and quickly backpedal whenever proven wrong.

Freedom of the Press is a wonderful freedom, one that is essential to our ability to remain a free society. But like all freedoms, this one carries with it a responsibility to use it appropriately, evenly and fairly. This article about Nagasaki should be held up as the gold standard for reporters to follow. Yes, it shows the negative effects of The Bomb, but it also examines and gives fair voice to the use, the reasoning, the how and why of its use. It examines all sides of the issue and reports on ALL of them. I can't tell if the reporter approves or disproves of the use of The Bomb on Nagasaki, and because of that, he has succeeded as a journalist. He presented the story, not his views.

What happened to reporters like him? What happened to the news being about news and not about ratings? When did an elegantly written sentence get replaced by a provocative sound bite?

I think we lost a valuble part of what makes our country great when we allowed this to happen.

Comments
on Jun 20, 2005
*Does the Forum bump dance*
on Jun 20, 2005
Great Article Zoomba!!

With rights come responsibility. The Press has all but forgotten that.

If it bleeds it leads. That is the doctrine of the religion of the ghouls in journalism.
on Jun 20, 2005

I like your article, but the truth is not that black and white.  While the press of the mid-20th century was indeed of high ethical standards, that was not the case of the press in the 19th century. Indeed, they did as much muckraking as the media of today.  It was in reaction to the yellow journalism of the 19th century that Journalism finally cleaned itself up.

But then Vietnam and Watergate caused them to slink back into the muckraking which they had crawled out of.

Power Corrupts, and the power of the press is a heady intoxicant.  The only difference between politicians and journalist is that we expect Politicians to be corrupt, and so are not surprised when they become so.  Most (not all) don't expect that of journalist, and so they do not look for it and don't see it even when it is blatant. 

on Jun 20, 2005
Oh I know it wasn't all bunnies, roses and flowers.. but it just seems that that era of journalism was far better than what we have today. I think the standards seen around the mid point of the century should be the ones we strive for. If that was the reaction to muckraking in the 19th century... maybe we're coming up on another clean-up period. I hope we are at least.
on Jun 20, 2005

maybe we're coming up on another clean-up period. I hope we are at least.

I would hope so as well, but if not, then their demise will be at their own hands, not any governments.  Already, with the wealth of alternatives, they are being marginalized and dont understand why.  Perhaps if they would be honest with themselves, they would then understand why.

on Jun 21, 2005
Great article zoomba! And 100% dead on!