Journalism is Too Institutional

Think tanks such as Pew and Brookings have looked at “institutional journalism” amid the chaotic changes wrought by new technology and the destruction of earlier advertising models that dedicated more money to print publications.
However, as a now retired journalist I observe another criticism is that journalism is “too institutional.”
When I say journalism is too institutional I do not mean the deference given to the “Gray Lady,” the New York Times, or the concentration of mainstream journalism under a few corporate control points.
I am referring to the concentration and tight control of intellectual content itself.
Back in the 1980s I believe it was Randy Hatch and Bryan Mertz who returned from a conference and informed the staff of the Ogden Standard Examiner it was too institutional.  That was what they had gleaned from the conference.
In this case, it meant newspapers rely too much on official handouts and government sources for news articles.
Too often journalists do wait for the press release or only talk to official sources for “conformation”.
Journalists at the higher levels are caught up in this and their colleagues seem oblivious.
A few years ago when a Denver Associated Press bureau chief retired he was asked for the highlight of his career. His response, reported \ in one of the then two major Denver dailies,  was the time the reporter attended a conference in Europe.
On Sunday he was leaving and was offered a ride by Pierre Salinger.  During the drive Salinger gifted the newsman with a press release that was going to be distributed.  At the airport, the reporter recalls rushing to a pay phone and regurgitating - not his word of course - that press release to the world 15 minutes ahead of any other newsman.
That was a major highlight of his career. Regurgitating a press handout before anyone else.
As for me, I recall when the city of Clearfield, Utah was warring over a proposed garbage incineration project in a neighborhood bordering Hill Air Force Base.  Smith Barney, the investment banker, wanted it. The engineering firm wanted it. A Davis County Commission chairman who was also an LDS prophet had a vision it would be built. All but one of the mayors in the county supported it; I heard the hold out was taken to the woodshed by the others.
But residents along the road leading to the proposed burn plant opposed it.  An appointed official on the state’s air quality control commission said during a meeting the placement site was a “nutty idea.”
I reported both sides, often in advance because the community was in the battleground suburban area served by two daily papers in Salt Lake City as well as the one in Ogden, where I worked.
One of my career highlights was when the Clearfield mayor stormed into the council meeting room and threw that evening’s edition of the Standard-Examiner on the podium and shouted he was “sick and tired” of reading about that night’s meeting before it happened.
The emotional atmosphere was explosive surrounding this issue.  And my reporting simply reflected that.
Well, looking back, I suppose I was too aggressive in seeking out both sides to find out what they planned to say. Instead of just waiting for the meeting to guide the flow of information.
But on the other hand….that is reporting.  Full reporting of all aspects of an issue and allowing the public to decide.
The burn plant eventually was built.  It is still in business.
I personally believe the county could have found a cheaper solution with a more conventional landfill, but proponents of the burn plant saw the county as more landlocked and lacking open space similar to big cities in the east which had already incorporated the technology.
But the Ogden newspaper in that moment was doing what it was supposed to do, going beyond the officials and their intentions and seeking out what others thought and knew about the same subject.
Today, newspapers seem more neutered.  Their ownership loves to go along and get along with the ruling elites. To be with them, to be among them, to be one of them.
But the print newspaper empires are shadows of what they once were.
We can now all see a wasteland of print journalism, which seems to have been reduced to rubble in places due to capitalism constantly destroying and reinventing itself.
I see a wasteland beyond that.  A nation that is now engulfed in increasing racial strife, riots, hatred and growing poverty even as the fortunately employed grow ever richer.
A major reason is because a politically correct, submissive press no longer seeks out the opposing ideas.  Logic no longer prevails. Carefully crafted thought patterns are successfully used to shape mass consciousness.
Thus, we have a brainwashed majority now whose concepts and beliefs serve what the highest powers want them to believe.
The other day I watched George Knapp, a mainstream award winning reporter for a Las Vegas television station, recall how he was the first reporter to break the existence of Area 51 in Nevada.  Since then, the phrase Area 51 has penetrated deeply into the American consciousness. It became a prime example of government secrecy, cover up and disinformation.
Yet, how was Knapp treated?
He was made fun of by other news institutions such as the Las Vegas Review Journal.
He was a UFO “nut” in cartoons.
And yet, he was right.  He was correct.  His reporting - though opposite of the official press release handouts which declared the secret base did not exist - proved true in the end.
But attacks on Knapp makes the media look bad. Controlled. Institutional.
Far beyond Area 51, in recent years their have been what are obvious contrived “open air rituals” to shape mass consciousness.
One example was the stampeding of the nation into two “misguided wars” to use the phraseology of outgoing U S Senator Mark Udall.
This was only made possible because information opposing the press handouts has been systematically excluded from the news.
Editors, not wanting to lose a prized job on a daily paper, will not risk offending owners, readers, the secret government.
Reporters will not risk losing their prized reporting jobs. Especially with no where else to go these days.
So open debate has suffered.
In October 2013 CBS news reported the Los Angeles Times will not allow any information to be printed that counters the concept of global warming.
People who dare ask what caused the ice sheets to melt over North America 20,000 years ahead of fossil fuel burning, are branded as “climate deniers”.
The L A Times cited a committee of “top scien

tists” for their decision to end the debate after the committee said it was “95 percent” certain man has caused climate change.
And yet if the L A Times editors would read Bill Bryson’s book on the history of nearly everything, they would see that for the past few hundred years the orthodoxy of scientific field after scientific field has repeatedly had to capitulate and abandon their proclaimed “scientific certainties” in the face of ongoing evidence by persecuted dissidents denied tenure who maintained open minds.
There are no absolutes anymore.
If journalism was less institutional, less reliant on press handouts from committees… it might be functional and more relevant again.
And it truly would be morning in America again.

A Sensible Plan to Reform Congress Now

Pick a poll, any poll.
Odds are the majority will complain the United States is “going down the wrong path.”
And complaining about the messed up politicians is like complaining about the weather.  “You can’t do anything about it!”
Or can you?
Charles R. Hooper thinks you can do something about it.  Not the weather, but the messed up state of affairs in the United States.
His book “The Next American Revolution: How to Demand Congressional Reform Now” outlines a sensible plan to reform an out of control government that could doom the republic to failure.
Hooper points out Congress seems to listen to itself first.  Not the people.
It also listens to money.  The money thrown at it by self  interests who have placed themselves above the common good.
He calls for restoring the representational aspects of government.  A good start, Hooper argues, is to limit the terms of service in Congress.  Let people serve a few years in government, and then go back among the public to live under the laws and regulations enacted by government.
We now have a Congress that passed the Affordable Care Act - but exempted itself from the act.  It passed and oversees Social Security - but awards itself lavish pensions and benefits instead of applying Social Security to itself after leaving government.  This reviewer adds Congress is so corrupt it even exempts itself from insider trading enforcement.
Hooper also believes the contentious two-party monopoly that again people complain about can be fixed with a simple solution.  He suggests reducing the number of Congressional districts within states and then allowing people to stand election for the same overall number of House seats.  The difference is that the winners would be determined by cumulative voting.  In other words, if 26 people sought to win say 12 seats within just three districts within a state, the winners would be the top four vote getters in each district.  Much less gerrymandering to preserve seats for one party or the other.  It also allows parties with alternative views a chance to have more say in government.
These are just some of the gems of thought in Hooper’s 84-page book (plus a brief  epilogue, the U S Constitution and an index.
But then Hooper becomes “controversial” because of how he suggests reform should come about.   Hooper says an amendment convention to consider these reforms should be held.
Researching history, Hooper points out all 50 states at one time or another in the past two centuries have called for an amendment convention as outlined in Article V of the Constitution.
But The Congress, Hooper argues, has acted unconstitutionally by failing to respond to these calls for reform amendments.
Many of us have already heard the reasons against common people convening to suggest reforms (which Congress would have to vote on to approve).
Fear mongers say an Article V convention would spin out of control and destroy everything.
How?
Hooper points out an Article V convention would simply suggest reforms to make government more workable and honest and representative.
The real threat here is not to the republic, if terms were limited and voting became more representatives and if the polarizing two party monopoly was weakened.
The real threat is to Congressional representatives who think their government job should be for life (presumably because they have the experience to understand things better.  But that is not working out, the reviewer notes.)
Term limits and cumulative voting also threatens lobbyists and arm twisters who get paid a lot of money to make Congress do its will and not that of the people.
Another crucial piece of reform is to greatly restrict if not eliminate campaign contributions.
And this sends up a howl from the television industry, which gorges on attack ads every two years.
And it threatens the concept that faceless corporations are like people.
Except that while corporations and foreign lobbies can use their money to get the U S into a war, the corporations and foreign interests do not die on the battlefields.  American citizens do.
Time to make our foreign affairs truly accountable.
It is now a good idea to blow away the smoke and shatter the mirrors.  And take a real good look at how bad American government now is.  How far off course it has gone since the 1960s.
Charles R. Hooper is not just complaining about it. He has outlined some common sense ways to fix it.
His book is a constitutional way to fix the problem.  Don’t wait until the people in charge resort to more unconstitutional behavior.