Broadcast Journalism: The Red-Headed Stepchild?

Newsroom Porn: The BBC Newsroom in Central London

Control Room Porn: BBC's Control Room

Writing in this little blog of mine is so much easier than writing college supplements, so much easier.

Alright. With that little confession out of the way I wanted to get something off my chest. I'm sad to say it, but I think, especially in this time of this era, that print is dead. (Not to me, I still read newspapers like crazy. I mean in the general public.)

Which is why I was tremendously puzzled when my broadcast journalism advisor stated that, "Broadcast is the red-headed stepchild of journalism."

Uhm... excuse me? What? What? What? What? I'm not quite sure I was catching his drift.

I couldn't help but feel a bit weird when he said that. It was like being told that you weren't the center of the universe for the first time. Like you were being told that Santa and Faeries and Unicorns weren't real (I believed in all that shit when I was little). Like realizing that despite the fantastical worlds that were in your head due to books and daydreams, they were all fantasies. 

Needless to say, It burst my bubble a bit.

But I found this kind of haughtiness and attitude that favored print in other places. In Newspro magazine, in internet comments regarding different J-Schools, etc. My question was: Why?

It's obvious to me that broadcast is superior, on multiple levels, to print. I thought it would be obvious to other people as well too, but apparently not. Let's take a look at the facts: Broadcast undoubtedly reaches more people in a more "reachable" format. People watch the news everyday. It's more informative as well. Instead of looking at a picture of the event, you have actual footage of it happening. Instead of reading the words that someone supposedly said, you have the ability to hear it from the horse's mouth and to see their mannerisms and expressions as they are saying.

Why are broadcasters the "stepchild of journalism?" WHY THE HELL ARE BROADCASTERS "RED-HEADED?" I don't understand. I can't even begin to compute this quotation! "Stepchild?" Really? That kind of talk is basically saying that broadcast is separate from journalism. We don't even get the coveted title of "daughter" or "son" or "sister/brother." We are the "stepchild."

Broadcast journalism is real journalism. No matter what anyone says. Sure, print has more history. Yes, I am very aware that CNN was not present during the Revolution. I am also very aware that Ben Franklin didn't intern at KCAL Local News, but his brother's printing press. I know, I know. But broadcast has made lots of strides in history as well. The JFK assassination, Queen Elizabeth's coronation, countless other milestone events: covered by lovely broadcast journalists. Broadcast is also lucky enough to have some great journalists in it's history as well: Walter Cronkite, Fred Friendly, Tom Brokaw, and others that have transcended our past and present.

I know how broadcast journalism looks today in the eyes of Americans. I'm not blind nor am I stupid. We see politically fragmented cable news networks. Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, and others caught in partisanship who will say and do anything to get their numbers up each night so they can keep advertisers in their wallets. But that's not what true journalism is. That's not what it used to be. 

Here is the opening scene from "The Newsroom" to give you a bit of journalistic and American nostalgia. (This made cry, I'm not going to lie to you.)

My point is that broadcast is a bit of a mess right now, but we will rise above the partisanship and the messy political games, and we reclaim the first and only virtue of journalism: the truth. (and that Broadcast Journalism is way better than print. It is fact.)

Broadcast Journalism For Life
#BJ4L