I wrote a post earlier this year covering a similar topic, and at first I was going to ditch the following. Since the first post, however, I’ve adjusted my angle on it a bit, and here I present a few new points. Before writing this, I had not read that entry in months, so it’s interesting to see the similarities as well as the differences. If you prefer to read only one, then read the one below.

Put it before them briefly so they will read it, clearly so they will appreciate it, picturesquely so they will remember it and, above all, accurately so they will be guided by its light. – Joseph Pulitzer

Sometimes journalists do this, depending on the source. For the most part, they get one or two right on a regular basis, but too often fail on the point Pulitzer said was most important — accuracy. Cameras and microphones, these days ubiquitous, are rushed out to scenes and turned on to capture whatever’s there, unfiltered. Does a live interview with one or two people off the street give an accurate representation of an event?

Good journalism is not running stories based on a single source. What the public sees can permanently affect lives. Research is needed to avoid wrongly casting a negative light on a person or an organization, or giving false hope. Putting a reporter live on the scene of a mine explosion, to put on the air anyone who wants to be on camera, is gross misuse of a journalist’s power. Rumors and opinion get presented as facts, and that helps nobody.

Some argue that this type of reporting beats possible cover-ups to the punch. Without time to spin something, a politician or chief executive cannot murk up the waters. For more than a century, newspaper reporters gathered information immediately, and the story appeared the next day. The immediacy in gathering is still there, but the public must wait for the result. The public’s unwillingness to accept the latter spurs media outlets to rush unfounded claims to the forefront.

The real question here is do we care whether or not reporters do as Pulitzer said? Eager to hear details without delay, the masses can’t seem to get enough of this irresponsible brand of news, so producers keep churning it out. The quick rise of CNN on cable, and subsequenty Fox News, MSNBC, and a host of others, proves that sensationalism has become the preferred format.

The meteoric rise of huge media conglomerates also is rooted in the public’s tendency to watch whatever is on. This is made obvious when cable news channels broadcast hours of an executive plane circling the runway because it has faulty landing gear. Viewers sit there watching that plane because they have a TV and they want to be passive. After a hard day at the office or taking care of a family, or just in the breakroom at work, they want that flickering box to entertain them. To borrow from Pulitzer’s quote, they are “guided by its light.”

I saw a ray of hope in the growing number of people who have turned away from TV in favor of their computers. This at least showed that not everybody was satisfied with taking whatever was offered. Instead, it allowed and even required them to choose what they wanted to read. They didn’t care that pretty people on TV were reading news into the camera.

However, that hope turned dark. The Internet made timely reporting and worldwide distribution much cheaper, and with the increasing prevalance of broadband Internet connections, the pretty people are online, too. Rather than spending their time reading quality, in-depth stories, Internet users will view a two-minute clip, and the written word will once again be relegated to the benchwarmer role.

There are no doubt many journalists who believe in and try to meet Pulitzer’s challenge. I used to work with a whole newsroom full of them. Because those who buy news want it fast instead of right, these ethically bound individuals are a dying breed.

Disclaimer: There’s nothing inherently wrong with pretty people. Like anything else, however, they can be used for evil.