The media industry has been infested by the rise of pseudo-journalists who go against journalism's long tradition to serve the public with accurate information, Los Angeles Times Editor John S. Carroll told a packed room in the Gerlinger Lounge on Thursday. Carroll delivered the annual Ruhl Lecture, titled "The Wolf in Reporter's Clothing: The Rise of Pseudo-Journalism in America." The lecture was sponsored by the School of Journalism and Communication.

"All over the country there are offices that look like newsrooms and there are people in those offices that look for all the world just like journalists, but they are not practicing journalism," he said. "They regard the audience with a cold cynicism. They are practicing something I call a pseudo-journalism, and they view their audience as something to be manipulated."

In a scathing critique of Fox News and some talk show hosts, such as Bill O'Reilly, Carroll said they were a "different breed of journalists" who misled their audience while claiming to inform them. He said they did not fit into the long legacy of journalists who got their facts right and respected and cared for their audiences.

Carroll cited a study released last year that showed Americans had three main misconceptions about Iraq: That weapons of mass destruction had been found, a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq had been demonstrated and that the world approved of U.S intervention in Iraq. He said 80 percent of people who primarily got their news from Fox believed at least one of the misconceptions. He said the figure was more than 57 percentage points higher than people who get their news from public news broadcasting.

"How in the world could Fox have left its listeners so deeply in the dark?" Carroll asked.

He added that a difference exists between journalism and propaganda.

As he addressed some of the hard hits journalism has taken in the field of ethics, Carroll noted that anyone could be a journalist because, unlike other fields, journalism had no qualification tests, boards to censure misconduct or a universally accepted set of standards.

However, Carroll said a great depth of feeling remains on the importance of ethics that is centered around newspapers' sense of responsibilities to their readers.

"I've learned that these ethics are deeply believed in even though in some places they are not even written down," he said. When ethical guidelines are ignored, their proponents respond with 'tribal ferocity,'" he added.

"If you stray badly from these rules, you will pay dearly," he said.

He said while much media has ended up "in the gutter," the L.A. Times has a different philosophy and was dedicated to taking the "high road."

"I do think that a lot of newspaper people have made a lot of strategic mistakes," he said. "They cut back space on things people really need to know."

Carroll, whose career as a journalist spans 40 years, joined the L.A. Times in 2000, according to the paper's Web site. Under his leadership, the paper earned five Pulitzer Prizes this year.

Tim Gleason, dean of the SOJC, said Carroll is a "journalist's journalist."

"As an editor he cares deeply about the integrity of the profession and he believes that news, real news is the heart and soul of the business of journalism," Gleason said as he introduced Carroll.

University graduate student Mose Mosely had similar sentiments. He said he admired Carroll not only for his vast experience around the country, but also for his consistent commitment to his ideals.

"The depth of his integrity is very impressive," Mosely said.

Bobbie Willis, a staff writer for the Eugene Weekly, said she felt Carroll brought up some relevant issues in today's media environment.

"It really made me take a look at my career as a journalist," she said.

Willis said she understood Carroll's concerns about the state of journalism nationally, but added that many of the journalists she has encountered were very committed to accurate and ethical reporting.

Carroll had a few words of advice for student journalists; he told them to pick their boss carefully.

"Don't be lured by the money or the big name of the employer," he said, adding that journalists should not allow their integrity to be compromised by unscrupulous employers.

"Don't be a piano player in a whorehouse," he said.

Read it. This is from the guy who published uncorroborated accusations about Schwarnegger right before the referendum. Yeah, ethics are way-cool.

Everybody else should have some.

Bot

Yeah, you better make sure your own house is damn spotless before you start criticizing someone else's. Still, I thought it was an interesting read.

You're right, of course. Had the guy been spotless it would have sounded like words from Muhammed. Even so, it was well written and made some good points.

The funny thing is that he insists on calling O'Rielly a journalist and by so doing, takes a shot at Fox. That's cool, except for O'Rielly doesn't call himself a journalist anymore (though he claims to have been one). Now he claims to be an on-air editorialist.

Thus, Carroll is guilty of the same exact thing O'Rielly does when O'Rielly blasts the NY Times editorialists. Hey guys, Op/Ed is Op/Ed whether in print or on-air.

So Carroll is unbiased in his criticism of Fox, gets it wrong, but is not a poster child for liberal bias.

Great man, this Carroll fellow.

B

I understand your point and do not disagree, but it could just be semantics. Whether O'Rielly calls himself a journalist or not, he is a regular on FoxNews, where editorial is synonymous with entertainment. In other words, the network that provides his air time adds to or detracts from his credibility and is expected to impose certain standards upon the content of his shows. I have never seen the appeal of the man, myself. It's become a reflex action to immediately change channels whenever I see his face. I agree that O'Rielly isn't trying to fool anybody -- I see no pretense of honest journalism.

Fox/AM Radio = Pravda

O'reilly, Hannity, Rush = Goebbels, cloned

Bush = _____________

fill in the blank.

Yeah, the guy should think twice before hurling stones while standing inside his own glass house! Oops!

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

Wait a minute, you're serious?

You see no difference between Fox's straight news compared with: Hannity/Colmes, Van Susteran, O'Reilly, Capital Boys, "Special Report", etc? The latter are analytic and opinion peices, not news.

Do you guys not put the same value on them as a news source as you do on Larry King or Chris Matthews or Andy friggin' Rooney? Sheesh!

Are you kidding about the comparison of Goebbels, etc to editorialists? That is beyond foolish, it trivializes the Nazi machine.

Bot

Yes, I see the difference. I'm only saying that the network is called FoxNews, not FoxOpinion.

But they have a bit of straight news, too, well about as straight as CNNs....

For straight broadcast news my preference has been for BBC World Services. They have their less than stellar moments, but do a much better job of WWWWW&H than any other broadcast. I watch the networks for touchy-feely news. I watch Fox for Op/Ed/analysis.

I watch C-SPAN for unspun stuff. "PM's Question Time" is one of my favorites entertainments on C-SPAN. About 3/4 of the time I have no idea what the issues are about but I love the combativeness of quick minds and sharp wits. Anything Brian Lamb touches is golden.

For reading news I like BBC online, NY Times online, Google News, and Drudge.

I must be a leftie with reliance on those sources, huh?

Bot