Today's question: Maybe it's journalism itself that is the problem?

Now, here's a big, heavy question to grapple with early a Saturday morning (at least it's early to me, Saturdays are just about the only day of the week I don't get up at the break of dawn or earlier):

As we examine what journalism should look like in the 21st Century, we should also look hard at just how professional supposed professional journalism is. Today I heard a CEO of a large insurance firm talk about the day his company eliminated 200 jobs — 200 out of 40,000.  He talked about how he prepared his employees for the media onslaught he knew was coming, with anchors bellowing and headlines screaming about the downturn of the company’s fortunes. These weren’t even layoffs, but merely the elimination of unfilled positions.

There is something wrong with a journalism that can’t honestly put the context of events in an accurate light, but must play up the most sensational angle. We all know the CEO’s story is not an isolated incident, and it isn’t merely a TV-journalism condition, but something endemic to present-day journalism, print and broadcast.

If our readers so easily recognize that what we do isn’t trustworthy for its accuracy both in fact and spirit, then how can we expect to retain them as readers?

Read Howard Owens' full post here (via Adrian Monck). Owens' question reminded me of this excellent quote from Cluetrain, and I'm sure Steve Borris would have one or two things to say about the adverse effects of this 'professionalism'.