NEWS: More Americans Consider Bill O'Reilly a Journalist than Bob Woodward

An Annenberg poll conducted before the recent "Deep Throat" revelations found that while 40% of Americans consider Bill O'Reilly to be a "Journalist," only 30% considered Bob Woodward, the reporter who broke the Watergate story, to be one.



I think this is representative of a very sad state of affairs in the US today. The type of things people consider to be news are little more than entertainment talk shows. True journalism seems to be overshadowed by what amounts to little more than governmental or corporate infomercials and "talking heads" who compete in a public arena. America right now needs more Bob Woodwards and Seymour Hersches, but we're getting Bill O'Reilly and Crossfire. I think, as the full article states, it is somewhat understandable that people might not be aware of who Bob Woodward is, but the real issue here is that people are so used to talk show style news that they can't tell the difference between true journalism and some guy who appears on TV and talks a lot about current issues.

-koji K.

[edit on 13-6-2005 by koji_K]

[edit on 13-6-2005 by koji_K]

Except for the movie about the Watergate affair, Woodward and Bernstein have not had high profile careers. It would not be surprising that thirty years after their defining moments, a good number of people wouldn't know whether Woodward and Bernstein were journalists or a song writing team. When faced with the question--"Please tell me if you think (the individual named) is a journalist or not?"-- it is not surprising that Limbaugh and O'Reilly would be identified as such, as their careers have been very high profile. Frankly, I also consider O'Reilly to be a journalist. I don't, however, count Limbaugh, as such.


[edit on 05/6/13 by GradyPhilpott]

I'd say O'Reilly is more of a commentator. When I think of journalism I think of objective reporting where you present the facts without a spin or commentary. I don't want to hear the journalist's opinion, I just want the story.

However, in recent years journalism has blended with op/ed to become something else. Something....tainted. 20 years ago, you wouldn't see a news anchor sitting there giving his opinon on a news story. At least it wouldn't be so blatant. To be fair, I've only really seen that happen on FOX news. I see it on CNN sometimes, but they're more covert.

Currently, O'Reilly is a news analyst and commentator. I think this still qualifies him as a journalist, though not as a reporter, even though he and his staff do considerable research to document the facts of the news. O'Reilly has a definite opinion, but he usually does a good job of presenting both sides of an issue so that the viewers can decide for themselves.

Limbaugh's history is in entertainment. Limbaugh is not concerned with balance. He reports what furthers his agenda and pleases his niche audience. Limbaugh is fundamentally a political humorist posing as a political philosopher.

The fact that Limbaugh deals in current events is enough to confuse many people who are not particularly discriminating in such matters, if they are concerned, at all.

[edit on 05/6/13 by GradyPhilpott]

I can see this thread turning into a debate on the meaning of the word journalist. For the record, I think of journalists as people who actually go out and "discover" the events which become the news. I believe Bill O'Reilly, and most commentators, are trained in journalism and related fields, and could easily become journalists. But what they do is not journalism, imho. They create debate and provide a forum, but they don't actually break any stories. Occasionally a guest might "reveal" something which becomes a story in itself, but this is not required on talk/debate shows to keep them running.

Checking dictionary.com, the primary definition for "journalism" is:

The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.

I suppose it could be argued that commentators are involved in the process of "collecting, writing, editing, and presenting" the news to some degree, and so are therefore journalists, extending the term broadly. But I don't believe that journalism is their *primary* job, which is, as I mentioned, to promote debate, provide a forum, and even to offer opinion and to entertain. For example, Jay Leno talks about the news, but he's not a journalist, his function is to entertain.

-koji K.

Bob Woodward:
en.wikipedia.org...

Bill O'Reilly:
en.wikipedia.org...

bill is a circus entertainer and no more.his facts are as good as a bag of over salted popcorn lol.....

THe real question is, do the average mainstream people really know who Bob Woodward is?

I have a hard time understand that Bill O'Reilly can lie about things, never admit to lieing (or continue to lie after it was pointed out) and still be concidered a good journalist

O'reilly is more like a Howard stern "shock jock" of journalisum.

Bob Woodward was fortunate to have "Deep throat" contact him so he could break the story and unearth the corruption in the white house at the time. TOo bad all of the criminals invovled in watergate were pardoned by bush Sr. over ten years later

this is so sad on many levels.

But then again, a large number of Americans think Britney Spears is a singer....

I don't think it is really all that sad, in so far as the question relied wholly on the respondents knowledge of the individuals named. Bob Woodward has leaned toward non-fiction writing and not broadcast journalism, therefor his audience is much less broad and his profile much lower than O'Reilly or Limbaugh or Howard Stern for that matter.

Among those who really count to Woodward, he is known well enough, as his book sales and awards indicate.

O'Reilly just admitted on the air that Bob Woodward is a better journalist than himself, or words to that effect. His show will air again in two hours 11:00pm EDT, for those who would like to hear it for themselves.

[edit on 05/6/14 by GradyPhilpott]

to Bill O'Reilly. I don't like his show, but he's an intelligent man. I've found him surprisingly mellow and balanced when interviewed on other people's shows.

-koji K.

Originally posted by Flinx

However, in recent years journalism has blended with op/ed to become something else. Something....tainted. 20 years ago, you wouldn't see a news anchor sitting there giving his opinon on a news story. At least it wouldn't be so blatant.

Back in the mid-80's, twenty years ago, Peter Jennings was using the motto:

"We'll tell you the news, and more importantly, we'll tell you what it means"

Even the choice of which stories to cover betrays an agenda. Look at NBC's "Fleecing of America," which has been running about 20 years now. And think about what stories DIDN'T make that segment. They told us all about the airforce paying $100 for a hammer, but never talked about organ donors being charged for their body parts.

They left that for Oprah.

So, who is the more "real" journalist?

Journalism also includes the disemmination of information; this would include practically everyone on the "blue lamp of hell" (TV), from Bob Costas to Al Roker.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
They told us all about the airforce paying $100 for a hammer, but never talked about organ donors being charged for their body parts.

Could you clarify just what organ donor issue you are discussing? There have been some real issues along these lines, but there have been some urban legends, as well.

[edit on 05/6/14 by GradyPhilpott]

but Oprah did a series of pieces (broke the story, for all I know)
on the fact that families of patients who had died in hospital, who were candidates for organ donation, were presented with bills for the organ transplant if the recipient was unable to pay.

I remember (because I had a friend who needed a transplant) about a family that donated their loved one's kidneys, and recieved a bill for about $70,000. Naturally, their insurance didn't want to pay.

Off topic as it is, I have to say, while I'm all for free healthcare, isn't it just common sense to assume someone is going to have to pay if you undergo a procedure as complex as an organ transplant? Don't you ask about these things beforehand? Don't get me wrong, I think it's a shame whenever someone needs medical treatment and can't recieve it, for any reason, but how would that be newsworthy in the least, other than the fact its a sad story?

-koji K.

[edit on 15-6-2005 by koji_K]

Well, I can't find anything about such an incident and I really can't think of anything more ludicrous than charging a donor family for someone else's organ transplant, unless they were charged for the removal of the organ from the decedent, in which case, perhaps the donor family should have read the fine print.

Oh my... So more Americans think of Bill O'Reilly as a journalist before Bob Woodward.
I'm really not surprised.
I was just in Wal-Mart earlier today. Judging from what I saw there, I'd guess that more Americans think of Ernest and Julio Gallo before Dom Perignon too... :-)

Lesson #1: Just because "more Americans" think something doesn't make it so.