Should "the media" defend itself if it is attacked by newsmakers?

I'm wondering if journalists, for the sake of the industry and the future of the profession, should speak up when used as a punching bag by the people we cover. Democrat, Republican or Chicago White Sox manager.
I understand the need to be objective, but don't we fact-check claims made by the candidates against each other? Should journalists just sit back and take it? Does the SPJ or some other organization need to step up a provide a "rapid response team" as "the media" seems to have become an issue itself in this election?

I know people have been bashing the press since Gutenberg, but I wouldn't mind seeing a 30 second spot reminding people the positive role the press has played in our country.

 

Good point! Where would we be without US Weekly?

 

Defend yourself if they're talking specifically about something you wrote.

Otherwise, "the media" is a crock of shit generalization not worthy of a response.

 

That's my point. Should the public just go ahead and lump the work done by Woodward and Bernstein with Perez Hilton? Do we want them to?

 

Intelligent people, most of them, understand the difference in journalism from WoodStein and the shit spewed out by Perez Hilton.

Unfortunately they don't stand up and make any effort to defend the former when it's lumped in with the latter.

I never have been comfortable just standing by taking abuse about something specific. I'll argue a point about something I wrote and go right back at someone if they are wrong or abusive. I give people a chance to vent, especially if it is about one of my columns. But if they are wrong or abusive, I won't just take it.

Depending on my mood, I will try to discuss "the media."

Last year during the post-Gundy tirade another board I frequent was blissfully going off on "the media" and rejoicing in Gundy, Saban, Weis, et al. I mixed it up with them, arguing specific points and shooting down their generalizations. I also agreed with a few of their points that had merit.

One thing I emphasized was they should not paint everyone with a broad brush and don't get personal. Argue the specifics civilly and there shouldn't be a problem. I think most of them actually enjoyed having someone give-and-take and a few agreed with me. Small victory.

 

Unfortunately, the intelligent people are in the minority.

 

True, which is why they don't know the difference in a news story, opinion column, unsigned editorial, "citizen journalism" or why it's not a big deal for a county commissioner to write a story for the local paper.

Dilution of legitimate reporters with the addition of "iReporters," "citizen journalists" and other horseshit branding contributions will only make it worse.

 

Absolsmurfly.

We're all in the same boat. You write about news or famous people, you're media as far as the general public is concerned.

 

Where in the world would the general public, as dumb as it is, get the idea that the "media" is full of a bunch of arrogant know-it-alls who think they're better than everyone? Hmmmmm.

 

I'm sure the tone of voice you so often take here doesn't help.

 

The general public is pretty dumb, for the most part.

It's hard to argue with that when they believe someone like Brian Williams at NBC or the 32-year veteran Podunk Press columnist is lumped in with Billy The CrazySports Blogger who lives four streets over because he writes about the kids who try so hard.

 

Billy the Crazy Sports Blogger could not have done a worse intro to tonight's RNC coverage than Brian Williams did. So he's got that going for him.