Greetings heathens, zealots, web denizens and the rest of you!

So the big hullabaloo in journalism this fine Tuesday seems to be a long winded by blog entry by one Kai Nagata, who quit his job as a CTV reporter in Quebec and explained, at great length, why he quit. His criticisms of news media are, it seems to me, mostly a cathartic rant about his political frustrations with Canada of 2011. He doesn’t much care for the Harper government and it’s policies. So he quit. Yah, I don’t see the connection either.

That is not the be and all end all of his 3,000 plus word blog entry. He makes some criticisms of television news in general but not in a particularly pointed or, I would say, meaningful fashion. But it matters little. He quit, as his is right to do. A guy has to do what a guy has to do.

Bizarrely, though, he is being treated as some sort of latter-day Edward R. Murrow – the late, great and brilliant reporter, commentator and critic of the news media – who said something so unusual and revolutionary that it bears paying attention to.  Nonsense.  I’m told he is getting job offers and even marriage proposals over his blog. Not sure if that is true, good for him if it is, but that is what is betting batted about the blogosphere.

Somehow, his desire to have a John Stewart like comedian in Canada who can “to unravel their (the Conservative government’s) ideology and act as a counterweight,” is seen as a genius idea. Ironically, Stewart himself in interviews has pointed out that if you are turning to him and his show for news you’ve missed the point. While subversive comedians and satirists are important parts of our political culture, they do not fix problems in government or media. Never have. Never will. Their job is to make us laugh, not investigate how the government decides to fund scientific research or humanitarian organizations overseas. Placing someone such as Stewart into such a lofty position as the cure to what ails us is to miss the point of both the Daily Show and the necessary role of journalists. If you don’t like what is going on in the world, roll up your sleeves and do the hard work to get the information out there to change it.

He also laments a lack of altruism in the news business. He cannot think of any reporters would happily work for three squares a day, some dry cleaning and a place a sleep. This, he then concludes, means reporters are not willing to do hard stories, investigate things that are important and so on.

No, Kai we don’t work for free. But the fact is that many of us would make a whole lot more money if we went over to the dark side of public relations. Plus we like to eat, buy clothes and have a life. Like anyone else who works for a living. Getting paid to do something does not therefore equate a lack of passion  or desire to do the job well. Manny Pacquaio and Floyd Mayweather Jr. make millions upon millions in the boxing ring each time they fight. Are we to conclude they aren’t good at their jobs too? Poor thinking on his part.

Apparently no one told him in school that news outlets need to make money to stay alive. This shocking revelation has, it seems, crushed his spirit.

But what really got me a’venting was Nagata’s last, insipid line in which he writes:

I’m broke, and yet I know I’m rich in love. I’m unemployed and homeless, but I’ve never been more free.

I’m not sure if this is the ignorance of youth or a poor attempt at poetic license. Either way, it is ridiculous on it’s face. Those who are truly poor and homeless are not free. Their choices are drastically limited, their lives impoverished by poor health, mentally and physically. They are driven by mental illness, addiction or desperation. Sometimes all of it at once. One isn’t “free” if you cannot feed or clothe yourself,  or are jonesing for the next hit. The homeless are some of the most shackled people in our communities, kept behind the bars of prisons they cannot see.

Ultimately though, Nagata’s criticisms do not strike deep nor are a well thought out reflection of where Canada’s news media fails, nor provides any insight about how things could be better. But he knows he really cannot stand the political party he presumably didn’t vote for. Or something.

This is what set Murrow apart, and why those fawning over this kid (formerly) from CTV miss the boat. Murrow could be scathing in his insights into the failings of television and inspiring in equal measure about what it could become if we so chose that path. But ultimately, it wasn’t about him. It was about the role of journalism in a democracy, the use of information technology and where we were going as a society.

Not that what he wrote is not without some truth to it, but ultimately for Nagata, it’s all about him.

But I will allow you to draw the comparisons for yourself. Read Nagata’s blog and then read Murrow’s criticisms from 1958 we he spoke about where television news was headed – or, looking back now, where he accurately saw it going. He remains more relevant to the discussion than Nagata could hope to be. You can read Murrow’s the full speech here. The exert below is from the excellent film about Murrow called “Good Night and Good Luck.”

Tags: Edward R. Murrow, journalism, kai nagata