Jon Friedman's Weavings Of His Media Web

With degrees in journalism, broadcasting, advertising, and public relations, it should come as no surprise that I'm a media junkie.

I also love to read the media that covers the media and one of the best and most interesting writers out there is Jon Friedman with CBS Marketwatch. I'll get back to Jon and some comments on him in a minute.

Now, you might agree that it's a bit oxymoronic to have the media covering itself. But I don't think so. Journalists shouldn't think they are beyond reproach because several have proven they aren't.

Immediately coming to mind are several who tarnished the reputation of "the public watchdog" including Jayson Blair, Jack Kelley and Stephen Glass. One that prompted me to lose heart about my beloved profession was Janet Cooke. People forget about her infraction and in my opinion, it was much more egregious than recent ones.

Cooke was the first perverter of journalistic integrity in my adult life of reading major dailies and picking up writers I fancied I'd be reading for a long time -- or working along side one day.

Cooke tarnished the pages of the famed Washington Post with lies.

BACK STORY:

In 1980, Cooke was hired at the Washington Post after working at the Toledo Blade. She went on to write a gripping story entitled Jimmy's World about an 8-year-old heroin addict. She was nominated and then won the Pulitzer Prize in 1981 for the story.

She had a great pedigree, or so thought HR at the Washington Post . She had on her resume, notation of her degree from Vassar College and that she studied at the Sorbonne in Paris and even that she was an award winner for her writing while at the Toledo Blade.

She was exposed for all of it as lies -- her background and the story on Jimmy -- and the nation was shocked back then. I can attest, the Blair et al scandals died down quite a bit faster than the one that became the vortex that Cooke got sucked into.

Which brings me to Jon Friedman.

FRONT STORY:

Friedman's last few columns have been about people in media positions that are issuing news to an information-obsessed world that are pithy, well angled, fact-filled and ... well, entertaining. Not really exposing or hard-hitting; not overly critical nor fault-finding. Take a look at the headlines and I think you'll agree. It's hardly sensational stuff.

Assessing Maria Bartiromo and Erin Burnett
Commentary: CNBC hopes it can accommodate two star anchors

Fox's Shep Smith takes the work seriously ...
Commentary: ... but doesn't get caught up in a news-star persona

Assessing Couric and Vieira after year one
Commentary: Tale of the tape shows that the winner is ...

Here's the thing.

I WANT Jon to be writing about the things he's writing about and not about media scandals where journalists are caught lying in articles. If there's anything I want to see in today's world, it's journalists that take their craft seriously, not themselves. It's competition among anchors for the better analyst and the one that delivers more complete information. Ones that people are trusting not because their ratings are going up, but through their demonstration of integrity, honesty and a take-no-prisoners-when-reporting-on-stuff-and people attitude -- no sacred cows. Lou Dobbs is a perfect example of what journalists and broadcasters ought to be.

And report cards. I like it when Jon takes a look and grades the media.

I also think that Jon can be tough, that he's willing and able to point out infraction, break a story or write some biting criticism if any journalist makes a misstep.

I believe Jon Friedman to be level-headed, principled and honest, and a good, solid reporter, even if he is a New Yorker. After all, he's from the capital of the news world.

What better credential than those two things to be a watchdog over the bulldogs?

For a slice of Jon Friedman's Media Web,
click here.