As Chapter 1 notes, societal journalism is the idea that journalists work for the people first. Therefore, it is vital that journalists focus on the truth in societal journalism. Chapter 2 describes it is not as easy as finding more sources, it is important to peel back the layers until they focus on the truth. Additionally, Chapter 3 notes, that there needs to be a barrier between the business-side of journalism (advertisements, donors, marketing, etc) companies and the journalism side. This is important because it removes conflicts of interest and allows the truth to prevail.
The purpose of civic journalism is to interweave journalism into the democratic process. Dewey thinks civic journalism should help people understand new developments in the social realm that would help them be educated participants in democracy. Additionally, he promoted social inquiry and the fact that journalists should spread the findings of social inquiry, without “executing policy.” Finally, Dewey did not think a community was “fully democratic” until “individuals may share in the discoveries and thoughts of others, to the liberation, and enrichment of their own experience.”
When thinking about the content we create, our goals should be both societal and civic journalism. It is important that we remember who our constituents are to ensure we are giving them the truthful journalism they need. We also need to keep in mind civic journalism, and giving the public the tools necessary to make individualized decisions that help them participate in democracy.
According to Kovach and Rosenstiel, “[t]he primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing” (17). Thus, they frame journalism as an essential part of any functioning democracy. Within this assertion, John Dewey (acclaimed education reformer) expands the traditional definition of ‘democracy’ to include more than simply an efficient government—rather, he argues democracy is fundamentally about achieving “human freedom” and helping people “develop to their fullest potential” (Kovach and Rosenstiel 35). Dewey further posits that “democracy [is] the natural outgrowth of the human interaction,” thus positioning journalism clearly—although implicitly—within the democratic process (Kovach and Rosenstiel 35).
It is crucial to note that Dewey was writing in an era prior to the advent of social media; therefore, when he wrote about “human interaction,” he was most likely alluding to face-to-face and written communication and conversation. Within this framework, I can see how democracy grows from human interaction and how journalism plays a key role in helping inform citizens to be "free and self-governing." However, I think it is imperative to explore where and how communication has expanded, and how much of human interaction—especially on the internet—is only further contributing to the increasingly polarized nature of our country and government rather than democratic ideals.
The issue of social media speaks to another significant shift in journalism’s purpose. Originally, the press was considered a “gatekeeper” (Kovach and Rosenstiel) of information. However, the modern day journalist is no longer simply deciding what the public should know and conveying them information. Rather, journalists must now help citizens make sense of the news they are consuming, whether it is coming from reputable news outlets or from social media. This issue of fake news relates to the broader question of truth in journalism, which is reporters’ “first obligation” (Kovach and Rosenstiel 49). However, we see now more than ever how nebulous the concept of truth is and the challenges current journalists face in pursuing ‘truth.’ Notably, ‘truth’ for journalists “means more than mere accuracy” (Kovach and Rosenstiel 55); rather, all truths exist in social contexts and thus, are far from objective. Here, we see how the fundamental purpose of journalism have not drastically changed over the last century and counting. Journalists are still seeking ‘truths’ and trying to inform the public, only now their platforms have transformed and they are faced with many more threats than before (i.e., social media and ‘untruths’).
Finally, in thinking about how engaged journalism can play a role in fulfilling journalism’s purpose, I argue it is crucial to remember Kovach and Rosenstiel’s other principle: “[j]ournalism’s first loyalty is to citizens” (72). While this principle in theory leads to good practice and outcomes, Kovach and Rosenstiel also acknowledge that journalistic independence and “detachment from outside pressures” can “bleed into disengagement from the community (77). This unforeseen consequence is partially the result of journalism being “professionalized,” which ties directly to engaged journalists’ potential to mitigate this conflict given their inherent belief in the democratization of the newsroom. Finally, Kovach and Rosenstiel also emphasize that “citizens are not customers” (83). This assertion again speaks directly to engaged journalism’s power in the reclamation of journalism; not only do engaged journalists not see citizens as customers, but they see them as contributors and collaborators with valuable expertise and knowledge.
The purpose of journalism connects back to the debate between the two major types of journalism which have been addressed in class. In class, engaged journalism argues that the purpose of journalism is to bring forth solutions in communities both large and small; and heavily relies on the small, as issues that span the nation are hard to address. Traditional journalism in class focuses on the pure aspect of delivering facts, which functions better on a national scale. However; I think at the end of the day, the best way to frame journalism as a whole is indeed what Kovach and Rosenthiel say: “The primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self governing”. As K & R elaborate on, this information has to be the truth, and nothing but in order to promote democracy and trust within a nation. Without it, we get scandals like Jayson Blair; original content and well crafted content are what will make an atmosphere of democracy. Though with the growing power of social media at hand, there is still a gap of knowledge between journalists and the public when it comes to certain issues because journalists have had the privilege to contact certain people which the ordinary citizen may not have access to. Thus it has a certain obligation to its constituents to be truthful, if that isn’t its first obligation (K & R): news is as much a governing body as the physical government of a nation, or at least in the case of the United States. The statement “news defines communities” is completely accurate. News media decides what is worth covering, what is worth sharing to the public. Therefore it has a certain control over one’s mind, whereas a physical government has control over one’s rights. It’s informal, sure, but there’s certainly hundreds if not thousands of other topics that could be covered. It is because of that obligation to the people, what is immediate in their lives, that a lot of topics are chosen. For example, an article on a presidential candidate’s attitudes towards climate change are going to be immediately more important to the average citizen than a scientific article about a chemical found in penguins’ blood. Both are important, but the media can and will focus on the presidential candidate first and penguins second. Not to mention that often media has to consider money as well for their motives. When ⅓ of time as a journalist is spent in business matters, something is wrong (K & R). Money is unfortunately too big of a concern which leads to exaggeration and sensationalizing a story. Sensationalization is a real critique of media, both by the people and news critics. And this is often an issue when it comes to tragedies like guns in schools, wherein a story can be pulled which way and that during the flurry of confusion trying to figure out what happened. In tragedies like this, the obligation of truth is even more important.
Dewey would perhaps argue that civic journalism is a form of education. He believes that education reconstructs an experience by adding meaning to it — journalism adds meaning and clarity to the events happening around us, thus educating us in contextualization. The idea that education cultivates a society in which everyone has an occupation that betters the lives of others aligns with the ideals of citizen journalism. If journalists proceed with care and intent in giving citizens a role in journalism today, a time where most citizens have recording devices in their pockets, citizens will gain a sense of purpose and perhaps an increased sense of trust in journalism. If an increase in democracy leads to an increase in information (Kovach and Rosenstiel) that people are overwhelmed by, then perhaps journalism can help solve the issue by not only giving citizens the tools they need to make sense of the information but by utilizing citizens for their unique perspectives of different events.
Dewey has some encouraging words to offer to the practice of engaged journalism: “Democracy must begin at home and its home is the neighborly community,” and “Communication alone can create a great community.” At its ideal, engaged journalism is fulfilling the societal purpose of journalism — it is giving citizens the information they need (specific to their community) to be free and self governing (or in other words, to make changes, get involved, and better their corner of the world). From what we saw in High Ground News, proper engaged journalism can bring communities together and highlight all the things they are doing right while also inspiring change.
The controversy of whether a for profit newspaper creates ethical journalism continues to arise. The line between catering to the citizen or the customer is often blurred (Kovach and Rosenstiel). I continue to question whether journalists are being ethical when they choose not to report on a specific issue because it could cast the person, or company, that owns the newspaper in a bad light. I wonder if passing the article idea on to a colleague at another newspaper could be a solution to the issue. Are non profit news organizations more ethical or do they too struggle to be ethical because of the organizations that sponsor them? Questions remain but either way, more transparency about who owns an organization could help to inform readers and increase their trust.
Tonight’s reading suggest that the goal of journalism is to build community, and, more broadly, to promote democracy. Further, I would argue that journalists have a responsibility to provide (verifiable) information to the public in order to allow them to make informed decisions about their lives.
In order to have a functioning society, all people have a responsibility to make decisions. Most people will tend to act in what they feel is their best interest or in the best interest of the collective. When societies were relatively small, making these decisions was relatively easier as people possessed the relevant knowledge needed to determine the best course of action. As society becomes increasingly globalized and our actions have wider reaching implications, it becomes much more necessary to have a way to disseminate information. Journalism has grown up as a way of informing us as actors in the world by providing us with the tools to make these constructive decisions. Therefore, journalism’s aim should be to promote thoughtful decision-making through providing access to the knowledge necessary to understanding the implications of our actions.
In order to make decisions with the best information, it is important for journalists to uphold a commitment to some degree of truth. Informed decisions cannot come from information that is blatantly false. Thus, it is the role of the journalist to share information that they believe to be accurate to reality. It is not the role of the journalist to make decisions for the population, but rather to just provide the necessary context for people to make their own conclusions. This is an important distinction that journalists must remain aware of in their work. The purpose is to cover the events as they happen and share this with an audience but not to mandate an opinion. In doing so, journalism will give the public the opportunity to think and synthesize information as it is relevant to their own actions.
The purpose of Journalism isn't something I spent much time considering until this class. I understood Jouranalism as being important for equity and Democracy, and I believed truth to be a part of that. After reading and thinking more on this topic, I believe still that "good" Journalism is essential for a Democracy and creating a more equitable society in which information is accessible to all and is created with a mindfullness of its citizens and with this intent. We should be able to use Journalism as a reliable authenticator. Kovach and Rosenthiel touch on how especailly now, it can be hard for citizens to discern between news and "fake news" out of the tons of information they can take in at their fingertips. Journalism should empowers citizens to value truth, and to learn about their society and have agency. Ideally, Journalism should be published with the purest of intentions - to promote and spread awareness among all people, to empower citizens, to strengthen communities and help facilitate problem solving... Journalism exists to facilitate the spread of ideas, to help facilitate both personal and societal/community based growth, and to provide people with information that has not been modifided or twisted or framed with impure or biased intent. Although I think truths can be objective, perception will always be subjective. Kovach and Rosenthiel state the importance of a commitment to truth. I agree. I think that Journalists do have a duty to present information that they have found to be as accurate as possible. Because of the nature of perception, I think part of this duty to truthfullness also includes the analytical presentation of a variety of perspectives that some would consider to be their own truth. Transparency is a part of this duty to truth as well. I don't think I've elaborated on all of the duties of a Journalist or purposes of Journalism, but these are the things that stick out to me the most. I look forward to learning more from discussion.
The various perspectives of the reading were interesting. Each one seemed appropriate, each seemed difficult to argue against. In one article, journalism was described as how the citizens should be the first priority. The authors spoke in distaste on journalism being perceived as a business rather than an outlet for the individuals who read/interact with the news. I would almost agree with this perspective, but I think it is impossible to run any group with humans involved without it turning into a business structure. Although the priority should be the people, the employees who work there have to support themselves, and sometimes there is more money earned telling certain stories over others. Business structures seems inevitable in the makings of journalism, and sometimes the societal and civic purpose might flounder in comparison.
In another article, journalism was described through its obligation for the truth. This example also seems correct, but how can both an obligation to its citizens and the truth both be first? It is possible theses can exist hand-in-hand with one central theme of purpose? These thoughts really engrossed me while reading these articles. It seems as though there is a balance between these two, and there are difficult choices made in news rooms everyday. I believe the societal and civic purpose of journalism is complex, and there is not going to be one concrete answer.
Tonights readings explore what the main goal of journalism really is, and how it has changed immensely over the past century. As Kovach and Rosenthiel discuss, it seems that initially, journalism’s roots were embedded in bringing the truth to the citizens/viewers. However, it is evident that journalism turned into an INDUSTRY. This means that the people who fund newspapers or television broadcasts hold some influence over what gets produces either on a small or grand scale. This type of influence can be seen in government elections as well. For example, when the NRA funds a candidate, the candidate therefore then have to publicly support them. This leads to an unfair advantage to the companies with a lot of money, because they can influence certain candidates. Additionally, the candidate must then openly support something they wouldn’t necessarily want to.
The concept of independent journalism began to arise and many journalists decided to hold themselves to the standard of not being influenced by funders. Adolf Ochs for example wrote he had the “earnest aim to give the news impartially without fear, or fervor, regardless of party, sector or interest.” To me this is extremely honorable. Many other journalists claimed to hold this same ethical standard but very few actually do/did. I understand it can be challenging to follow these standards, but by not one of the major principles of journalism. Ochs didn’t want others to influence his writing. He knew the main goal of journalism was to bring the truth to the people and he wasn’t going to break that.
I honestly don’t know how much of the journalism today is fulfilling its purpose. I feel like due to donors and large industries and the overall general commercialization of journalism, it has become more about gaining followers and viewers rather than being a reliable source of information. This is actually really sad, and I would like to explore/ learn more about the historical context of journalism. Kovach and ROsenthiel discuss in one of their pieces that journalists who got the most followers/ popularity would actually earn more money. Thus, journalists would exclusively try to write for the sole purpose to earn more money.
With the creation of facebook, this dilemma has become even more out of hand. Facebook actually tracks what certain people view and then they can target certain ads at those people. This therefore exploits certain people and as we read a couple nights ago affected the entire 2016 election which is CRAZY.
I saw the broadway show Network over break and I feel like it expresses this issue to a tee. The synopsis of the show is that a public broadcasting network is failing miserably. The main newscaster gets fired, and then publicly announces he is going to commit suicide on air. This gained so much traction that the network’s status soared. This represents one of the major issues explored in these articles because sometimes articles were posted to just gain attention. Additionally, it glorified a horrific event which is something we have been talking a lot about in class.
In a democracy, the purpose of journalism is to educate citizens. While the readings somewhat disagreed on the central purpose of journalism, their answer to the question “what is the purpose of journalism?” all seemed to hold the idea of an informed citizen central to their arguments. In the reading by Kovatch and Rosential, journalists were encouraged to find their “journalistic independence” even when working for a company. The authors fought the notion of a business focused journalistic system. Instead, they stated, “Loyalty to citizens is the most important asset of any publisher that wishes to produce journalism.” Somewhat similar, the reading on John Dewey mentioned the phrase “participatory teachers” to define the purpose of journalists. I agree with Dewey’s use of the word participatory to understand the purpose of journalism as an ongoing relationship between journalist and reader. The word encourages action and involvement from citizens. However, I disagree with the word “teacher” to define the purpose of journalists. By using the word, “teacher,” Dewey is implying that the flow of information goes one way and that the citizens are empty containers in search of information. I think journalism as an education tool does not have to mean that there is not an equal relationship between the citizen and journalist. The flow of information can go both ways.
One a different note, the Kovatch and Rosential reading, ‘What is Journalism for?’ understood the purpose of journalism as to “provide citizens with the info they need to be self-governing.” While I think this may be true in the United States where journalism is so closely tied to democracy, I wonder if this purpose would be the same in other countries.
In the readings, Kovach and Rosenstiel argue that at the foundation of journalism is finding the truth. They recognize that this is murky waters as many really don’t have a strong grasp on what this means. A lot of times, journalists are incredibly evasive about what truth actually. It seems that some journalists see truth simply as something that ‘rises like dough’ as Kovach and Rosenstiel put it. There are also many modern philosophers and academics who question the notion of truth while every journalist is a subjective being. Therefore, as Kovach and I think that it is important to have this foundation to be accuracy. Accuracy provides the base to everything else that follows. Kovach and Rosenstiel write, “ If the foundation is faulty, everything else is flawed,” (57).
Now the question is if journalism is fulfilling its main purpose today. Kovach and Rosenstiel would say yes, however, there are a lot more pressures on reporters today. The first of many is new technology, from social media to the 24/7 news cycle. This puts a greater impetus on speed. Every news organization is working around the clock every day to make sure they break news. Furthermore, another impact of the 24/7 news cycle is the role of analysis and commentary, which instead of looking straight at facts, allows reporters and anchors to bring more of their subjective opinion into their work. Do I find that journalism is serving its purpose today? Yes. I find that while there are greater ‘pressures’ in this new world, there is a focus on finding the truth, in whatever capacity that may be. As engaged journalists, we have recognized that the truth is multifaceted. Truth can be subjective sometimes. It can be informed by experience and anecdotes of any member of communities, not just the ‘most informed’. We are going to find the best practices to do this, in light of all the ‘pressures’.
“The primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing” (Kovach 17).
The quote mentioned above is a purpose of journalism. To give the people the information they need to make their own informed decisions. We could go even further and add some sort of truth to the mix, but as Kovach and Rosensthiel state in their second chapter, Truth is indeed “The First and Most Confusing Principle” (47). Truth is complicated because it requires some common set of morals and viewpoints all working together. Chapter two explores this by giving the example of the Pentagon Papers, released by Daniel Ellsberg in 1971. When Robert McNamara was reporting on Vietnam in the 1960s, he was lying. Was the press who was covering his statements also been lying if they published his false words, informing the citizenship with false hope of success in Vietnam? To the best of their knowledge, those journalists were simply reporting the facts, but because those facts were not true to begin with, they misinformed the public as well. Truth is an interesting concept because it seems so black and white. There is truth and there are lies. That, however, is far from the “truth.” We talked in class about how there are lies, damn lies, and then statistics. Using statistics as an example of something that is seen as so objective that it allows for blind belief. Statistics are extremely mailable, similar to the way in which journalists and politicians can mold their news stories to fit their agenda.
Although truth may not be certain within all journalism, press undoubtedly represents freedom and democracy, and even facilitates it. Perry’s article regarding Communist Poland shows how freedom of the Press can represent hope, as Anna Semborska says, “We reject your version of the truth” talking about the Communist infused media being forced upon Polish citizens. Polish Public opinion was a new phenomenon brought about with the underground press, and something that officials could not stand up against. Perry states that at best officials could understand and manipulate this public opinion, iron ally similar to how politicians in the U.S. do the same. Perry states that, “Societies that want to suppress freedom suppress the press” (17). We don’t have to live in Communist Poland to see the truth in that statement. Our own government suppresses the press by labeling it all as “fake news.” If “truth” is something all journalists hold to the highest standard, challenging that, even without any basis of fact, discredits everything the media has to say.
“Lippman thought citizens are like theatergoers who ‘arrive in the middle of the third act and leave before the last curtain, staying just long enough to decide who is the hero and who is the villain” That sentiment speaks to the speed of journalism we spoke about during class today, and the same way that the media often produces “breaking news” as it is happening without real self-reflection and thorough analysis, citizens do the same. People skim the newspaper for headlines without getting the whole story, listen to the preview for nightly broadcasts, and believe they have an opinion on complex problems. The half-assed investment by both journalists when fact checking themselves before publishing, as well as the citizens by allowing themselves to be told what to think models our ever-changing digital age with a demand for instant gratification.
I agree with what Kovach says, “to define journalism is to limit it,” because just as statistics are malleable, so is journalism. Ever changing with the kinds of technology evolving as well as the citizenship it attempts to reach.
Kovach and Rosenstiel describe journalism as “a means for providing social connection” (18). Throughout the three chapters we read, they described the purpose of journalism by describing its general goal, how that goal should be achieved, and who played a role in achieving good, truthful journalism. I was really stuck on that initial description regarding social connection, which, in a different way, Dewey also tried to do with his unsuccessful newspaper attempt to make knowledge available to the masses. If journalism provides a social connection, more journalism is good. As Kovach and Rosenstiel described, the more democratic a society, the more journalism is present. So, one could say that a democratic society will have increased journalism, and thus increased social connection, which becomes cyclic: more social connection, perhaps, will make the society even more democratic, etc, etc. But, how does this concept of increased journalism match with the digital age, where we have countless articles, blogs, social media sites, etc, all of which share additional information? We’ve discussed in class that these outlets may not be considered journalism; however, I keep coming back to a point that was made that journalism might just be shared information, and if readers view it as journalism, then we have constructed it to be so. One of the purposes of journalism, as we’ve discussed, is to be “truth-seeking.” These other sources of information may not be fact-checked and completely truth seeking -- but does that make them that different from the origins of journalism, from ballads and songs, passed on by word of mouth? Or the logbooks and stories told at pubs? I think I’m trying to grapple with what my definition of journalism is, and how that plays into the truth-seeking concept. Much journalism in the past, and more often than we think, in the present, is more dedicated to sharing the information that is known and assumed to be true as quickly as possible as opposed to as accurately as possible. And so, perhaps, the purpose of journalism is to also define this, and to, as Kovach and Rosenstiel wrote, figure out where their loyalty lies, and who’s truth they’re telling. There comes another sticky point when thinking that a democratic society has increased journalism. Not all democratic societies are capitalist, but many are. How do these things fit together? Can truthful journalism, written for the citizens and to share information, exist in a capitalist society? So much news is marred by advertisements, and the news that is shared is decided by stakeholders and funders, not by the people of the newsroom and the people to whom they provide the news. The discussion of having memberships and monetizing online usage to not rely on funders sounds ideal, but leaves me feeling slightly unsettled. Does having some of the most powerful news companies accessible only by subscription payments create a news elite? Does it not take away from some of the principles of journalism, of making it accessible to all? What are the possible repercussions of this? So, I haven’t quite figured out the purpose of journalism. At its root, I think it’s similar to what Perry stated. Journalism should be answering questions of social inquiry and sharing information with all those who wish to pursue it. However, how that pans out and what more specific purposes are I’m still working through, and excited to discuss!
W2D3 - societal and civic purpose of journalism - Isabella McShea
In the age of social media and fake news, it has become increasingly important to understand how journalism must adjust to the reality of the 21st century. Instead of operating under a typical news cycle, my peers and I have our own distinct ways of gaining knowledge from various distribution sources. From snapchat to the Skimm, how we obtain information is obviously important and ever changing. However, something that became intriguing for me while reading these articles was the concept of how journalists can help the public understand and synthesize the massive amounts of information at our fingertips. Kovach and Rosenstiel note that journalistic professionals are needed to help the general population understand what the massive amounts of information we have access to actually mean (pp. 29). I want to further discuss understand how journalism could shift into this new, more explanatory sphere within the context of our advanced technological age in the next paragraphs.
In the John Dewey piece, it became clear that the need for explanation via the news was not a newfound concept. On page 57, the writes notes that “Dewey advocated improved journalistic techniques, along the lines of what today is called interpretive reporting, in which news consists both of descriptions of events and of the historical and developmental and contexts in which they occur.” I believe that now, perhaps more than ever, the public is in dire need of this type of journalism. If a society cannot parse through and analyze the insane amounts of information we have with the invention of social media and the internet, then journalists and the general news cycle have an obligation to provide more than just descriptive pieces. By discusses the larger context and implications for events and breaking news stories, there could potentially be an actual improvement in public life as a whole.
The commercialization of the media and news has obviously made this type of engaged or interpretive reporting much more difficult. Stories that have been well researched and are not simply “click bait” do not generate nearly the same amount of profit for large corporate media companies. Kovach and Rosenstiel discuss this frustrating reality by paraphrasing from their peers work on this topic. On page 79 they write that journalists had moved “from the ‘what’ of public life to the ‘why’… making it about the psyche and self of politicians and also making it less about the outcomes of public policy that actually affected citizens.” I think that this concept plays into the large issue of journalism at the current moment. Instead of writing about actual and concrete evidence about political candidates, we are often too focused on their personal life or attributes. Obviously public servants should be criticized for their personal views or choices, however, we have lost sight of the importance of explaining actual legislation to the general masses.
Finally, as polarization has risen in the United States, I would argue that journalism has has not yet created an actual space for dialogue. Instead of synthesizing the many different perspectives we now have in the digital age into a space for conversation, it has become two separate echo chambers of opinion. Kovach and Rosenstiel write that “We need a journalism, in other words, that allows us to answer the question ‘Why should I believe this?’ rather than ‘Do I agree with this?’” (pp. 67). Although these are all separate thoughts, I really do think that as a society we can create increased understanding and common ground through engaged journalism. By breaking down issues in a non-polarizing way, perhaps our country can create some sort of common ground to tackle social issues in an efficient and well-managed way.
I would say that the purpose of journalism is to strengthen democracy. Or, at the very least, allow it to exist. Kovach and Rosenthiel, in "What is Journalism For?" assert that "information built democracy. In Eastern Europe under Soviet domination, specifically Poland, journalism meant creating a sense of community that the government could not control. Journalism is the dissemination of truth, as Kovach and Rosenthiel emphasize in "Truth: The First and Most Confusing Principle". Journalism must be act as an authenticator, sense-maker, witness-bearer and watchdog, among other roles. This is asking a lot! And it is being made much harder in the age of the internet and information overload, when truth is harder to come by in a flood of information. The speed at which information can be disseminated both helps and makes it more difficult for journalism to fulfill its purpose, as there is less time for fact-checking. Journalists first obligation is to truth and first loyalty is to citizens, as Kovach and Rosenthiel make very clear. What I thought was very interesting was examples of journalists taking a very clear stance, asserting that they work for the citizens before their employers, and this loyalty is truly the source of their employers' financial success. Success is truly very difficult to measure in journalism today, as we have many false indicators. I am not sure to which degree I believe the journalism of today is fulfilling its purpose, but I do think that an engaged approach can help as it values real community input and high quality, action-oriented news over being the first to report on the latest breaking news.
Journalism, though often perceived to be a lofty intellectual pursuit, is at its core a part of the service industry. Journalism provides a more and more needed synthesis of the reams of data facing each new generation. Each of these articles discusses the role of truth in journalism, and the element of each exploration that stood out to me the most was the emphasis on how journalists define truth. An earlier Kovach and Rosenthiel paper we read included the phrase 'negotiating shared meaning', and this is the definition of truth with which I read these theories. That's just it; journalists shouldn't define the truth, they should work with others to assist them in finding the information and tools to define the evolving truth, and evolving values, and then try to assist them in taking action with that knowledge. Journalists filter and simplify and have input from diverse sources, more than most citizens are able to or have the time for, and they are beholden to certain ethics and to correct reportage of tangible evidence. These are functions that will contain bias and are tough to negotiate, and a necessary service for a society of empowered individuals, yet they do not negate the core value most journalists reported of 'truth'. Journalists help people find their own truth, their communities' truth, and the truth of the wider world, and they help people take truly beneficial action, and stay true to their values. An easily exploitable job, but a crucial one nonetheless.
As Chapter 1 notes, societal journalism is the idea that journalists work for the people first. Therefore, it is vital that journalists focus on the truth in societal journalism. Chapter 2 describes it is not as easy as finding more sources, it is important to peel back the layers until they focus on the truth. Additionally, Chapter 3 notes, that there needs to be a barrier between the business-side of journalism (advertisements, donors, marketing, etc) companies and the journalism side. This is important because it removes conflicts of interest and allows the truth to prevail.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of civic journalism is to interweave journalism into the democratic process. Dewey thinks civic journalism should help people understand new developments in the social realm that would help them be educated participants in democracy. Additionally, he promoted social inquiry and the fact that journalists should spread the findings of social inquiry, without “executing policy.” Finally, Dewey did not think a community was “fully democratic” until “individuals may share in the discoveries and thoughts of others, to the liberation, and enrichment of their own experience.”
When thinking about the content we create, our goals should be both societal and civic journalism. It is important that we remember who our constituents are to ensure we are giving them the truthful journalism they need. We also need to keep in mind civic journalism, and giving the public the tools necessary to make individualized decisions that help them participate in democracy.
According to Kovach and Rosenstiel, “[t]he primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing” (17). Thus, they frame journalism as an essential part of any functioning democracy. Within this assertion, John Dewey (acclaimed education reformer) expands the traditional definition of ‘democracy’ to include more than simply an efficient government—rather, he argues democracy is fundamentally about achieving “human freedom” and helping people “develop to their fullest potential” (Kovach and Rosenstiel 35). Dewey further posits that “democracy [is] the natural outgrowth of the human interaction,” thus positioning journalism clearly—although implicitly—within the democratic process (Kovach and Rosenstiel 35).
ReplyDeleteIt is crucial to note that Dewey was writing in an era prior to the advent of social media; therefore, when he wrote about “human interaction,” he was most likely alluding to face-to-face and written communication and conversation. Within this framework, I can see how democracy grows from human interaction and how journalism plays a key role in helping inform citizens to be "free and self-governing." However, I think it is imperative to explore where and how communication has expanded, and how much of human interaction—especially on the internet—is only further contributing to the increasingly polarized nature of our country and government rather than democratic ideals.
The issue of social media speaks to another significant shift in journalism’s purpose. Originally, the press was considered a “gatekeeper” (Kovach and Rosenstiel) of information. However, the modern day journalist is no longer simply deciding what the public should know and conveying them information. Rather, journalists must now help citizens make sense of the news they are consuming, whether it is coming from reputable news outlets or from social media. This issue of fake news relates to the broader question of truth in journalism, which is reporters’ “first obligation” (Kovach and Rosenstiel 49). However, we see now more than ever how nebulous the concept of truth is and the challenges current journalists face in pursuing ‘truth.’ Notably, ‘truth’ for journalists “means more than mere accuracy” (Kovach and Rosenstiel 55); rather, all truths exist in social contexts and thus, are far from objective. Here, we see how the fundamental purpose of journalism have not drastically changed over the last century and counting. Journalists are still seeking ‘truths’ and trying to inform the public, only now their platforms have transformed and they are faced with many more threats than before (i.e., social media and ‘untruths’).
Finally, in thinking about how engaged journalism can play a role in fulfilling journalism’s purpose, I argue it is crucial to remember Kovach and Rosenstiel’s other principle: “[j]ournalism’s first loyalty is to citizens” (72). While this principle in theory leads to good practice and outcomes, Kovach and Rosenstiel also acknowledge that journalistic independence and “detachment from outside pressures” can “bleed into disengagement from the community (77). This unforeseen consequence is partially the result of journalism being “professionalized,” which ties directly to engaged journalists’ potential to mitigate this conflict given their inherent belief in the democratization of the newsroom. Finally, Kovach and Rosenstiel also emphasize that “citizens are not customers” (83). This assertion again speaks directly to engaged journalism’s power in the reclamation of journalism; not only do engaged journalists not see citizens as customers, but they see them as contributors and collaborators with valuable expertise and knowledge.
The purpose of journalism connects back to the debate between the two major types of journalism which have been addressed in class. In class, engaged journalism argues that the purpose of journalism is to bring forth solutions in communities both large and small; and heavily relies on the small, as issues that span the nation are hard to address. Traditional journalism in class focuses on the pure aspect of delivering facts, which functions better on a national scale. However; I think at the end of the day, the best way to frame journalism as a whole is indeed what Kovach and Rosenthiel say: “The primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self governing”. As K & R elaborate on, this information has to be the truth, and nothing but in order to promote democracy and trust within a nation. Without it, we get scandals like Jayson Blair; original content and well crafted content are what will make an atmosphere of democracy. Though with the growing power of social media at hand, there is still a gap of knowledge between journalists and the public when it comes to certain issues because journalists have had the privilege to contact certain people which the ordinary citizen may not have access to. Thus it has a certain obligation to its constituents to be truthful, if that isn’t its first obligation (K & R): news is as much a governing body as the physical government of a nation, or at least in the case of the United States. The statement “news defines communities” is completely accurate. News media decides what is worth covering, what is worth sharing to the public. Therefore it has a certain control over one’s mind, whereas a physical government has control over one’s rights. It’s informal, sure, but there’s certainly hundreds if not thousands of other topics that could be covered. It is because of that obligation to the people, what is immediate in their lives, that a lot of topics are chosen. For example, an article on a presidential candidate’s attitudes towards climate change are going to be immediately more important to the average citizen than a scientific article about a chemical found in penguins’ blood. Both are important, but the media can and will focus on the presidential candidate first and penguins second. Not to mention that often media has to consider money as well for their motives. When ⅓ of time as a journalist is spent in business matters, something is wrong (K & R). Money is unfortunately too big of a concern which leads to exaggeration and sensationalizing a story. Sensationalization is a real critique of media, both by the people and news critics. And this is often an issue when it comes to tragedies like guns in schools, wherein a story can be pulled which way and that during the flurry of confusion trying to figure out what happened. In tragedies like this, the obligation of truth is even more important.
ReplyDeleteDewey would perhaps argue that civic journalism is a form of education. He believes that education reconstructs an experience by adding meaning to it — journalism adds meaning and clarity to the events happening around us, thus educating us in contextualization. The idea that education cultivates a society in which everyone has an occupation that betters the lives of others aligns with the ideals of citizen journalism. If journalists proceed with care and intent in giving citizens a role in journalism today, a time where most citizens have recording devices in their pockets, citizens will gain a sense of purpose and perhaps an increased sense of trust in journalism. If an increase in democracy leads to an increase in information (Kovach and Rosenstiel) that people are overwhelmed by, then perhaps journalism can help solve the issue by not only giving citizens the tools they need to make sense of the information but by utilizing citizens for their unique perspectives of different events.
ReplyDeleteDewey has some encouraging words to offer to the practice of engaged journalism: “Democracy must begin at home and its home is the neighborly community,” and “Communication alone can create a great community.” At its ideal, engaged journalism is fulfilling the societal purpose of journalism — it is giving citizens the information they need (specific to their community) to be free and self governing (or in other words, to make changes, get involved, and better their corner of the world). From what we saw in High Ground News, proper engaged journalism can bring communities together and highlight all the things they are doing right while also inspiring change.
The controversy of whether a for profit newspaper creates ethical journalism continues to arise. The line between catering to the citizen or the customer is often blurred (Kovach and Rosenstiel). I continue to question whether journalists are being ethical when they choose not to report on a specific issue because it could cast the person, or company, that owns the newspaper in a bad light. I wonder if passing the article idea on to a colleague at another newspaper could be a solution to the issue. Are non profit news organizations more ethical or do they too struggle to be ethical because of the organizations that sponsor them? Questions remain but either way, more transparency about who owns an organization could help to inform readers and increase their trust.
Tonight’s reading suggest that the goal of journalism is to build community, and, more broadly, to promote democracy. Further, I would argue that journalists have a responsibility to provide (verifiable) information to the public in order to allow them to make informed decisions about their lives.
ReplyDeleteIn order to have a functioning society, all people have a responsibility to make decisions. Most people will tend to act in what they feel is their best interest or in the best interest of the collective. When societies were relatively small, making these decisions was relatively easier as people possessed the relevant knowledge needed to determine the best course of action. As society becomes increasingly globalized and our actions have wider reaching implications, it becomes much more necessary to have a way to disseminate information. Journalism has grown up as a way of informing us as actors in the world by providing us with the tools to make these constructive decisions. Therefore, journalism’s aim should be to promote thoughtful decision-making through providing access to the knowledge necessary to understanding the implications of our actions.
In order to make decisions with the best information, it is important for journalists to uphold a commitment to some degree of truth. Informed decisions cannot come from information that is blatantly false. Thus, it is the role of the journalist to share information that they believe to be accurate to reality. It is not the role of the journalist to make decisions for the population, but rather to just provide the necessary context for people to make their own conclusions. This is an important distinction that journalists must remain aware of in their work. The purpose is to cover the events as they happen and share this with an audience but not to mandate an opinion. In doing so, journalism will give the public the opportunity to think and synthesize information as it is relevant to their own actions.
The purpose of Journalism isn't something I spent much time considering until this class. I understood Jouranalism as being important for equity and Democracy, and I believed truth to be a part of that.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading and thinking more on this topic, I believe still that "good" Journalism is essential for a Democracy and creating a more equitable society in which information is accessible to all and is created with a mindfullness of its citizens and with this intent. We should be able to use Journalism as a reliable authenticator. Kovach and Rosenthiel touch on how especailly now, it can be hard for citizens to discern between news and "fake news" out of the tons of information they can take in at their fingertips. Journalism should empowers citizens to value truth, and to learn about their society and have agency.
Ideally, Journalism should be published with the purest of intentions - to promote and spread awareness among all people, to empower citizens, to strengthen communities and help facilitate problem solving...
Journalism exists to facilitate the spread of ideas, to help facilitate both personal and societal/community based growth, and to provide people with information that has not been modifided or twisted or framed with impure or biased intent.
Although I think truths can be objective, perception will always be subjective. Kovach and Rosenthiel state the importance of a commitment to truth. I agree. I think that Journalists do have a duty to present information that they have found to be as accurate as possible. Because of the nature of perception, I think part of this duty to truthfullness also includes the analytical presentation of a variety of perspectives that some would consider to be their own truth. Transparency is a part of this duty to truth as well.
I don't think I've elaborated on all of the duties of a Journalist or purposes of Journalism, but these are the things that stick out to me the most. I look forward to learning more from discussion.
The various perspectives of the reading were interesting. Each one seemed appropriate, each seemed difficult to argue against. In one article, journalism was described as how the citizens should be the first priority. The authors spoke in distaste on journalism being perceived as a business rather than an outlet for the individuals who read/interact with the news. I would almost agree with this perspective, but I think it is impossible to run any group with humans involved without it turning into a business structure. Although the priority should be the people, the employees who work there have to support themselves, and sometimes there is more money earned telling certain stories over others. Business structures seems inevitable in the makings of journalism, and sometimes the societal and civic purpose might flounder in comparison.
ReplyDeleteIn another article, journalism was described through its obligation for the truth. This example also seems correct, but how can both an obligation to its citizens and the truth both be first? It is possible theses can exist hand-in-hand with one central theme of purpose? These thoughts really engrossed me while reading these articles. It seems as though there is a balance between these two, and there are difficult choices made in news rooms everyday. I believe the societal and civic purpose of journalism is complex, and there is not going to be one concrete answer.
Tonights readings explore what the main goal of journalism really is, and how it has changed immensely over the past century. As Kovach and Rosenthiel discuss, it seems that initially, journalism’s roots were embedded in bringing the truth to the citizens/viewers. However, it is evident that journalism turned into an INDUSTRY. This means that the people who fund newspapers or television broadcasts hold some influence over what gets produces either on a small or grand scale. This type of influence can be seen in government elections as well. For example, when the NRA funds a candidate, the candidate therefore then have to publicly support them. This leads to an unfair advantage to the companies with a lot of money, because they can influence certain candidates. Additionally, the candidate must then openly support something they wouldn’t necessarily want to.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of independent journalism began to arise and many journalists decided to hold themselves to the standard of not being influenced by funders. Adolf Ochs for example wrote he had the “earnest aim to give the news impartially without fear, or fervor, regardless of party, sector or interest.” To me this is extremely honorable. Many other journalists claimed to hold this same ethical standard but very few actually do/did. I understand it can be challenging to follow these standards, but by not one of the major principles of journalism. Ochs didn’t want others to influence his writing. He knew the main goal of journalism was to bring the truth to the people and he wasn’t going to break that.
I honestly don’t know how much of the journalism today is fulfilling its purpose. I feel like due to donors and large industries and the overall general commercialization of journalism, it has become more about gaining followers and viewers rather than being a reliable source of information. This is actually really sad, and I would like to explore/ learn more about the historical context of journalism. Kovach and ROsenthiel discuss in one of their pieces that journalists who got the most followers/ popularity would actually earn more money. Thus, journalists would exclusively try to write for the sole purpose to earn more money.
With the creation of facebook, this dilemma has become even more out of hand. Facebook actually tracks what certain people view and then they can target certain ads at those people. This therefore exploits certain people and as we read a couple nights ago affected the entire 2016 election which is CRAZY.
I saw the broadway show Network over break and I feel like it expresses this issue to a tee. The synopsis of the show is that a public broadcasting network is failing miserably. The main newscaster gets fired, and then publicly announces he is going to commit suicide on air. This gained so much traction that the network’s status soared. This represents one of the major issues explored in these articles because sometimes articles were posted to just gain attention. Additionally, it glorified a horrific event which is something we have been talking a lot about in class.
In a democracy, the purpose of journalism is to educate citizens. While the readings somewhat disagreed on the central purpose of journalism, their answer to the question “what is the purpose of journalism?” all seemed to hold the idea of an informed citizen central to their arguments.
ReplyDeleteIn the reading by Kovatch and Rosential, journalists were encouraged to find their “journalistic independence” even when working for a company. The authors fought the notion of a business focused journalistic system. Instead, they stated, “Loyalty to citizens is the most important asset of any publisher that wishes to produce journalism.” Somewhat similar, the reading on John Dewey mentioned the phrase “participatory teachers” to define the purpose of journalists. I agree with Dewey’s use of the word participatory to understand the purpose of journalism as an ongoing relationship between journalist and reader. The word encourages action and involvement from citizens. However, I disagree with the word “teacher” to define the purpose of journalists. By using the word, “teacher,” Dewey is implying that the flow of information goes one way and that the citizens are empty containers in search of information. I think journalism as an education tool does not have to mean that there is not an equal relationship between the citizen and journalist. The flow of information can go both ways.
One a different note, the Kovatch and Rosential reading, ‘What is Journalism for?’ understood the purpose of journalism as to “provide citizens with the info they need to be self-governing.” While I think this may be true in the United States where journalism is so closely tied to democracy, I wonder if this purpose would be the same in other countries.
In the readings, Kovach and Rosenstiel argue that at the foundation of journalism is finding the truth. They recognize that this is murky waters as many really don’t have a strong grasp on what this means. A lot of times, journalists are incredibly evasive about what truth actually. It seems that some journalists see truth simply as something that ‘rises like dough’ as Kovach and Rosenstiel put it. There are also many modern philosophers and academics who question the notion of truth while every journalist is a subjective being. Therefore, as Kovach and I think that it is important to have this foundation to be accuracy. Accuracy provides the base to everything else that follows. Kovach and Rosenstiel write, “ If the foundation is faulty, everything else is flawed,” (57).
ReplyDeleteNow the question is if journalism is fulfilling its main purpose today. Kovach and Rosenstiel would say yes, however, there are a lot more pressures on reporters today. The first of many is new technology, from social media to the 24/7 news cycle. This puts a greater impetus on speed. Every news organization is working around the clock every day to make sure they break news. Furthermore, another impact of the 24/7 news cycle is the role of analysis and commentary, which instead of looking straight at facts, allows reporters and anchors to bring more of their subjective opinion into their work. Do I find that journalism is serving its purpose today? Yes. I find that while there are greater ‘pressures’ in this new world, there is a focus on finding the truth, in whatever capacity that may be. As engaged journalists, we have recognized that the truth is multifaceted. Truth can be subjective sometimes. It can be informed by experience and anecdotes of any member of communities, not just the ‘most informed’. We are going to find the best practices to do this, in light of all the ‘pressures’.
“The primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing” (Kovach 17).
ReplyDeleteThe quote mentioned above is a purpose of journalism. To give the people the information they need to make their own informed decisions. We could go even further and add some sort of truth to the mix, but as Kovach and Rosensthiel state in their second chapter, Truth is indeed “The First and Most Confusing Principle” (47). Truth is complicated because it requires some common set of morals and viewpoints all working together. Chapter two explores this by giving the example of the Pentagon Papers, released by Daniel Ellsberg in 1971. When Robert McNamara was reporting on Vietnam in the 1960s, he was lying. Was the press who was covering his statements also been lying if they published his false words, informing the citizenship with false hope of success in Vietnam? To the best of their knowledge, those journalists were simply reporting the facts, but because those facts were not true to begin with, they misinformed the public as well. Truth is an interesting concept because it seems so black and white. There is truth and there are lies. That, however, is far from the “truth.” We talked in class about how there are lies, damn lies, and then statistics. Using statistics as an example of something that is seen as so objective that it allows for blind belief. Statistics are extremely mailable, similar to the way in which journalists and politicians can mold their news stories to fit their agenda.
Although truth may not be certain within all journalism, press undoubtedly represents freedom and democracy, and even facilitates it. Perry’s article regarding Communist Poland shows how freedom of the Press can represent hope, as Anna Semborska says, “We reject your version of the truth” talking about the Communist infused media being forced upon Polish citizens. Polish Public opinion was a new phenomenon brought about with the underground press, and something that officials could not stand up against. Perry states that at best officials could understand and manipulate this public opinion, iron ally similar to how politicians in the U.S. do the same. Perry states that, “Societies that want to suppress freedom suppress the press” (17). We don’t have to live in Communist Poland to see the truth in that statement. Our own government suppresses the press by labeling it all as “fake news.” If “truth” is something all journalists hold to the highest standard, challenging that, even without any basis of fact, discredits everything the media has to say.
“Lippman thought citizens are like theatergoers who ‘arrive in the middle of the third act and leave before the last curtain, staying just long enough to decide who is the hero and who is the villain” That sentiment speaks to the speed of journalism we spoke about during class today, and the same way that the media often produces “breaking news” as it is happening without real self-reflection and thorough analysis, citizens do the same. People skim the newspaper for headlines without getting the whole story, listen to the preview for nightly broadcasts, and believe they have an opinion on complex problems. The half-assed investment by both journalists when fact checking themselves before publishing, as well as the citizens by allowing themselves to be told what to think models our ever-changing digital age with a demand for instant gratification.
I agree with what Kovach says, “to define journalism is to limit it,” because just as statistics are malleable, so is journalism. Ever changing with the kinds of technology evolving as well as the citizenship it attempts to reach.
Kovach and Rosenstiel describe journalism as “a means for providing social connection” (18). Throughout the three chapters we read, they described the purpose of journalism by describing its general goal, how that goal should be achieved, and who played a role in achieving good, truthful journalism. I was really stuck on that initial description regarding social connection, which, in a different way, Dewey also tried to do with his unsuccessful newspaper attempt to make knowledge available to the masses. If journalism provides a social connection, more journalism is good. As Kovach and Rosenstiel described, the more democratic a society, the more journalism is present. So, one could say that a democratic society will have increased journalism, and thus increased social connection, which becomes cyclic: more social connection, perhaps, will make the society even more democratic, etc, etc. But, how does this concept of increased journalism match with the digital age, where we have countless articles, blogs, social media sites, etc, all of which share additional information? We’ve discussed in class that these outlets may not be considered journalism; however, I keep coming back to a point that was made that journalism might just be shared information, and if readers view it as journalism, then we have constructed it to be so. One of the purposes of journalism, as we’ve discussed, is to be “truth-seeking.” These other sources of information may not be fact-checked and completely truth seeking -- but does that make them that different from the origins of journalism, from ballads and songs, passed on by word of mouth? Or the logbooks and stories told at pubs? I think I’m trying to grapple with what my definition of journalism is, and how that plays into the truth-seeking concept. Much journalism in the past, and more often than we think, in the present, is more dedicated to sharing the information that is known and assumed to be true as quickly as possible as opposed to as accurately as possible. And so, perhaps, the purpose of journalism is to also define this, and to, as Kovach and Rosenstiel wrote, figure out where their loyalty lies, and who’s truth they’re telling.
ReplyDeleteThere comes another sticky point when thinking that a democratic society has increased journalism. Not all democratic societies are capitalist, but many are. How do these things fit together? Can truthful journalism, written for the citizens and to share information, exist in a capitalist society? So much news is marred by advertisements, and the news that is shared is decided by stakeholders and funders, not by the people of the newsroom and the people to whom they provide the news. The discussion of having memberships and monetizing online usage to not rely on funders sounds ideal, but leaves me feeling slightly unsettled. Does having some of the most powerful news companies accessible only by subscription payments create a news elite? Does it not take away from some of the principles of journalism, of making it accessible to all? What are the possible repercussions of this?
So, I haven’t quite figured out the purpose of journalism. At its root, I think it’s similar to what Perry stated. Journalism should be answering questions of social inquiry and sharing information with all those who wish to pursue it. However, how that pans out and what more specific purposes are I’m still working through, and excited to discuss!
W2D3 - societal and civic purpose of journalism - Isabella McShea
ReplyDeleteIn the age of social media and fake news, it has become increasingly important to understand how journalism must adjust to the reality of the 21st century. Instead of operating under a typical news cycle, my peers and I have our own distinct ways of gaining knowledge from various distribution sources. From snapchat to the Skimm, how we obtain information is obviously important and ever changing. However, something that became intriguing for me while reading these articles was the concept of how journalists can help the public understand and synthesize the massive amounts of information at our fingertips. Kovach and Rosenstiel note that journalistic professionals are needed to help the general population understand what the massive amounts of information we have access to actually mean (pp. 29). I want to further discuss understand how journalism could shift into this new, more explanatory sphere within the context of our advanced technological age in the next paragraphs.
In the John Dewey piece, it became clear that the need for explanation via the news was not a newfound concept. On page 57, the writes notes that “Dewey advocated improved journalistic techniques, along the lines of what today is called interpretive reporting, in which news consists both of descriptions of events and of the historical and developmental and contexts in which they occur.” I believe that now, perhaps more than ever, the public is in dire need of this type of journalism. If a society cannot parse through and analyze the insane amounts of information we have with the invention of social media and the internet, then journalists and the general news cycle have an obligation to provide more than just descriptive pieces. By discusses the larger context and implications for events and breaking news stories, there could potentially be an actual improvement in public life as a whole.
The commercialization of the media and news has obviously made this type of engaged or interpretive reporting much more difficult. Stories that have been well researched and are not simply “click bait” do not generate nearly the same amount of profit for large corporate media companies. Kovach and Rosenstiel discuss this frustrating reality by paraphrasing from their peers work on this topic. On page 79 they write that journalists had moved “from the ‘what’ of public life to the ‘why’… making it about the psyche and self of politicians and also making it less about the outcomes of public policy that actually affected citizens.” I think that this concept plays into the large issue of journalism at the current moment. Instead of writing about actual and concrete evidence about political candidates, we are often too focused on their personal life or attributes. Obviously public servants should be criticized for their personal views or choices, however, we have lost sight of the importance of explaining actual legislation to the general masses.
Finally, as polarization has risen in the United States, I would argue that journalism has has not yet created an actual space for dialogue. Instead of synthesizing the many different perspectives we now have in the digital age into a space for conversation, it has become two separate echo chambers of opinion. Kovach and Rosenstiel write that “We need a journalism, in other words, that allows us to answer the question ‘Why should I believe this?’ rather than ‘Do I agree with this?’” (pp. 67). Although these are all separate thoughts, I really do think that as a society we can create increased understanding and common ground through engaged journalism. By breaking down issues in a non-polarizing way, perhaps our country can create some sort of common ground to tackle social issues in an efficient and well-managed way.
I would say that the purpose of journalism is to strengthen democracy. Or, at the very least, allow it to exist. Kovach and Rosenthiel, in "What is Journalism For?" assert that "information built democracy. In Eastern Europe under Soviet domination, specifically Poland, journalism meant creating a sense of community that the government could not control. Journalism is the dissemination of truth, as Kovach and Rosenthiel emphasize in "Truth: The First and Most Confusing Principle". Journalism must be act as an authenticator, sense-maker, witness-bearer and watchdog, among other roles. This is asking a lot! And it is being made much harder in the age of the internet and information overload, when truth is harder to come by in a flood of information. The speed at which information can be disseminated both helps and makes it more difficult for journalism to fulfill its purpose, as there is less time for fact-checking. Journalists first obligation is to truth and first loyalty is to citizens, as Kovach and Rosenthiel make very clear. What I thought was very interesting was examples of journalists taking a very clear stance, asserting that they work for the citizens before their employers, and this loyalty is truly the source of their employers' financial success. Success is truly very difficult to measure in journalism today, as we have many false indicators. I am not sure to which degree I believe the journalism of today is fulfilling its purpose, but I do think that an engaged approach can help as it values real community input and high quality, action-oriented news over being the first to report on the latest breaking news.
ReplyDeleteJournalism, though often perceived to be a lofty intellectual pursuit, is at its core a part of the service industry. Journalism provides a more and more needed synthesis of the reams of data facing each new generation. Each of these articles discusses the role of truth in journalism, and the element of each exploration that stood out to me the most was the emphasis on how journalists define truth. An earlier Kovach and Rosenthiel paper we read included the phrase 'negotiating shared meaning', and this is the definition of truth with which I read these theories. That's just it; journalists shouldn't define the truth, they should work with others to assist them in finding the information and tools to define the evolving truth, and evolving values, and then try to assist them in taking action with that knowledge. Journalists filter and simplify and have input from diverse sources, more than most citizens are able to or have the time for, and they are beholden to certain ethics and to correct reportage of tangible evidence. These are functions that will contain bias and are tough to negotiate, and a necessary service for a society of empowered individuals, yet they do not negate the core value most journalists reported of 'truth'. Journalists help people find their own truth, their communities' truth, and the truth of the wider world, and they help people take truly beneficial action, and stay true to their values. An easily exploitable job, but a crucial one nonetheless.
ReplyDelete