Journalism as a Public Forum

I absolutely believe journalists should provide a public forum and a marketplace of ideas. Freedom of the press is essential to democracy, and in turn, the press should use that freedom to promote democracy and public involvement. We can observe several aspects of modern society where journalism has become much more of an open discussion, rather than a writer merely relating the facts. These aspects include blogs, news integration in Twitter and Facebook, and even the comment sections on news articles.

Here we can see the author a news story inviting the audience to respond.

 

In the Republican primaries, several candidates fielded questions in a virtual Twitter "debate," signaling a shift in the country's culture regarding politics and interaction with candidates. Whereas the press had previously held the power to question candidates and report on their positions, the changing technological landscape has allowed the citizens a much more involved role in government. Journalists would be best served to acknowledge this shift of power, and invite an atmosphere of public involvement in their work. A stronger citizen presence in the news means a stronger democracy.

"Comforting the Afflicted and Afflicting the Comfortable"

Journalists, as part of their watchdog role, are to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." This is one of the driving forces behind much of investigative journalism, and can alter the way we view prominent individuals or organizations. One investigative work that has influenced my life is Jon Krakauer's "Three Cups of Deceit," an article exposing dishonesty in the charitable work of bestselling writer Greg Mortensen.

Many people I knew had read Mortensen's books, which chronicled his travels to the Middle East, and subsequent efforts to raise money for schools to be built there. They admired his work, or at least the work he claimed he had done. However, Krakauer's article, coupled with an investigative report by CBS' "6o Minutes," refuted many of the claims which Mortensen had made. It was an eye-opening experience for me in regards to being an informed citizen, as I could see how easily the wool could be pulled over an entire audiences eyes. I think it's vital that journalists adhere to their watchdog role and "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," because it helps society discern between truth and half-truth, or perceive flat-out lies. Many people had been deceived by Mortensen's work, and had contributed to his charity. It is important that people are informed about the organizations or individuals whom they support.



Journalists' Neutrality

 Many people believe that the only way to accurately report news is to take no sides, relate the facts and nothing more, and to be completely neutral. This is not the case. As we read in the Elements of Journalism book, neutrality is not a core principle of journalism. News can still be reported effectively when opinions are involved. As long as the facts are being reported, and there is an adherence to truthfulness, journalists should be free to express their perspective, which in turn allows the audience to develop their own. We can see this in action through the opinion pages of major newspapers like the Washington Post. Opinion is clearly expressed, but all argument is based on fact. Most would agree that the Post is a reputable news source, and they offer several opinion columns.

This affects my perspective on the news in many ways. In the book, it talked about how modern news media often plays to the preconceptions of the audience, and I think that's very evident. I tend to lean a little left of center, so when I read a conservative or liberal opinion column, I often just feel more strongly about my own convictions.  It offers somewhat of a validation, as we see our views corroborated by people who we see as professionals. So I think that, in a way, it reinforces the perspectives that we have formed over our lifetime.

Do Journalists Truly Serve the Citizens?

Due to the vast number of journalists in the world, who all have different viewpoints, motivations, and goals, this is a difficult question to answer. I would say that the majority of journalists do indeed serve the citizens who see or read their work, but they are overshadowed by larger news outlets who may not do as well a job. Nowadays, the public is quite wary of cable news outlets, due to the percieved ideological agendas of these networks. Though it is unfair to say these outlets are representative of "journalists," they have the most prominent voice in many communities. And unfortunately, many of these newscasts practice what the Elements of Journalism book refers to as a "journalism of affirmation." Instead of serving the citizens and offering fair, factual news stories from which to form opinions, they take advantage of the audience's already-held convictions, so the audience can feel validated in their beliefs.

Overtly ideological headlines such as this leave little room for
the audience to interpret the facts on their own.

As we can see in this New York Times/CBS News poll, nearly 80 percent of Fox News viewers who are likely to vote say they will vote Republican. It is no secret that Fox tends to skew right in their ideology. Now, obviously Fox gained a lot of those voters because of its conservative message, but by continuing to serve stories spun to appeal to a far-right base, they are doing a disservice to their audience. The priority of news outlets should be reporting, with the task of interpreting those reports and forming ideologies from them remaining with the audience. If a news organization is so overt in its message that it's nearly impossible to form a dissenting opinion from the facts they present, then they are not serving the citizens, they're serving their business interests.

Do Journalists Report the Truth?

This is an interesting question, and I think it is one that has grown very complex in the world of modern media. Often the journalists who are seen on a mass scale (those whose work is found on the shows and newscasts of CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC) are criticized for reporting untruthful information. I don't think this judgment is necessarily fair. The vast majority of the times, these journalists are reporting the facts of what happened, but they are also interpreting those facts in a unique way, resulting in a form of "biased truth."

When a large news story breaks, multiple news outlets will all jump on the story. And while the information, facts, statistics, and so forth are the same for all outlets, the reports will often be quite different. One example is how MSNBC and Fox News reported on the decision in the Supreme Court case regarding Arizona's SB1070 immigration law. Fox chose to highlight how the court upheld parts of the law, thus trumpeting a victory for Arizona's conservative legislature. MSNBC highlighted the large portions of the law that were struck down, thus claiming victory for the Obama administration. So while the news was the same for both outlets, the difference was found in interpretation. So, mass journalism's biased truthfulness often isn't the "purest" form of truth, but it's truth nonetheless.

What Purpose Does Journalism Serve in My Life?

Journalism has served an enormous purpose in my life, and has influenced me to the point that it's a career path I want to pursue. I've always been interested in current events and issues, and as I've grown older, I've seen how essential to society information is. I think that if I ever were to have awareness of the news and issues withheld from me, I would feel much like John McCain, who said that as a POW he missed the news, and awareness of world events, more than anything else.

 

One of the specific influences I can see that journalism has had in my life is the work of Jon Krakauer. He took many of the stories he wrote for Outside magazine and turned them into longer works, and two of his books had profound influences on me. The books Into the Wild and Where

Men Win Glory, both stories highlighting extraordinary men and their actions, embody a type of journalism I think is very valuable. Human interest stories can have much more of an impact on the individual than broader stories on world issues, and while they are obviously less important to society, they are an important part of journalism.

What Is Journalism?

I believe that “journalism” is the act of gathering and disseminating information or news that one deems important and valuable. Because of this, I think that in today’s world, anyone who uses a mass communication medium (i.e. newspapers, blogs, forums, etc.) to report on news or other issues can be regarded as a journalist. However, this doesn’t mean everyone is a professional. There have been several court cases throughout the country in recent years which stemmed from bloggers, or other amateur journalists, claiming protection under “shield laws.” These laws were instituted to protect freedom of the press, but are now under scrutiny as technology evolves. Perhaps in the next few years, courts will catch up to the rapidly changing landscape of online journalism, and extend some protection to bloggers. But at this point in time, many courts are yet to do so.

So while I believe that anyone who wishes to report on news, current events, or social issues through blogs or independent websites can be regarded, to an extent, as a “journalist,” they have to acknowledge their amateurism. Despite this, I believe it’s important to give credit to these writers, because although they may not be professionals, ordinary people can have big things to say about society. The growth of this participatory attitude in online news media is a wonderful example of democracy in action, and should be encouraged.

Demonstrating the power of technology in modern news media, this iconic picture of a Russian child riding a bike during Russia's election protests was taken on an iPhone. Called "Moscow's Tiananmen Square" by many, the photo was widely circulated on Twitter by the reporter who took the photo, New Yorker magazine correspondent Julia Ioffe.