Journalism is a tool

I just read a fascinating article by Geneva Overholser. In the article, Overholser addressed the problems that journalism faces today, which is nothing new. I could get on virtually any news website or read any paper and I could find an article about sagging subscription, layoffs, and the overall decline of print journalism. There's even a website called "Newspaper Death Watch."

So Overholser doesn't just rehash the same, tired situation. She gives us a solution.

In the article, titled Did journalism's business model distort journalism's social mission?, she answers that very question. And the answer is a resounding yes.

Overholser goes on to say, however, that not all hope is gone. Newspapers need not die; they need to be restructured. She said,

"For some of us, then, the problem may actually be that what we are worried about is saving journalism. Wrong focus.

Take the mission away from journalism and think more about journalism as a tool: We care about poverty, and how could we use journalism as a tool to make a difference."

According to Overholser, we should take the current model of journalism, which is a business model with a mission, and completely rework it. Instead of thinking of journalism as an end, we should think of it as a means. Overholser continues to say that this isn't promoting specific ideals. We are merely using the truth to convince people to take action. And that would be how we would sell ourselves to the advertisers.

What does everyone think? Could this model work? Should journalism shuck off its old business-oriented model in favor of a more "noble" line of work? Can we?

International competition in a national field

When I first heard of "outsourcing" in my high school economics class, it intrigued me that we could have someone doing a job thousands of miles away. It didn't seem like a lot of sense to give jobs to those overseas when not everyone in the U.S. had a job. But it didn't concern me a whole lot.

This does.

According to Editor & Publisher, a journal dedicated to covering news about journalism, Dean Singleton, a chairman of the board of The Associated Press, and a CEO of MediaNews Group, announced that papers should begin to consider outsourcing jobs to keep up with falling revenue.

This article says that Singleton suggested that newspapers consider outsourcing in nearly every aspect of their operations, even including copyediting and design.

And while there is some debate over whether or not this would cause the overall quality of the paper to decline, it fascinates me that this is even an option to be considered.

After all, there are few media sources in the U.S. that are even truly national papers. Most are restricted to states, cities, or communities.

In light of this, does it really make sense to send papers overseas? Could people who are not connected to our communities or even our nation really be the ones who will be reporting our news in the future?

Of course, very little has been done in the area of outsourcing up to this point. But just knowing that it is a viable option makes me worried about going into the profession of journalism. They're already laying off thousands of journalists--and now I have to worry about international competition as well?

So what does everyone think? Could this be an option for papers to recover from falling subscription and advertising? Does it worry you at all--do you think that it's ethically correct? And do you think that quality could be compromised if this became a reality?

Presidential endorsements and objectivity

Woah . . . okay, Chicago Tribune, what do you think you're doing?

I mean, it's one thing for news stations to quietly support candidates through manipulation of news stories and propaganda, but it's entirely another to just come out and endorse a presidential candidate.

In a Chicago Tribune editorial board article on October 17th, the paper just came out and said it:

"On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose.

The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States."

When I read the Tribune's article, I was surprised. Of course I'm used to the subtle jabs at candidates and policies the different news stations make, but this degree of transparency was unprecedented in my limited news media experience.

The first thought that came to mind was: Can they do that?

I think that, as usual, there are good and bad things on both sides of the argument. On the one hand, the media is supposed to at least try to be objective. It's in the Journalist's Creed, after all. It's what we argue about in class incessantly.

But on the other hand, humans have prejudices and are incapable of being completely fair, balanced, and objective. The very nature of humanity is subjectivity, and since humans are who are in charge of the news, is it best that we just admit our flaws? Since we are incapable of being absolutely objective, should we just cast the tired facade of fairness aside, let our struggles with the truth cease, and be completely transparent in our prejudices?

Or do we owe the people more than just our own opinions backed by whatever facts we see fit to include? Should we at least try, even when we know we can never absolutely succeed in our attempts at objectivity and truth?

What does everyone think? I'm torn--I applaud the Tribune's transparency, yet I wish that the media could be as objective as they claim to be. Should they keep trying--should we keep trying? Or is it silly to pretend that we can ever be more than the subjective, prejudiced humans we all know we are?

The Literal Freedom of the Press

I just found this article online, and it caught my eye because of the questions it raised. If you don't have time to click on the link, don't worry, I'll recap.

Vietnamese journalist Nguyen Viet Chien was just sentenced to two years in prison for allegedly falsifying the information in a story that got several high ranking government authorities fired. He presented information that these officials were gambling using embezzled funds. His partner, Nguyen Van Hai, was sentenced to two years of "re-education without detention."

Chien was accused of "abusing democratic freedoms."

Now, several things caught my eye about this story, and it wasn't just the suspicious nature of how the charges against the officials were suddenly dropped.

I wonder if it is worth it for a journalist to go to prison to preserve the truth of their article, or to protect a source. Should we, as journalists, be so focused on telling the truth that we abandon personal safety?

And what about our families? Do we risk disgracing them because we're hung up on protecting a criminal's name? Or because we are so determined that what we have written is the truth, and we refuse to back down?

I realize that there is no right answer to this question, and that everyone's opinions will vary, but what do you think? Should journalists risk it all for their profession? Or is there an invisible line we shouldn't cross; say if something endangered our lives or the lives of our friends or family? Is the truth worth everything?

Journalism Interview

After several awkward phone calls and emails, my journalist finally sent back my interview questions! I interviewed columnist Robert Price, from The Bakersfield Californian. I enjoyed most of his answers, but one of the things he said that interested me the most was,

"Good journalism is all about fairness, balance, completeness, inquisitiveness. It is the public square, the water cooler, the neighborhood saloon at 6 p.m., the church fellowship hall. It's where we get together and talk and reflect and praise and work up righteous indignation."

I notice that, when talking about "good journalism," Price said nothing about truth. And while I'm certainly not trying to criticize Price, I thought it was interesting that, while our class spends so much time getting hung up on what truth is, and how we can incorporate it into our journalism, to others journalism is just about covering everything equally. At least to Price, journalism is more about community than it is about truth.

That's not to say, of course, that he, or any other journalists who support this view, aren't concerned about telling the truth. But by his own admission, when Price is writing an opinion piece or even an editorial, he "can and does include or omit evidence in order to make a point."

Again, these are editorial pieces, but it was still quite interesting to me to hear that.

The other point of interest I found in Price's interview was in the questions about the state of journalism today, and its future. When asked whether or not he had been affected by the changing state of journalism, Price admitted that he and his fellow journalists had to learn to write tighter in order to fit their articles into the shrinking paper, as well as to be able to still attract the public's attention.

However, on the next question, when asked what advice he'd give to students who wanted to go into journalism, Price said, "Be confident that journalism is not going away. We are going through a reordering . . . this transition may be a lengthy one but it will have a positive conclusion because it HAS to. Journalism is a foundation of democracy. Some might say THE foundation. We need new, passionate journalists determined to keep the country honest and keep journalism honest."

I appreciated Price's comments, maybe because I feel the same way. When I read articles that suggest that journalism might disappear, I just can't believe it. And I hope that I'm not just turning a blind eye. But, like Price, I believe that journalism will not disappear, because it cannot disappear. As a democracy, we need journalism, because how can we have agency without choice, and how can we have choice without information?

That's what I'm asking everyone here. I know that none of us truly believe that journalism will completely disappear, because otherwise we'd have a different major. But what do you think journalism is all about--truth, or community? Or can you have both? And is journalism as important as Price suggests? Is is a foundation--or THE foundation--of democracy?

Freedom of Speech on the Web

In the post before last, I briefly mentioned how bloggers are free to express opinions on news website forums. This is a form of communication, a usage of our free speech, and while people can be idiots about it sometimes, it is still a way for people to discuss the news.

Now, it appears that free speech is being limited on the internet as well.

Colorado's Channel 9 recently posted an article which described how a man was recently charged with a felony for a comment he posted on a news website.

Jeffrey Gargaro claims that he was exaggerating to make a point about the recent shooting in Washington that left six dead. Others in the forum were claiming that mental illness, a poor childhood, drugs, or lack of religion were the reason behind the rampage.

Gargaro apparently disagreed with the popular opinion, somewhat vehemently.

He wrote, "Also to all of you who blame drugs ... shut up as well. You know what, I am going to go shoot up Sunset Square today ... just for the hell of it. No drugs, no mental illness ... you can blame today’s episode on video games and George Bush's example of 'pay back' to society.”

Police say it was a threat. Gargaro's attorney claims that it's a freedom of speech issue.

"This was a computer news media blog. There's no rules and if you read these blogs, you'll see people make derogatory comments. These blogs are obviously notoriously bombastic,” said attorney Jeffrey Lustick. (source: 9News Article)

Wow. Just . . . wow.

Guys, I don't even know where to start with this one. First, I will waste no time saying that of course Gargaro was incredibly stupid to post something like that. He even specified a place, time, and weapon. Of course the police would react quickly.

But at the same time, I can see where Gargaro's attorney is coming from. On the internet, we all have a certain expectation of anonymity and freedom. We have been spoiled for years by screen names, the ability to move from site to site without having to see the repercussions of our actions, and frankly, the ability to say whatever we want. People are rude and crude virtually, and even the most well-mannered soul will often let their inner demons out when no one is around to see.

So if I had read Gargaro's comment, I wouldn't have thought twice about going to Sunset Square that day. I would have thought that it was one more person being an idiot online.

But should people have ultimate freedom of speech online? For years, the internet has been a symbol of the purest freedom--freedom to move where you want, freedom of information, and freedom of speech all included. The internet is where we can post the news that is important to us, and where we can discuss the news that we read or hear. Isn't that a good thing? Shouldn't we be able to say what we want?

Or should freedom be limited even on the internet? I'm not talking about cyberbullying here, people. I mean on legitimate websites, in forums or comments. None of this preteen drama, which is in a class of it's own.

So those are my questions for you: not only were the concerns of the police legitimate in Gargaro's comments, but is it legitimate to limit free speech at all? Even if people can't post comment anonymously? Is it really hurting anyone? And how does/will this affect blogging and forums discussions?

Newspapers of the Future

AJR, the American Journal Review, has a fascinating little article, which simultaneously predicts the demise of newspapers as we know them, and also suggests a new format for papers of the future.

Philip Meyer, a professor of journalism at the University of North Carolina, suggests that, while newspapers are going out fast, there is hope for them yet, albeit in less conventional means.

Meyer suggests that in order to survive in any sense of the word, newspapers will have to adapt to the new ways people receive information: that is to say, theatrically, and in vivid color.

He says that newspapers will publish less frequently, come in smaller packages, and be filled with editorials, analyses, and investigative reporting. The internet will be for the common people; only those who are perhaps a bit more traditional and better educated will look for the kind of detail these "new newspapers" will offer.

I like Meyer's idea, for a few reasons. The first is that I like the suggestion that good, old-fashioned printing will not go out of style any time soon. There's just something about the tactile experience of a newspaper, the smell, the way you get their cheap ink on your fingers when you're scanning the classifieds or doing the crossword. I wouldn't want to miss out on that, even if print journalism did become more sensationalist.

The second reason I like this proposed change is because those parts of the news Meyer mentioned above--the editorials, or the investigative reporting--are the parts about a newspaper that I, personally, enjoy reading the most. I can hear headlines from friends; I can glance at webpages to get the quick and dirty side of the news. But when I want to hear all sides of a story, or the details that weren't considered important enough to run as a headline on CNN, that's when I head to a newspaper.

If this is the future of newspapers, then my feelings are generally positive towards the change. While I would be sad to lose some of the traditional news reading I have always loved to do, I think that newspapers have always been changing and adapting to fit the times. Gradually, papers have become more colorful and narrower as it is, so this just seems like the natural progression of things.

How does everyone feel about this proposed path for papers? Does anyone have any better ideas? And does anyone feel that, in taking this route, we might lose something in the media?

Bloggers v. The News (with a capital 'N')

In Jay Rosen's latest, he talks about why blogging has been such a successful phenomenon, especially concerning blogging about the news.

His main point is that bloggers have a certain code of ethics which other media, essentially, lack. According to Rosen, we bloggers link well and often, we correct any mistakes we make without overblown excuses or apologies, we're transparent in our biases, and we aren't remote.

The latter point interests me the most. There is a reason--there has to be a reason--why blogging and the internet is driving the traditional news media out of business. And it's not just because it's more easily accessible. Electronic books, like Amazon's Kindle are much more easily accessible than driving to a bookstore, sorting through everything, finding our aisle, and going alphabetically, by AUTHOR, till we find the book we want.

And yet, we do it. Back when the concept was first conceived, ebooks were expected to destroy publishing companies. Now, a decade later, they haven't exactly revolutionized the book industry.

So obviously, it is not solely the opportunistic qualities of online journalism that draws us. It must have another quality besides instantaneous updates.

I propose that the reason we are so attracted to blogging and online news is because we connect with people.

Newspapers, television, and radio are all almost exclusively one-way communication. Blogging and news websites have something that traditional means simply cannot provide: forums, discussion, connections.

As humans, we all want to feel like we aren't alone--that we are sending as well as receiving messages. That is what blogging provides: a way to express our opinions about how the news media is handling stories, and a way to tell our own stories.

The flow of information, thanks to the internet, is no longer dependent on an "elite" group of media personnel. Now, anyone--anyone-- no matter how misguided, irritating, or just plain ordinary they are, has the opportunity to sound off, either in their blogs or in the comments at the bottom of news stories on the internet.

And it's not all bad; if someone does have biases that are too extreme, or if they don't support their opinions with facts, people will either flame their comments, or they will simply have a blog that no one reads.

We are drawn to the good information, the reliable sources out there. We, as the common people, know where to find the good blogs through word or mouth or, rather, word of text, or email, or IM.

So, what does everyone think? Why do you think newspapers are going out of style--is it just because more instantaneous information is available online? Or is there something more?

Sources not linked above:
http://www.buzzmachine.com/about-me/
P.S. Click on the links. Most are worth viewing.