Some "Final" Thoughts

1.

True, definitional objectivity can only be achieved by an entirely third-party, Mr. Spock-like observer from outer space, wholly disconnected from the human condition and its accompanying biases. None living on earth can escape some form of bias: an American journalist would be hard-pressed to write objectively about democracy or Marxism; a Chinese journalist would be biased in his or her view of communism, intrinsically and naturally either for or against. However elusive, objectivity, or more accurately the pursuit of its implementation, has a natural place in journalism so as to distinguish it from the more gratuitously self-serving realms of public relations and advertising (Scheuer, 117). Journalism cannot claim to report a semblance of the truth without some aspirations for true objectivity. While definitional objectivity may be unattainable to all but Vulcans and other aliens, there are at least two conditions that can enhance a journalist’s pursuit of it and excuse the omniscience of bias in journalism.

The first condition is robust editorial oversight. As evidenced by the blogosphere, when left to his or her own devices, a self-proclaimed journalist is more likely to add to the public debate than to create a forum for its propagation, as journalism needs to. Editorial oversight provides a level of immediate and immanent accountability. An editor in the newsroom, ideally one seasoned by some level of experience and wisdom and certainly more removed from a story, can more objectively recognize biases in stories and regulate accordingly. The editorial process is the most effective form of self-regulation in the industry, as evidenced by the presence or lack of truth and objectivity. One needs only to compare a blog and a newspaper article to see the difference.

The second condition is journalistic integrity, for lack of a better term. I see objectivity in journalism as the honest portrayal of perceived truth. While complete objectivity may be impossible, one cannot fault a journalist for painting the picture as he or she honestly sees it, considering all the facts. Essentially, this is the job of the journalist- to gather facts (though admittedly a biased process ) and present them to the public in a narrative, dots connected (Scheuer, 67). Ingrained opinions and unconscious biases can and should be found by the concerned reader in the subtext, recognized for what they are, and then processed along with the rest of the information. It is a moot point as to whether journalists can have their own opinions or not; they or anyone can hardly be separated from their beliefs. As Scheuer states, no journalist is an automaton.

This does not mean, however, that biographical information should be included with a journalist’s work; it should be understood that journalists are human and therefore have inherent beliefs and opinions. Jay Rosen may disagree, what with his laissez-faire approach to neutrality and all, but I believe in a fourth wall of journalism, allowing the reader to make of the information what he or she will (Rosen, “Neutrality”). In this way I intend to approach objectivity- not by riding the elephant in the room, but by allowing readers to address it as they see fit.

2.

Excellence in journalism is consistently getting it right and getting it all (Scheuer, 45). Such an achievement is only obtained through an independent press. It is not enough to get all the facts if the context is incomplete or skewed. It is not enough to have a major exposé one day if there is no diligent reporting of the mundane every other day. It is not enough to convey an interesting narrative if the narrative lacks the facts. These characteristics and more make up the elusive quality of excellence in journalism.

Influences should be kept to a minimum, if not purged entirely, so as to maintain objective third-partisanship. Trust is built on the perceived notions of independence and truth. The human mind, I believe, is keen to recognize sales pitches and opinions disguised as facts. Whether or not the reader agrees with the faux facts is irrelevant to his or her patronage, but true excellence cannot be achieved under such conditions. Independence is essential to honest reporting, as objectivity is greatly, unbearably strained in independence’s absence.

Public vigilance is an ambiguous term. Does it mean pursuing the perceived best interest of the public, regardless of how the public itself defines its best interests? Or does it mean close study of polls and public research to determine what the public feels its needs are, and then fighting for those declared needs? I say that public vigilance is looking for unseen ways the public may be endangered, either physically, politically, or economically. The public need not know exactly how it is being served by the press in order for that service to be meaningful. This is paradoxical, of course, because the public may cast off that which it does not feel it needs. This casting off of a vital limb seems to be happening with newspapers, including my hometown newspaper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The AJC does an excellent job of public vigilance. Every time I looked, I could find stories highlighting local crises, misuse of power, government negligence, and consumer reports. These stories were not given prevalence, and therein lies the problem. “Most popular stories” were linked to on the AJC Web site daily, including stories about breast implants, Jay-Z, and 50 pound tumors. Multimedia on the site was never devoted to hard news. By failing to provide enticing access and prevalence to important community stories, the AJC is failing in its public vigilance. It is not enough to write the stories- a vigilant newspaper will circulate the news to the best of its ability. In this lies excellence, an active pursuance of public vigilance to add to the aforementioned qualities.

3.

Journalistic truth differs from reality only in its level of complexity. While absolute truth is an incomprehensible ideal available in its entirety to God alone, journalistic truth attempts to portray reality as clearly as possible, often at the expense of some messy details, nuances, and depth of real life. Despite the chaos that plagues social relations at home and abroad, an amnesiac reading the paper would see a world more organized, understandable, and qualifiable than it actually is. In fact, journalistic truth varies entirely in different regions, cultures, religions, and races. Journalistic truth depends wholly on independence and context- it is not enough to show the stars but also the depth of space in which they are set (Scheuer, 46). Such a challenge is one foolhardily but necessarily undertaken by journalism. Only with a perceived notion of reality, organization, and contextual understanding can citizens hope to find meaningful participation in democracy. By dumbing down reality, it becomes accessible to those who live in it. Were it possible to describe and disseminate the minutiae that connects chaotic news events to the understanding of the masses, then, perhaps, would journalism be able to present absolute truth. This is not possible, however, so the adequate journalism of “Who? What? Where? When? and Why?” is of necessity adequate and accepted.

4.

The news industry is failing because of lack of foresight. As the retail, entertainment, and interpersonal communication industries moved their business models awkwardly but ultimately successfully onto the Internet, the news industry tried to weather what must have been perceived as a storm. With a void unfilled by professional journalists, the Internet adapted as only it can do, by providing the means for the everyman to take up the journalistic torch. A shoddy excuse for journalism, blogging was nonetheless embraced by reader and writer alike and now fills the web. Though traditional media institutions rushed to play catch up in the wake of Web 2.0, they are similar to the kid noticeably behind in school but trying to fake it nonetheless. In the meantime, readership and advertising dollars have already made Rosen’s migration to the new land of plenty, leaving newspapers and television in the past (Rosen, “Migration”).

Implications for future generations of journalists and readers include more writing talent devoted to novels, governments watched by no dog, and a strange new amalgam of journalism and professions like truck driver, lumberjack, and politician. In all seriousness, the future of journalism is being heavily debated by everyone in the industry, and it is an industry that seems to think of itself on a sinking ship. Yes, there are optimists like Dan Rather who see the future as being very similar to the past (Rather, “Future”). There are those such as Jay Rosen who see a future ruled by semi-professionals, freelancers in an open news market (Rosen, “Migration”). And then there are those pessimists who see the death of the press as imminent.

My own view is a mix of those perceptions. The press cannot die altogether, and the demise of some of its icons is not a sign of the journalistic Apocalypse. Some news organizations, like CNN, will adapt enough of their practices to seem modern, but will essentially practice the news using the business models of the past. I do see the evolution of the press taking place online, but it will have follow in the footsteps of Slate or The Huffington Post in terms of near-professionalism and journalistic integrity. Any journalism job I will have 10 or 15 years down the line will likely be work as a freelancer. Freelance journalism still has to answer to editors, still has to have a viable economic plan. Freelancers are also better able to utilize the developing tools of the trade, implement them in innovative ways, and ultimately profit from them. Bloggers are freelance journalists minus initiative, training, and resources. Add those qualities to a blogger and he or she can be as professional and beneficial to the Union as any New York Times reporter. News organizations can evolve how they choose or indeed die off; whichever fate awaits them, journalism and its role in society will live on, much to the relief of would-be professional journalists like myself.

5.

My personal code of conduct can be summed up in one word: depth. While it is necessary for a journalist to convey an understandable message, the extent to which news is dumbed down in the mainstream is excessive and degrades our society. I believe that in many cases news does need to be simplified, narrative, and accessible, and those cases are widely available to the public. What is not so available is in-depth reporting. Never does an issue have merely two sides, not in any political contest, not in any argument, not in any crisis. A reader would never know this by reading the morning paper. An abundance exists of journalists who report the surface; I want to report the surface and beyond. There is a strong likelihood that this will make my reporting liberal as hell, in which case, I accept that. There are too many stories over-reported with little actually being said; there are too many stories not covered at all. Perhaps journalists avoid depth as a precaution against error, lack of interest, or because they are told to do so. I do not intend to produce boring stories about which no one cares, I mean to make people care about stories that matter. Is there an unavoidable bias in such a desire? Almost certainly, but I believe that it should be done. Journalism should serve society as a whole. Not just the corporations, nor only the middle- and upper-classes, nor just the educated, nor any particular demographic should expect all the benefits of a free and vibrant press. While democracy is the voice of the majority, it is not to the detriment of the minority. I do not imply that I seek advocacy of the voiceless, merely fair representation, neither overbearing nor replacing the mainstream. Is this not why the First Amendment was created? To ensure power to the people? And why give power to people who already have power? Why raise the pulpit of those whose voices are already heard in abundance? I want to be a journalist so that I can report the untold stories and parts of stories. Depth is what I am for, and depth of honesty, fact, and context is how I intend to conduct my career as a journalist.

Works Cited

Rather, Dan. Forum. “The Future of Journalism.” New York University, New York, NY. 16 October 2008. <http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=281817-1>.

Rosen, Jay. “Getting the Politics of the Press Right: Walter Pincus Rips into Newsroom Neutrality.” PressThink. 14 March 2008. <http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2008/03/14/pincus_neutrality.html>.

---. “Migration Point for the Press Tribe.” PressThink. 26 June 2008. <http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2008/06/26/pdf.html>.

Scheuer, Jeffrey. The Big Picture. New York: Routledge, 2008.

Twitter: More Good than Harm in Mumbai

Scanning through Twitter tweets posted to the micro-blogging site during the Mumbai attacks, I can't help but see the benefits through the cloud of confusion and possible detriment. 

Were the reports unclear, figures exaggerated, and confusion spread? Yes, most certainly. Would the Mumbai authorities have been able to do a better job in the absence of Twitter? I think not. As more reports emerge from India, it is clear that the institutions there were entirely unprepared to deal with an attack. Don't blame Twitter for any inadequacies. 

As the attacks progressed, Twitter activity on the subject jumped sharply, but so did news reports and other traditional forms of communication. The only difference was that the accounts were less substantiated and unmediated. It's not as though everyone posting tweets to Twitter were eye-witnesses; most were passing on news already made public, discrediting claims that tweets may have aided the terrorists. What eyewitness accounts were provided were raw and mingled amongst faux-reports, but isn't that what eyewitness accounts have always been like?  

Some have commented that "#mumbai" Twitter became "an incoherent, rumour-fueled mob operating in a mad echo chamber of tweets, re-tweets, and re-re-tweets."

Reading the tweets from the time, I would agree. 

The Twitter "coverage" of the attack cannot be compared to that of a professional news source. Despite what the New York Times may think, I don't consider the coverage "citizen journalism," rather, citizens aiding journalism. All eyewitness accounts were at the time unsubstantiated, unconfirmed, and thus, unreliable. They did serve as a reference point from which news organizations could confirm and elaborate news points, and as such greatly benefited the reporting of the incident. 

I agree with the Times that the internet provided an excellent resource for those mourning the losses sustained, but that was the extent of the medium's unaided effort. What did come out of the Mumbai experience on Twitter was a outcry against international terrorism, a blast of support to those affected by the attacks, and a source for links to reputable stories about the incident. 

All said, the online experience of Mumbai further fuels the argument that the online community is nowhere close to prepared to replace professional journalism. Most of the substantial tweets on the subject were regurgitation of news stories. Those that were not could not be easily verified by readers. With ease of use and mobility, the online community was able to add richness of conversation to the story, but did little to affect the story or its coverage. 

Twitter was certainly a notable footnote in the coverage of Mumbai, but a footnote is still just a footnote. 

CNN: The New AP?

CNN is making a move to take their existing wire service national, bringing them into direct competition with other wire services, foremost including the Associated Press.

Hoping to alleviate financial strain for news organizations suffering from economic slowdown, loss of advertising revenue to the Internet, and declining circulations, CNN hopes to offer a competitive wire service at a lower cost than the AP or competitors like Bloomburg, others. CNN's wire service is currently available for CNN stations, some local TV affiliates, and a few newspapers.

While CNN isn't known for written content, its website cnn.com offers various written news stories. What would be of particular use to newspapers would be shorter international stories that CNN could provide with their 3,000 journalists in over 100 countries.

By stepping onto AP's territory, CNN is making a bold statement about their ambitions in the media industry. A CNN empire that reaches into the newspaper industry would greatly increase their influence. Moreover, by advertising an in-house wire service that will cost them millions in additional capital, CNN is flaunting a revenue stream much more substantial than competitors and contemporaries in the news industry. CNN is satisfied with their blurring of the lines between TV and Internet news, now they move onto blurring the lines between TV and print news.

Perhaps the news industry is not moving from one medium into another, perhaps the new media industry will be an almost omnipresent type of reporting done by multi-media companies. If TV networks and newspapers are both moving into the Internet, both featuring video on the Web, and both facing economic downturn, why not combine all the types of media into one, large, comprehensive "Mediasaurus."

I won't say that CNN will have it easy with its new business venture, but I do believe that the tenacious spirit of Ted Turner lives on. This battle is CNN's to lose.

Change! (your target audience)

It has been suggested that certain industries have had to adapt their focus in order to survive.

Bicycles, once thought of as a viable means of transportation for the masses, were eventually redefined to be recreational and exercise equipment with the proliferation of the automobile. Fountain pens, once the only pen available, had to be redefined as a luxurious symbol of affluence in order to remain profitable.

It seems that the newspaper industry is taking a clue from the fountain pen and painting itself, at least in some cases, as a tool for the rich.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has just started a magazine, "I," to be distributed in the newspapers circulation in affluent zip codes. With glossy pages and features including topics geared toward wealthy readers.

I see this as a move to guarantee the patronage of wealthy readers, presenting "richly" targeted articles on a "wealth" of topics exclusive to the magazine. The Philly Inquirer is taking a step already made by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

To move from a commonplace source of news to a luxury afforded the elite could provide a new business model to the ailing industry, though the already inherent problems with newspapers would carry over. By altering their content to more in-depth, comprehensive news instead of breaking news, however, emulating a news magazine, would probably be a better move. Breaking news is now a product of the Internet and 24-hour news stations. In this way, a magazine published by a newspaper is a good idea; catering to the rich may provide a safety cushion for a few thousand readers, but such a move is not the silver bullet.

Bailout for Journalists

Six Apart, an online media company in the business of aiding bloggers, has offered up what it calls "The TypePad Journalist Bailout Program" or "TypePad for Journalists."

The creators are offering what they see as a tool for journalists to bypass traditional media outlets and report the news on their own, independently. TypePad is a blogging software that Six Apart is offering as part of a membership that includes education on blogging and promotion on sites such as blogs.com.

The move, as explained by Six Apart, is part philanthropic and part entrepreneurial, trying to address the problems and concerns of journalists as they deal with the evolution of journalism. Six Apart wants to help journalists "take control of their own presence online." I read this as "become their own one-man (or woman) newspaper."

This makes sense! A large newspaper is less feasibly run on ad revenue than a single blogger would be. A blogger-journalist could have the resources necessary to pursue and report the news; some bloggers make several hundred thousand dollars a year in ad revenue for their blogs. A wise newspaper could ditch the newsroom altogether, employing a coalition of blogger-journalists with the same standards of a newspaper without the rigid demands of running a paper.

The moral of the story? Just because you don't work for a newspaper doesn't mean you can't be a journalist. The industry may evolve beyond all recognition, but the trade will live on.

Dan Rather 2.0

Bloggers killed Dan Rather's career, right?

Wrong.

Dan Rather's career is alive and well, thanks to a rich entrepreneur, a premium cable channel, and his own ingenuity and skill.

Enter HDNet, a premium channel available to select cable and satellite TV subscribers. HDNet features HD movies, television shows, sports programs, and Dan Rather.

Dan Rather Reports is an investigative news program that is a self-proclaimed watchdog on domestic and international issues. Dan Rather has said that he has tremendous leeway in deciding which stories to cover and what issues to emphasize. Rather's program is, as he says, "making a lot of money for the new network," and shows that journalism is still a viable trade. Moreover, the owner of HDNet, Mark Cuban, has expressed a lack of concern over whether or not Dan Rather Reports makes money for the network. Rather says that the news industry needs monetary support from businessmen and investors who care more about the essence of journalism than they do about making tons of money. In this way, privately owned news organizations, such as the New York Times, have a leg up on publicly traded news sources.

While the old dog isn't necessarily learning new tricks, I definitely applaud Rather's ability to stay viable and vibrant in an evolving industry. This contrasts quite a bit with Katie Couric's comments about how, no matter how well or poorly she reports, her viewership will decline in numbers. I think that Rather seems willing to buck the system and fight for what he believes in, and, in doing so, provides an excellent example for the budding future generation of journalists. Couple this with Rather's tenacious lawsuit against CBS, and I see a Dan Rather who refuses to bow to scary new technology, partisan media, or old age.

Thank you Dan Rather for your example.

Rather, Rosen, AP, and NYT Sound Off on Journalism's Fate

The fate of journalism is being endlessly debated by those who have a stake in its future (read: our class).

Most of the voices are just noise, and industry "experts" seem hard to come by, but NYU has rounded up a rather respectable panel: Dan Rather, Jay Rosen, Tom Curley of the AP, Jill Abramson of the New York Times.

What do they have to say? Pretty much the same thing as the rest of us idiots: the industry will change, reporters have to change with it, and sacrifices will have to be made.

I'll try and sum up the best points made by these unusually distinguished talking heads, as some of the perspectives were insightful.

Dan Rather called himself an optimist, explaining that he doesn't see the newspaper dying anytime soon. Being as old as dirt, he recalled a few other times in history when doom and gloom was prophesied for the newspaper industry, including when radio and television gained relevancy. Rather compared the media industry not to a pie whose pieces are being increasingly gobbled up by online media, but rather a pie that is growing. Many readers, Rathers said, come from demographics that weren't reading the news at all 10 or 15 years ago. Rather thinks that older people will always read newspapers, whether it is 2009 or 2020. Rather is himself blazing new territory as a journalist, anchoring HDNet news, a privately financed on-demand news program. Check back in the future for a blog on Rahter's new baby.

Jay Rosen expressed the same loathing that he always seems to direct at what he sees as the dying old media. He too made a new analogy (at least, one I'd never heard before) to describe the changing landscape of the media. Rosen talked of a forced migration taking place, where traditional journalists are moving from the traditional lands of scarce resources, crossing the "digital divide," where they're finding a land already inhabited by amateur journalists. They'll have to adapt or leave. Rosen, however, is optimistic about journalism as a trade; he points to past evolutions in the industry requiring new business models for journalists. The new media, according to Rosen, just has to come up with a new business model; once they do that, it's back to business as usual.

Mr. Curley and Ms. Abramson spoke mainly about how their organizations are making the journey across Rosen's "digital divide." For the most part, it's a bumpy transition, but the two organizations feel that they are doing well. The AP is moving into more digital content on the web, and the NY Times is augmenting their online content with more multi-media and in-depth reporting.

I think it's nice to see some major movers and shakers in the industry talking about journalism's future, but as circulations and revenue continue to drop, words alone aren't enough.

Hopefully executives and directors will listen to their input and do something, anything, to bolster the industry and ensure its necessary survival.

I highly recommend watching this panel discussion and letting me know what you think.