I hear that question all the time. I hear it mainly because my
friends and relatives know I spent
almost 30 years of my life in the news business--first as a general assignment reporter,
then as a foreign correspondent, then as an editor.
Later I became a professor of journalism and dean of a
journalism program at a major university where I spent a lot of time researching
the media.
So I know the news business inside and out. I have worked in
it, I have studied it and now, like a lot of other people, I wonder about its usefulness
and value.
Several factors have combined to alter the media landscape
from the one I entered right out of college in 1970 or so.
Some argue that new technologies have had a deleterious impact
on the media. There is no doubt that the old business models that once worked
for newspapers, television and radio have changed. Advertising revenues have
plummeted and news organizations find themselves scrambling to stay financially
afloat.
Add to that the fact that the Internet, the blogosphere, and
social media have all united to create a new world of pseudo-journalists who
are not held to the same standards of excellence that we
"professionals" once were and the picture looks bleak.
Sadly, today's "professionals" often are not being
held to that higher standard either. Witness the recent fallout over the
Rolling Stone story on the bogus gang rape at the University of Virginia that
is being walked back because not a single detail could be corroborated.
Or the kind of "personal" and
"participatory" journalism that would have gotten me run out of the Chicago Tribune's newsroom back in the
early 1970s. I can almost hear my old city editor yelling:
"You can't write this kind of opinionated crap
here!"
Yet, "opinionated crap" is often what we read in
newspapers today or see on TV news programs.
I can recall discussions we used to have in news meetings
about how to involve our readers more in the news gathering process--a noble
idea, up to a point.
Today, those discussions have become reality because of The
Internet, bloggers, social media, etc. The media are more interactive than ever.
That's not always a bad thing, but it becomes toxic when news organizations
confuse "crowdsourcing" with old fashioned news gathering.
Now we are bombarded with stupid, unscientific
"polls" and inane commentary from readers and viewers. No wonder glib
MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber says the American electorate is "stupid."
It is difficult not to come to that conclusion when you read or listen to some
of these comments.
News organizations need to be more than simple aggregators
of information. They need to provide knowledgeable, unbiased context for an informed
citizenry. Unfortunately, there is little impartial context and even fewer
citizens who are adequately informed.
News is often nothing more than "infotainment." It
is a prejudicial mix of imprecise information and imprudent stories geared to
titillate, rather than inform.
I used to tell my students we needed more of what I call "spinach
journalism?" What is spinach journalism? you ask.
It is journalism intended to inform and educate. In essence
we are telling news consumers: "Here,
read this, watch this, listen to this, it's GOOD FOR YOU!"
Newspapers especially were once the mirrors for the
communities they served. They reflected the people and events, the good and the
bad of their communities. Granted, the mirrors were not always free of
distortion, but at least there were tough professional editors and producers
who cracked the whip and kept reporters focused on facts rather than the
fiction and opinion we too often see today.
Sadly, I fear there are far too few of those tough and
demanding newsroom mentors around today and too many reporters who think the
news is theirs to manipulate and mold to fit their worldview or political
ideologies.
Along those lines, I am amazed at how far many journalists seem
willing to go to protect a Washington administration that has been the most opaque,
intrusive and hostile to press freedom than any in recent history.
It makes me wonder what happened to the traditional role of
the press? That role is to act as the de-facto "fourth estate" of government.
Journalists, I was always told, were to be the watchdogs of government, not its
lapdogs.
As someone once said, journalists should "comfort the afflicted and afflict the
comfortable."
That is happening less and less today. It is much easier to
write stories that reflect one's own values than to get out of one's comfort
zone and enter unfamiliar and even disagreeable territory in the search for
truth.
Veracity is seldom found within the confines of our own narrow
opinions. All we will find there is further reinforcement for what we already
hold to be true.
So when people ask me what is happening to America's news
media--once the strongest and freest in the world--I have only one answer:
"Where's the spinach?"
No comments:
Post a Comment