PressThink: "Things I Used to Teach That I No Longer Believe" Was the Title of the Panel...

"Things I Used to Teach That I No Longer Believe" Was the Title of the Panel...

...at the journalism professors' annual convention. "To learn, when you are ready to pass the torch, that some of the best and the brightest don't want your torch, because they think it went out a while ago, counts as a sad day for J-schoolers of a certain generation."

San Antonio, TX: Back in October I accepted an invitation from David T. Z. Mindich, who runs a journalism historians’ list-serve, to be part of a panel at the AEJMC convention, an annual event for journalism teachers. The panel had a clever title, “Things I used to teach that I no longer believe,” which had a curious affect on me and three other panelists. The result was that we each spoke openly of our disillusionment.

First up was Carl Sessions Stepp, a contributing writer to American Journalism review, a former national correspondent and editor for the Charlotte Observer and USA Today, and a professor at the University of Maryland’s J-School. He said that most of what he believed when he began teaching in 1983 he still believed, with one big exception.

Then he would have said that nearly all journalists employed in the field were people “on a mission.” They saw their work as a noble public service, and shared a sense of duty that helped them define what the service was amid a hectic news environment. Students quickly picked up on this creed, and newsoom culture supported it.

That was then. Now, he said, the sense of mission is not the same. He didn’t say it was gone; plenty of journalists still heard the call. And young people still showed up in his classes ready to believe. But changes in the news business and “workplace culture” have turned the mission into a fairy tale much of the time. There is no universal sense of calling any more, Stepp declared. Journalism as a whole isn’t “on a mission,” but journalists as individuals still can be. Stepp said that is where he placed his hopes.

Next was Dianne Lynch, dean of the School of Communications at Ithaca College, a journalist, and former executive director of the Online News Association. She told us a startling story about an exceptional student who gave up a four-year scholarship worth over $200,000, including tuition, room and board, even travel money. The student came to the dean’s office to let Lynch know that she was quitting journalism and switching to sociology. “I decided that I just can’t be in such a terrible profession,” the student said, adding that it did not seem to her a field where a young person could “make a difference.”

There was a slight gasp in the room at that. This was because the phrase used, “make a difference,” though tedious and vague, was once the very thing that identified to journalists their own idealism. You didn’t do it for the money, and it wasn’t the wonderful working conditions, or a chance for advancement. For a certain generation (whose mortality was lurking about the panel, way under the laughs) journalism, at its best, was all about “making a difference.” Speaking truth to power, and all that implies.

But for one of Ithaca College’s best students this was a joke. Lynch to crowd: “she gave up a $200,000 scholarship just to get out of journalism.” We let that sink in. To learn, when you are ready to pass the torch, that some of the best and the brightest don’t want your torch, because they think it went out a while ago, counts as a sad day for J-schoolers of a certain generation.

Lynch thought the 24-hour news cycle had trivialized everything; the constant updates demanded by the Web were part of it, she said. For me the story was about her own reaction. “Well, I think you are making a mistake,” the dean in her said, “but I accept your decision and wish you the best.” Could she honestly say—here in San Antonio—that it was a mistake? Lynch sat down with that question hanging.

Then there were the hilarious stories ruefully told by Maurine Beasley, who also teaches at Maryland. (The first woman to gain tenure there.) She’s a past president of the AEJMC, a former Washington Post and Kansas City Star reporter, and a book author. Beasley to pleading student: “It seems me that you’re simply looking for three cheap summer credits, for which you intend to do almost no work.” “That’s it exactly,” student says, “Professor Beasley, you understand!”

Each of her tales showed how a vast gulf was starting to open up between her and many of the students she saw in her classes at Maryland. In some cases, mutual incomprehension had set in. Beasley teaches a course that is featured at other J-schools, “Women in the Media.” It’s basically about what happened when second wave feminism met the American newsroom and media power structure.

Opening up the workplace to women professionals was a key demand for Beasley’s generation; and she has chronicled the fate of that demand in her written work. But now the problems for women were elsewhere, the opening up was considered ancient history, and the J-School students (who are overwhelmingly female these days) were not so much third wave as no-wave feminists.

On my own list of “things I used to teach that I no longer believe,” I had:

When I started I would commonly say to students, “it’s not the content, it’s the form.” (Or: the medium is the message!) I thought this was very wise. Then I learned that content is king, sort of an opposite lesson, and it seemed wise for its time too. Now I don’t see either statement as useful or wise. To figure out when content is king you don’t need slogans like “content is king.” They hurt more than they help.

I used to teach it implicitly: journalism is a profession. Now I think it’s a practice, in which pros and amateurs both participate. There were good things about the professional model, and we should retain them. But it’s the strength of the social practice that counts, not the health of any so-called profession. That is what J-schools should teach and stand for, I believe. I don’t care if they’re called professional schools. They should equip the American people to practice journalism by teaching the students who show up, and others out there who may want help.

I used to teach that the ethics of journalism, American-style, could be found in the codes, practices and rule-governed behavior that our press lived by. Now I think you have to start further back, with beliefs way more fundamental than: “avoid conflicts of interest in reporting the news.” If you teach journalism ethics too near the surface of the practice, you end up with superficial journalists.

The ethics of journalism begin with propositions like: the world is basically intelligible if we have accurate reports about it; public opinion exists and ought to be listened to; through the observation of events we can grasp patterns and causes underneath them; the circle of people who know how things work should be enlarged; there is something called “the public record” and news adds itself meaningfully to it; more information is good for it leads to greater awareness, which is also good; stories about strangers have morals and we need to hear them, and so on. These are the ethics I would teach first. And I would teach the ideas that these ideas overcame. For example: Politics as the king’s mystery—“le secret du roi,” the French called it—is an idea that journalism stands against, and helped to overcome. (See Robert Darnton on it.)

For many years I taught in my criticism classes that pointing out bias in the news media was an important, interesting, and even subversive activity. At the very least an intellectual challenge. Now it is virtually meaningless. Media bias is a proxy in countless political fights and the culture war. It’s effectiveness as a corrective is virtually zero.

Alas, I used to teach that the world needs more critics; but it was an unexamined thing. Today I would say that the world has a limited tolerance for critics, and while it always needs more do-ers, it does not always need more chroniclers, pundits, or pencil-heads.

In courses on the press and the political system I used to tell students that the White House and the press corps struggled and even warred at times, but also needed each other. That’s not accurate any more.

I never taught this explicitly, I said, but I am certain I believed it: reality always bites back, and there are limits to how fungible the facts are. This is one reason the press cannot be overridden. I couldn’t say that today. The scary thing is, I don’t necessarily know what to teach instead.

What Carl Sessions Stepp and Dianne Lynch and Maurine Beasley talked about in San Antonio was discussed in two earlier PressThink posts, plus the comment threads after. First is my Deep Throat, J-School and Newsroom Religion. (June 5, 2004)

Investigative reporting, exposing public corruption, and carrying the mantle of the downtrodden [are taught] not as political acts in themselves—-which they are—-and not as a continuation of the progressive movement of the 1920s, in which the cleansing light of publicity was a weapon of reform—-which they are—-but just as a way of being idealistic, a non-political truthteller in the job of journalist. (Which is bunk.)

In reply came Orville Schell’s “We Have Been Bull-Dozed Aside,” (July 21) in which the Dean of the School of Journalism at Berkeley wrote:

What I worry about is not so much that the next generation of journalists will be swayed by or sell out to press mythology, but that they will end up so bereft of good models and so despondent about the state of their profession that they may lose all hope and idealism. Then what? After all, if you are going to be a journalist, repayment must come in some other currency than dollars. One of those alternative currencies journalism trades in is “able to make a difference.”

What I have lately been trying to say to my colleagues in J-school is clearer to me now, after the panel in San Antonio. Here is what I believe. The official religion has run out of gas. The tribes that are out there chasing Pulitzers and Duponts (plus market share, advertisers and ratings) do not know what to believe about themselves, their future, or their present value in the world. As I wrote in June:

When the New York Times had to decide recently what goods to charge for at www.nytimes.com, did it choose good old fashioned shoe leather reporting? No. It chose the columnists. The religion we teach them in journalism school cannot account for this.

Similarly, “making a difference” was never a good enough standard for teaching or doing journalism. It was a lazy idea, the press putting one over on itself. For the liberal journalists and professors who were the believers in make-a-difference journalism were babied by their profession, and their J-school training, which allowed them to believe in agenda-less journalism at the same time.

And in fact, they wanted the innocence (we do just the facts journalism) and the power (we do make a difference journalism) but this could never be. We in the J-schools failed to catch that. The people on a mission never got around to justifying their mission in the language of democratic politics. They talked about it as a neutral public service instead, but speaking truth to power isn’t neutral, and making a difference isn’t just a service to others. We in the J-schools didn’t do well with that, either.

Later the language of politics took its revenge, and overwhelmed “mission” talk, which had failed to impress the public, as well, because it was increasingly non-descriptive. Natalee Holloway mocks the mission night to night. Culture war mocks the mission left to right. And in the mutually incomprehensible classroom encounter the mission is clearly expiring. It seems to me we’re better off knowing that. How does it seem to you?

After Matter: Notes, reactions and links…

These notes are for Mark Hamilton (of Mark on Media) who couldn’t be there but wanted to be.

DON‘T SHOW ME THE LOVE… The Anchoress responds to this and other posts she sees as related. “It is the fault of the journalists who have lost control of their own objectivity.” She explains:

If journalism wants to redeem itself, regain some credibility and attract bright, energetic writers, perhaps it needs to rein in its passions a bit, stop continually writing from a place of hate or love and begin to re-embrace objectivity. Or… at least a move to moderation. Can the press still, consciously, force itself to be moderately—rather than stridently—biased? I think that should be do-able. And yes…a thing is always doable if you want it badly enough.

There’s more in her Coupla interesting pieces on Journalism. See also this interview, On the Couch With The Anchoress.

PressThink’s odometer rolled over to a million visits last week, according to Sitemeter. That’s since September, ‘03.

David Wineberger interprets this post:

I want to head off what I think is an unwarranted conclusion based on Jay’s statement that if you put together enough accurate reports, the world is intelligible. The wrong conclusion (not Jay’s) would be that we all come to the same intelligible world. Nope. The PoMos are right: Narratives don’t get built out of facts. Narratives tell us which facts matter. Within a narrative, it’s important that journalistic reports be accurate. But accuracy is not enough to bring about intelligibility or to tear down an existing intelligibility.

As Glenn Reynolds might say: Yep.

Bill Quick at Daily Pundit:

Journalists go to work and do their jobs to earn a paycheck and provide the necessities for themselves and their families. The notion that their job is something intrinsically greater than that is, well, silly. If you don’t think so, ask all the journalists in the US to work for nothing more than the chance to “make a difference,” and see how many you have showing up in the newsroom the next day.
Of course, there will still be many, many journalists who are willing to do exactly that. We call them the Blogosphere. And that is the New Thing that is shattering the clay foundations of the journalism myth.

Steve Lovelady of CJR Daily in comments:

This statement leaves me clueless: “And in fact, they wanted the innocence (we do just the facts journalism) and the power (we do make a difference journalism) but this could never be.” — JR. Where along the way did the facts lose their power to make a difference? See my reply here.

The scary thing is, I don’t necessarily know what to teach instead. Mark Hamilton comments:

I read some despair in that last sentence. And the fact that Jay doesn’t necessarily know what to teach instead makes me feel like retreating to my bed and pulling the covers over my head… I want to fire as many students as possible with a passion for journalism: I want to produce newspeople who are as engaged with the world around them as they are with their craft.
And we can’t do that (or at least I can’t do that) without a grasp of what journalism should be, what of its past is worth keeping and which of its understood principles are no longer valid. It’s no longer enough to repeat old words by rote.

Susan Mernit comments on this post: “Maybe this is the moment that a new journalism can find its way, one driven as much by search results and link laws as by craft. Maybe craft is something more of us can learn to own. Maybe we need to admit the world is pressing re-start and that’s going to be okay.”

OmbudsGod comments:

With all these journalists “on a mission” and “making a difference,” is it any wonder why there is so much bias in the press? Notice that no one talked about fairly and accurately reporting what they see, they would much rather change the outcome. I hope you take a second to stop and let this huge admission sink in. Journalists don’t go into the profession to impartially report what they see, they go into it to steer where society goes.

Mark Tapscott of the Heritage Foundation thinks Rosen has let the cat out of the bag.

Journalism teacher Andrew Cline: “Yesterday, I put the finishing touches (almost) on my syllabi. Jay Rosen’s discussion of journalism education sends me back for another look at them this morning…” Read the rest, and Cline’s earlier post about the AEJMC:

Modern journalism and journalism education just isn’t set up to connect with communities. It’s set up to shoot for the big enchiladas in Washington D.C. or New York…

This is me, in the comments:

Odd: 155 comments, many of them reacting to what I wrote about “making a difference,” but not a single mention of another of my lessons: how I used to believe that reality always bites back, and there are limits to how fungible the facts are. No more.
The Administration of George W. Bush, with its retreat from empiricism, its doctrine of infallability, its hostility to science, its attack on the press, its manipulation and intimidation of intelligence, its philosophy of “we make reality” and the amazing innovation of the Bush bubble (which protects the president from the American people) have forced me to doubt that. Reality can be put to one side, as with the case for war, or global warming, and there are no limits to how fungible the facts are.

These are political innovations for which Bush does not get enough credit. Each one of them goes well beyond what previous presidents—who may have longed for the same freedom from fact—thought they could get away with.

Read the rest.

From a 2002 essay of mine in the Chronicle of Higher Education, “Taking Bollinger’s Course on the American Press.” (Before I started blogging or knew about it.)

Think of All the President’s Men and its success in casting journalists as heroes of Watergate, which of course recasts Watergate. Think about polls and the way journalists have helped write them into politics. Bollinger sees how the common practices of journalism—which include common lapses—shape the contours of the public arena and make the world what it is….
What’s different about stepping into Bollinger’s world is that, in it, the press not only observes and reports freely, it acts upon us with its freedom. It’s an institution with a brain, of sorts. It has ideas and priorities—not just information—that it wants to get out into the world. It is always forming, as well as informing, the public, framing debate as it relays the news. It can be reckless and brainless, and must be watched.

Related: See PressThink, Journalism Is Itself a Religion. “The newsroom is a nest of believers if we include believers in journalism itself. There is a religion of the press. There is also a priesthood. And there can be a crisis of faith.”

Posted by Jay Rosen at August 14, 2005 1:27 PM Print

In my last year as a news director, I hired a young woman with a journalism degree for an entry-level job. A few months into the job, she got into a public fight with the Assignment Editor and -- in the middle of the newsroom -- stood up and said, "F-ck you" to the guy. This, of course, was something I could not tolerate, so I disciplined her.

A little later came performance evaluations, and I gave her a bad review. The next day, I got a phone call from a different state. It was her mother -- yes, her MOTHER -- complaining that I had given her daughter low marks.

"She's really such a sweet girl, and she tries so hard."

This episode in my career was one of the reasons I got out of the business. The "make a difference" crowd had been replaced by one with a sense of entitlement and lust for celebrity, and the business of news had become business 101.

A journalism degree has become an MBA with perfect hair, a self-centered "job" instead of a community-centric vocation, and it's terribly sad. And the thing most of us refuse to see is that our viewers and readers know it.

We need to teach people more about life than how-tos and ethics, and we need to include the art of argument as one of the fundamentals of making a difference with a camera or a pen.

Posted by: Terry Heaton at August 14, 2005 3:55 PM | Permalink

Another thoughtful post, Jay, especially as I make plans for my own journalism class in a couple of weeks. The list of things I'm no longer sure I believe has gotten so long that it might be easier to try to list what I still do believe.

But I think the biggest thing I no longer believe is the notion that journalists somehow serve as proxies for the public: that we sit through tedious city council meetings, fill out baseball box scores and wade through piles of police reports to winnow out all but the most interesting and pertinent items, which we then fashion into brief, readable and reliable news stories. Then, occasionally, with luck and diligence, we stumble across a story that people don't even know they want to read until we show it to them.

That notion of journalism seems to be just about gone. People who really care about an issue can go to source materials: agendas, official reports, websites, expanded cable game coverage. People who don't really care won't take the trouble to read a digested version just so they can feel like informed citizens.

That change is neutralizing some of the industry's oldest bromides:

1. Keep it local. But an amazing number of people no longer much care what's going on in "their" town. Their lives rotate from Wal-Mart to fast food to cable TV. A community is just a place to collect a paycheck.

2. Follow the money. Hell, we can't even get 20 percent turnout for million-dollar mill levies.

3. Just report the facts, and people can make up their own minds. But argument precedes, and all but precludes, the facts. Partisans aren't looking for truth; they're looking for ammunition.

Maybe I'll just try to teach them to write punchy ledes and forget the rest of it.

Posted by: David Crisp at August 14, 2005 4:26 PM | Permalink

I've never been a journalism professor, and to this day I have no desire to become one, because, despite various entreaties, I always figured that after about 10 one-hour lectures, I would have exhausted whatever wisdom I have to share after 40 years practising the craft.
Which is, basically, "Try to cut through the bullshit and get to the bottom of things."
That's what it's about, and that's all it's about. Which, as I have noted before, is a premise that utterly destroys the traditional notion of objectivity, which presumed that "he said/she said" journalism was the alpha and the omega of the trade.
In fact, "he said/she said" is a cop-out. But that's not a new insight. I intuitively knew that along about year two of the 40 years, and I have preached that ever since.
Still ... this statement leaves me clueless: "And in fact, they wanted the innocence (we do just the facts journalism) and the power (we do make a difference journalism) but this could never be." -- JR
Where along the way did the facts lose their power to make a difference ?

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at August 14, 2005 9:04 PM | Permalink

'News is what someone wants to suppress. Everything else is advertising'
~Rubin Frank; former president NBC News

Like the million other readers, I know that at the Press Think rocks not only boats of propaganda, but also mainstream rivers. May many, many, more millions discover the leaves of this spring ...

BTW, Phillip Knightley tells a story about his former editor, Harold Evans. Every generation needs more investigative journalists and less copy cat reporters... According to the article, the role of journalism is to 'defend people without power from those who wielded it unfairly, expose corruption, make a difference to the lives of ordinary citizens' Restoring citizen's respect for journalism: we are not without power

Posted by: Jozef at August 14, 2005 9:58 PM | Permalink

Sorry to rattle on, but I forgot to mention one thing I do tell students at least twice each semester that I think I still believe: Much of the instruction in journalism class is aimed at teaching a method and style of journalism that almost everyone agrees is conceptually obsolete and in need of a serious overhaul. Part of the students' mission, if they ever do become working journalists, is to figure out how to do that.

Posted by: David Crisp at August 15, 2005 12:27 AM | Permalink

Lynch's student switched from journalism to sociology because she wanted to "make a difference". I'd guess many social change seekers remain in journalism because they believe it's a greater vehicle to achieve that desire than some other professions.

But suppose readers and viewers don't desire the same social changes these journalists want?

Posted by: Trained Auditor at August 15, 2005 10:03 AM | Permalink

Still ... this statement leaves me clueless: "And in fact, they wanted the innocence (we do just the facts journalism) and the power (we do make a difference journalism) but this could never be." -- JR
Where along the way did the facts lose their power to make a difference?

Facts -- as objective occurrences or observations -- do not make a difference. It is their interpretation and application that has the greater impact on society, and thus the story.

For example: some months ago a Canadian MP recorded several conversations he had with the national health minister as well as the chief of staff for the Prime Minister. The conversation, according to the MP, involved possible postings in exchange for his supporting a budget bill. The MP later posted an edited version of those conversations on his website.

The stark facts are that the conversations took place, and that they were recorded. However, the fact that they were edited means the actual content of the recordings is in dispute. It is the interpretation of those conversations -- whether or not the minister was offering something in exchange for political support -- that becomes the news story, the one the reporters want to write about.

Another example: some insulation fell off the fuel tank of the space shuttle Discovery during launch. The application of that is the grounding of the Shuttle fleet as a result. The application becomes the bigger news story, because people interpreted the fact and applied the interpretation with more widespread implications.

The trick in J-school, I should think, is to be able to teach the budding reporter the difference between a fact, the fact's interpretation and then the application. If they can recognize the process, it goes a long way towards establishing the balanced narrative required for good journalism.

Posted by: PhantomObserver at August 15, 2005 11:29 AM | Permalink

Having a crisis of faith, David Crisp?

Those ol' readers aren't paying sufficient attention? Don't want to read the bad news, the difficult news? Sounds like a good reason to give up journalism and go into PR.

One of the journalist's main jobs - one I haven't given up on yet - is to tell folks things they don't want to know.

Who the hell wants to know about corruption in the legislature, genocide in (pick a part of the globe) or the general failure of the political and social culture to live up to expectations. Journalism, at its best, records the facts of Pogo's Theorem: We have met the enemy and they are us.

That is the job: To stand in for the rest of us at the courthouse, the state house and the streets, to be a witness and post the facts for all to see. If folks choose to ignore it, and they will, it's still there, every day on deadline. And there will be those who notice.

Otherwise, we get the fragementation and trivialization of the news we see today, the devolution into tinier segments of affinity groups and self-congratulatory critics. I agree with Jay. We need more doers and fewer pundits.

Posted by: Dave McLemore at August 15, 2005 11:29 AM | Permalink

Jay says, "There were good things about the professional model, and we should retain them. But it’s the strength of the social practice that counts, not the health of any so-called profession."

And Terry Heaton notes that "A journalism degree has become an MBA with perfect hair, a self-centered "job" instead of a community-centric vocation, and it's terribly sad. And the thing most of us refuse to see is that our viewers and readers know it."

I agree and here is what I find in my teaching.

I teach at an open admissions college that is being "gentrified" by rising tuition and vanishing loans and grants for higher education, but we still have a pretty diverse student body. We have many kids from the middle and lower classes in terms of family income. These students don't always have the perfect level of academic or social skills of the rich, but they are hungry to be journalists and will work for nothing at internships to try and get their foot in the door of a newsroom.

A colleague from Medill recently told me he envies me my students because they haven't "grown up with a sense of entitlement." He said where my students were willing, even eager to meet real journalists and go to news-related events, his students couldn't be bothered.

Professional journalism today is dominated by the interests of the corporate if not the rich. Look at what is covered, how stories are framed, who reporters interview, the faces we see in print or on the screen.There are folks of color and various genders, but as far as economic class, the stories are told from the perspective of the rich and powerful.

Dominated discourse is a form of bias that occurs when the social position of the actors in any situation determines the truth and weight of their arguments, not the facts of the matter.

Notice that the majority of the stories about Cindy Sheehan include quotes from Pres. Bush, but don't include even a single quote from Sheehan. The press's deference to the President based on his status automatically skews the story. Instead of a story about opposing claims to truth which could be evaluated with good reporting, it becomes the story about how a powerful man is bothered by a nobody who apparently can't even speak for herself.

As economic diversity disappears from our country in the face of an increasing divide between rich and poor, the number of folks who can find news they can use from professional journalism outlets is shrinking.

Media can ignore large segments of the population in its reporting, but it can't make them read/listen/tune in to it.

I try and teach my students the practice of journalism and alert them to problems in the profession these days.

Posted by: Barbara K. Iverson at August 15, 2005 1:36 PM | Permalink

Jay writes:

I’m not sure how convinced I am of that: I think media criticism can be an easy way to get the public involved in politics. If the general public learns to recognize bias in media, they begin to become conscious of the ubiquitous attempts to control what they think. Paying attention to the differences in how our newspapers and television stations try to communicate with us is a logical first step in media consciousness.

Posted by: Ryan Sholin at August 15, 2005 1:55 PM | Permalink

Jay, it was that very logic, that journalism is not a profession, that Lee Bollinger used when he eliminated the J-School at UMich, and when he tried to do the same at Columbia. His argument was, what business is it of the academy to be teaching a "craft?" What other craft has its own dept at major universities?

If journalism is something everyone can do, then what exactly are journalism departments teaching the few (as opposed to the many in the whole student body) who are in journalism?

If it's about ethics, then why isn't part of a philosophy department? If it's about rhetoric, then maybe it should be part of the English department? If it's about some commitment to a higher calling, then how about the divinity school?

I don't mean to be flip, but my point is that journalism is in trouble, both as a profession and a craft. I think journalism was never really a profession, and now as it is under greater scrutiny, that is revealed. And so there are two ways to go: work to become a profession, or relinquish the idea of profession.

Both come with benefits and consequences. I'm still trying to think of which is a better choice.

Posted by: JennyD at August 15, 2005 2:41 PM | Permalink

Man, Jay, do I need to get out of the Deep South.

Teaching journalism is not even an issue at colleges of communications in these climes.

All the students are into PR. And the deans who give promotions and tenure want research, not teaching anyway. Maybe there are professional journalism schools out there somewhere, but not around here.

As for the professional argument, I have revised my thinking of late. Journalism has turned into a profession, a 9 to 5 job. It is no longer a calling or a craft, because the corporations which own the presses require safe little professionals who can, among other things, pass a spelling test, a drug test and a psychological test to get hired. The best journalists I have ever known were way too crazy to get hired today by the Newhouses of the world.

Then take the public editor's column in the Sunday New York Times. They are so obsessed with free-lancers meeting the ethical guidelines imposed on staffers that they are losing the good will of the best free-lancers in the country, myself included. Even good corporations understand the concept of goodwill.

When the business editor of the Times e-mailed me the pdf file of the guidelines, it was so fat I could not even open it on my Macintosh computer. Luckily, I also own a PC. When I read the guidelines, most of the document is not about ethics anyway. It is a gigantic tome to the corporate control guidelines to protect the New York Times Company, not a guide to practicing ethical journalism.

The best way to practice journalism that makes a difference today is to publish your own Web site (or blog) and kick some ass. Screw the corporate professionals. They will be obsolete soon enough.

If you find a student with some real talent who wants to make a difference, send them over to me. Maybe I can put them to work. I've been kicking ass and taking names for years, which hasn't done my long-term professional career prospects that much good.

But you know what A. J. Liebling said in 1960.

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."

Posted by: GW at August 15, 2005 2:45 PM | Permalink

I'm not sure where Barbara K. Iverson is getting her information about Cindy Sheehan, but it sure ain't the MSM.

Iverson thinks Sheehan is downtrodden, because the press gets quotes from GWB but not from Sheehan. Ok, sure, whatever. But a story Saturday in WaPo (that right-wing rag) by Michael Fletcher, says Sheehan is working with a political consultant, a team of public relations professionals, and has a TV ad out. Joe Trippi is also involved. Also extremist anti-war groups like Codepink and TrueMajority. I'll ask Iverson, how many "grieving moms" have this kind of political support? Certainly not the downtrodden and ignored.

I assume Iverson is a member of the "reality" based community, because her "reality" is not based on facts. Sheehan certainly has every right to do what she is doing, but when the press casts this as a simple morality play, with Sheehan as the grieving, ignored mom, who only wants a (second) meeting with GWB, and GWB as the cold, heartless, bicycle riding, limo riding Chimpy McHalliburton Bu$hitler,the press has become a tool of propagandists. Yeah, I know, the press rejects propaganda from the government, but is more than happy to advance propaganda by terrorists, by airing their recruitment videos of blowing up US troops, and anti-war propaganda, like what Sheehan is dishing up.

Posted by: kilgore trout at August 15, 2005 2:53 PM | Permalink

This isn't directly on point, but I liked the way it was written. Very intelligently. Came via e-mail to PressThink's box. Alan Anderson, Granite Bay, CA writes...

Is there a way to get news in the world that isn’t dictated by what political party the owners of the news agency belong to? Maybe I’m not as well educated as the people on the news stations I’m watching and listening to. I just don’t know why I turn to one channel and get one story and then turn to another and get a totally different story. Could it be the people who write and/or spin the story?
My gosh, someone please tell me the truth. I’m seeing a woman camping out front of President Bush’s ranch in TX. (Cindy Sheehan). Just for those who don’t know who she is, she gave birth to a brave, patriotic American son who joined the Army. He was sent to Iraq to do his duty for the American military that is in the middle of a war with some bad people there. I’m not really sure why we are there at war but we are. My heart goes out to Ms. Sheehan her son died there in Iraq. What more pain can any mother feel but to lose a child? She’s mad as hell at something. Her son made the ultimate sacrifice for his country and we should all thank him and her for his bravery. As for mom camping outside of Bush’s ranch, if she’s not breaking any laws then let her be. She’s got issues she has to come to terms with. She blames the President for her loss. We all have an issue one way or another with the way this war was started and has played out till now. I’ve read news articles or maybe some were political spin blogs. They all do nothing but bad mouth the other side’s story. Her son died, she’s sad, mad, and has to vent her emotions someway. End of story.

The second story of the week that I can’t understand is the whole 9/11 Able Danger story. I watched one station and got that they told the 9/11 Commission and then I go to another channel and hear that no one ever said anything to the commission about it. So does anyone know what the heck the truth is? I know that 4 planes on September 11th, 2001 crashed into the Pentagon, World Trade Centers and a field in PA. I’ve only heard since then that it was a lack of different intelligence agencies being able to communicate with each other because of political red-tape. Well looks like we’re back to square one. I feel for every family affected by the events that played out that day. I also feel for every family who has a family member or more go off to war and die for his or her country.

It is time that we as Americans fix our problems within our system and truly protect our country here at home and find ways to protect it from the outside. Now that I’ve said all of this I don’t feels so stupid anymore. It seems that the stupidity is coming from the people we trust to give us news. The real news, not the spun version of the news depending on which political party the news agency is associated with. I see a lot of blogs out there giving news. Is it news? Or is it really just another person’s spin? Maybe instead of calling them Blogs we should call them Spinsters. Wait that is too hard to type.

Alan Anderson
Granite Bay, CA

Posted by: Jay Rosen at August 15, 2005 3:00 PM | Permalink

Dave McLemore, Good post. But as someone who not only teaches the occasional journalism class but also owns a tiny weekly, I'm still trying to figure out how to make a living printing stuff that people don't want to read.

Posted by: David Crisp at August 15, 2005 3:07 PM | Permalink

Jay, I get the sense that posters (including me) have a very different definitions of what is a profession versus a craft. Could you define it, in terms of your definition as used in this post? Thanks.

Posted by: JennyD at August 15, 2005 3:19 PM | Permalink

Barbara wrote:

I think that this gets at the heart of it. While the "make a difference" credo might have run out of gas for some (the media saavy, hyper-educated, professionals, etc.) I see it being alive and well in many quarters (and, it is not a "netural" public service either.) For the middle-school students I used to teach in Flatbush, Brooklyn and the people getting their BA's in journalism at thirty with one or two kids the issue was not so much that the practice of journalism was unappealing, it was an issue with where they could find a public medium to communicate with their neighborhoods and communities.

The White House may no longer need the press, but it needs churches to trumpet its cultural values and it needs the social networks of NASCAR. If we can no longer presume that the sites of power need the press, why can't we figure out what it does need and then bring the practice of journalism there?

The practice of journalism needs to have expression at these forums, and I do not think that a newspaper as a stand-alone observer of the world will do.

I am not sure how that is done, but as a start I think that we need to find a way to educate, train, and recruit public journalists from these communities, and find novel ways to incorporate serious journalism into the regular communication of these public spaces.

Posted by: Daniel Kreiss at August 15, 2005 3:27 PM | Permalink

So true, Alan Anderson, when you say: "It seems that the stupidity is coming from the people we trust to give us the news."

These are real, on the record quotes from Cindy Sheehan, but have you seen them anywhere in our "trusted media"?

Cindy sez:"...get American our of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop terrorism." Somebody sign that woman up as State Department spokesperson!

Cindy also sez: (and haven't we all thought this at one time or another?) I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes." Now GWB is expected to raise the dead. Is that in the Constitution?

Further, Cindy sez:GWB, et al. ... "need to be tried for war crimes and go to jail." Don't you think France has already checked this out?

Further depressing quotes from our gal Cindy include: "This country is not worth dying for." She wasn't talking about Iraq. Also ..."the mainstream media is a propaganda tool for the government." So why is the press so uncritical of you, Cindy? The press loves to be used in a cause they believe in, and Cindy includes the obligatory reference to Hitler and Stalin concerning Rumsfeld. Plus the cliche that GWB went to war to enrich his buddies, and it's ALL ABOUT The OIIIIILL.

Jeez! Cindy has repeated every trite anti-war talking point, and the press just loves it! Yeah, the press is ignoring grieving Cindy. Whatever.

Posted by: kilgore trout at August 15, 2005 3:33 PM | Permalink

Jenny: I felt--and said at the time--that Bollinger's questions were dead on. I don't think they were well understood by (most) J-Schoolers, who naturally resented the "interference," but that might have been his fault, too.

In any case, you are wrong to suggest that he wanted to in any way "eliminate" Columbia's Journalism School. (What happened at Michigan is a different story.) I don't think it was ever a serious option at Columbia. (Plenty of people connected to the school or to the rear guard in journalism suggested it, though, without producing evidence.) College presidents are not in the business of eliminating sources of prestige like that. Add to that the beating you would take in the New York Times about it? Not thinkable.

Bollinger asked a question many defenders of the school were unable to hear, since they were obsessed with a different question: what relationship should J-school training and curriculum have to professional practice? Every red-blooded member of the tribe knows that "keeping it practical" is the right answer, and too much "theory" is bad. (Very bad.) But that's what people like Bollinger want-- more "theory," less "practice," it was thought.

It was an ignorant reaction, and completely missed what he was after.

Bollinger was asking them a much harder question, and most of them never showed up for his exam. It's closer to what you said, Jenny. Bollinger's query went something like this:

Let's say you're right in what I'm hearing, and teaching craft skills, craft wisdom, and craft ethics is the way to go for Columbia's J-School. What connects such a school to the rest of the university's knowledge engine? Do you know? Can you explain it to me? We don't have any other professional schools that would say that, "we teach the craft, primarily." What model do I consult to know if you have your connection to the university--and the larger world--right? Have you changed it as the world and the university have changed so profoundly over the decades? Are you confident that the rest of the institution--you're part of Columbia, a top ten research university and Ivy League--understands the connection between you and it?

They were good questions, and extremely on point. Asking them has helped the school.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at August 15, 2005 3:36 PM | Permalink

I'm neither a consultant nor a journalism professor, Mr. Crisp, so I'm reluctant to offer advice. Oh, hell, who am I kidding. EVERYONE loves to give advice.

If you want folks to read your newspaper, make it readable. Rather than try to compete with TV or the internet, give 'em context. The news is rarely happy or even particularly stuff we can use. But it can and should be chewable, the stuff that makes people grind their teeth over that first cup of coffee.

And make the prose sing. The blandization of American media is a sad thing to behold. If someone's telling a lie, say so. Don't just tell both sides of the issue, tell the third and fourth side.

I'd suspect in Montana the tension between environmental concerns and property rights still generates some interest. What does one man/one vote truly mean in a municipal election? If everyone is for that, how come the ACLU filed suit in Billings?

And you might borrow Steve Lovelady's adage, print in boldface above every newsroom terminal and press: "Cut through the bullshit and get to the bottom of things."

There is some power in pissing people off.

Posted by: Dave McLemore at August 15, 2005 4:03 PM | Permalink

The problem with saying this: "There is some power in pissing people off" is that "people" are (is?) not monolithic. So who decides who gets pissed off, and who doesn't? Which group gets to feel the "power" of the press, and which group doesn't? Isn't that the heart of the problem and the basis for bias wars?

Posted by: kilgore trout at August 15, 2005 4:29 PM | Permalink

It doesn't matter, Kilgore. The one constant in the reporters' firmament is that someone's always going to be pissed off. The facts decide who.

The purveyors of the bias wars - left or right - never quite get that bias is largely in the eye of the beholder.

Posted by: Dave McLemore at August 15, 2005 4:39 PM | Permalink

It's not the facts, Dave, it's the facts the press chooses to use to frame the story. Since Ms. Iverson brought up Cindy Sheehan, this presents us with a classic example. There is plenty of material on record that indicates that Cindy is an anti-Semite, extremist hatemonger. She has been out front with her fringe ideology. But for whatever reason, the MSM chose to frame her as "heartbroken everymom" rather than give us all the information about her, which would allow us, in Orville Schell's words: "to let people make up their own minds." It's not the pissing people off that bothers me, it's the withholding of complete and comprehensive information by the press, that would allow the public to make an informed decision about any given subject, that offends me.

But fortunately we now have some diversity in the press. In order to be well informed, you need to read the NYTimes and NYPost; watch CNN and Fox News. It's getting more difficult for the press to lie to us---and that's a good thing.

Posted by: kilgore trout at August 15, 2005 5:06 PM | Permalink

Jenny D.

There is an extensive literature on the subject of journalism as a profession. It's a pretty big subject for a blog post, so here are two links that might help. The first is a blog post, the second a paper presented at an AEJMC conference, like the one Jay went to this week. I've posted these links here before, so others may have already seen them.

Who You Calling A Journalist?

IS JOURNALISM A BONA FIDE PROFESSION? What the literature and the law reveal

Posted by: GW at August 15, 2005 5:15 PM | Permalink

Kilgore, you're right. Withholding of complete and comprehensive information is offensive. But comprehensive and complete are cumulative terms.

As I understand, the information about Ms.Sheehan's views on U.S. support of Israel came from a letter she sent "Nightline's" Ted Koppel after her appearance on the program.

It was not, I gather, part of her early message at Crawford. Somehow, the information got out, whether via Ms. Sheehan or otherwise. And it quickly made its way wonderful world of the Web and has only recently become part of the larger story.

I'd be very surprised if it doesn't now become part of the mainstream coverage. But you seem to believe it 'bias' that the mainstream media didn't report her more extreme views early on. Short of having copies of the email last spring, I'm not clear on how they they would have known. Why do you consider that media "lies?"

You say "There is plenty of material on record that indicates that Cindy is an anti-Semite, extremist hatemonger." Really? Where was this info before?

Posted by: Dave McLemore at August 15, 2005 5:48 PM | Permalink

I don't want this thread hijacked by Cindy Sheehan's story, latest installment in the blogosphere's media circus. If you can connect it to the post and comments on the post, good.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at August 15, 2005 6:23 PM | Permalink

What a fascinating litany of self-pity, with doddering professors bemoaning the death of their creation, perhaps wondering if they might have caused its demise with planting self-righteousness in its craw?

It is said Hitler invaded Russia because he'd been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and wanted to gain his destiny ahead of schedule before he died, and in that pursuit he madly slaughtered everyone in sight, including his "own" people.

Sometimes I think journalists are behaving in the same way, fomenting Gotterdammerung before it is too late. Oh, but that’s right: Dan Rather WAS caught in a lie, finally! Gee, I love back-Gotterdammerung, when it splashes back on its authors!

Posted by: Gerryz at August 15, 2005 8:39 PM | Permalink

Glynn, I read both these links, and I am not certain that the definition of profession is accurate.

When I think about professions, I often start with the easy ones, like medicine. Physicians didn't actually look to government for professionalism; actually, they looked inside their own ranks and focused on the training of physicians, on the standardization of skills and practice and "technology" in the sense of practice, and then raised the standards for all these. For a source, look to the Flexner Report from early in the 20th century, which was financed by the Carnegie Corporation.

Other professions have had similar transformations. Law, for example. Lawyers are certified by the bar association, not by the government. Physicians are licensed by the state, but it is physicians who design the tests and set the standards. Likewise with actuaries and architects.

How do journalists stack up here? Are their standardized skills that all must know, and a high standard of entry into the profession? Is entry monitored by other professionals (beyond the decision to hire a newbie)?

Here's another question: How could you distinguish the work of a professional journalist from a non-professional? Clearly you could do that with, say, surgery. How about an appendectomy done by someone who has never been to medical school? Or a build designed by non-trained architect?

Opening up the question in this way, rather than getting emotional about ethics or bias or whatever, exposes the weakness in the entire structure of journalism and journalistic enterprises.

I have to say, though, that I love debating about this stuff. Thanks for opportunity.

Posted by: JennyD at August 15, 2005 8:59 PM | Permalink

I will grant you all that "facts" can be
slippery things. And one persons' "bias"
is another persons' truth.

The problem you people is have is that you
can't - or won't - get the EASY facts correct.

Whenever I read a story about my specialty,
it is usually so filled with errors to make
it unusable. Null Content.

Which makes me think ... why should I believe
your writing on stories about subjects of which
I have no direct knowledge?

However, I do enjoy the colorful writing I
read in the sports sections.

Posted by: Ted at August 15, 2005 9:03 PM | Permalink

What exactly is it that you want, Kilgore ?
That every mother who has lost a son in Iraq correspond to your politics?
Ain't gonna happen, Ace. Their grief is beyond anything that you or I can comprehend, and frankly, if you are anything other than a stooge, you ought to respect that.
And Jay is exactly correct when he says, "I don't want this thread hijacked by Cindy Sheehan's story, latest installment in the blogosphere's media circus ..."
Whenever a thread, here or elsewhere, is perceived as threatening -- or worse, if it is perceived as off of whatever subject that is currently obsessing the circus -- the circus clowns always move in to change the subject to their flimsy grievance of the moment is.
This is a perfect example.
Cindy Sheehan, indeed.
What the hell does that have to do with the current fork in the road facing journalism educators, which is the subject of the conversation that Jay is trying to start ?
And don't try to tell me that this is not part of an orchestrated infestation. The tactic is obvious on its face.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at August 15, 2005 9:04 PM | Permalink

Dave, Now you're starting to list the things I used to teach about journalism that I'm not sure I believe anymore. Yours is the classic answer: If people don't like your journalism, give them better journalism. I've preached that sermon for many years, both to students and to corporate bosses.

But where does, say, Sean Hannity fit into that equation? Or, for that matter, Instapundit? Or Gannett? Or guys like Gerryz, who seem to lack all capacity to distinguish good journalism from bad?

I'm not sure a market will always exist for what you and I think of as quality journalism. I hope it will, and I think it will, but I'm not sure I'm confident enough in it to tell my students that it will.

Posted by: David Crisp at August 15, 2005 9:12 PM | Permalink

gosh ... isn't this link timely ... you
people scrutinize others. can you stand
the heat yourselves?

Helen Thomas anyone?

here's the link ... to a right wing blog
of course ...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Ham20050815.shtml

Posted by: Ted at August 15, 2005 9:13 PM | Permalink

Journalism needs teachers who can match skills of PR masters such as Max Clifford whose kiss-and-tell stories of politicians, pop stars and footballers tend to be the lifeblood of many a tabloid newspaper...
'Max Clifford's secret with tabloid editors is that during the course of a year, he places stories with all of them, thereby keeping them all happy.' What Makes a Great Spinmeister?

Posted by: Jozef Imrich at August 15, 2005 9:14 PM | Permalink

Fascinating-
I'm not a journalism professor, I'm not a journalist. I'm probably not everyman, but I am distant enough from the 'field' of journalism to read these comments with some perplexity. Because all of you have said what journalism means to you, and the purpose of journalism. I've heard mention of a 'calling', I've heard mention of journalism as an extension of the progressive movement in the 1920's, I've heard journalism as social activism.
But noone has really said that the purpose of journalism is to tell people what is going on. I as a (former) newspaper reader (I've never watched tv news) read the newspapers to find out what is going on. I used to assume that if I read something in the newspaper, it would inform me. I don't any more. I assume newspapers are there to attempt to convince me. Thus, I don't read them. I read blogs, I read brief articles on the web (Yahoo news, newspaper websites, etc). I'm quite confident I am far better informed than I was when I read the newspaper, and I am far better informed than if I still read the newspaper.
Really, there are two issues in my post. The second, less important one, is What has the web done to journalism? I can learn more in 20 minutes of surfing the web on any topic (from journalists, private blogs, commentators, and a whole variety of individuals) than I could by subscribing to a newspaper-so why subscribe to a newspaper.
The first, more important one (for your purposes) though, addresses your question of purpose. I would guess that I am pretty typical of a journalism consumer: I consume journalism to learn what is going on. Why do none of you produce journalism with the express purpose of simply (merely, only, nothing but) telling me what's going on? And if you are not giving me that, is it any surprise that I'm not buying the product any more?
(one exception: "Try to cut through the bullshit and get to the bottom of things" strikes me as exactly what I'm looking for-the one voice who sounded out of place!).

Steve

Posted by: Steve at August 15, 2005 9:16 PM | Permalink

"When the New York Times had to decide recently what goods to charge for at www.nytimes.com, did it choose good old fashioned shoe leather reporting? No. It chose the columnists. The religion we teach them in journalism school cannot account for this"

Just the fact that the NYT did something did not mean that it was a good business decision. IMNSHO, it would have been better to leave the columnists free and charge for the business, science, and arts sections.

Posted by: David Foster at August 15, 2005 9:38 PM | Permalink

Jenny - The definition comes from the published, peer reviewed academic literature, such as it is. It may not be accurate in your mind, it may not be accurate in the literature, heck, we are clearly from all the discussion here not even clear on whether journalism is or should be viewed as a profession or whether journalism schools should be professional schools?

Most academics I know deride the idea of simply teaching skills in this way, which is the basic question Jay mentioned about the Columbia Journalism school.

As for what is taught in journalism schools at the undergraduate level, it is usually referred to as a profession - without anyone ever providing a definition of what a profession is, which is why I wrote the paper in the first place.

Maybe we should put this under the category of what is NOT taught in journalism schools that SHOULD be.

Seems to me students have a right to know ... if anyone can figure it out.

Posted by: GW at August 15, 2005 9:47 PM | Permalink

I found Jay's opening comments on this very instructive since I've been out of teaching for a couple of years now.

I went back into journalism after 9/11 because it seemed vital again. Then Jayson Blair came along and blew it, so we are back to 24/7 sensational crime on cable and mostly rewriting press releases in the newspapers. That's one definition of a profession. Show up 9 to 5 and fill the space between the ads. It's all about the money.

On another note that contradicts the myth of this business about journalists making a difference is that corporate ethical standards prevent journalists from even pretending to make a difference - by banning what is mislabeled as "advocacy" journalism.

That's another subject I tried to address as an academic - to no avail.

The Society of Environmental Journalists - a professional organization as opposed to a union - got bogged down in this debate in the early 1990s, pretty much ensuring that no reporters covering the environmental beat could ever make a difference on the environment again. Big mistake, but that's another dissertation.

Posted by: GW at August 15, 2005 9:58 PM | Permalink

It's true, dealing with bias now won't do the press any good. The press has been out-of-touch with the American mainstream for so long, it was inevitable that as soon as alternative communication channels came forward, it would be be discarded.

If, back in the 1980s, the managers who were so worried about lack of diversity in color and sex had considered the 80-20 Democrat-Republican split an equal problem, instead of listening to FAIR and taking comfort in getting hit from both sides, something could have been salvaged.

I'm not saying necessarily that the 80-20 split tilted coverage to the left. Instead, it should have been a big red flashing indicator that the press was out of touch with a country that hasn't returned 51% for a Democrat in any presidential election since 1964. And in a buisiness based on communication, ever single day's work will implicitly inform the customers that the producers are out of touch with them.

Rather than worry about this evident imbalance, the press spent three decades doing buisiness as usual -- in practice, three decades of telling the public that it didn't understand the public, that it wasn't part of the public. After the press put in that much work laying the ground, the stage was set for a White House to say to the press, "We don't have to talk to you. You don't represent the public." The people already believed it, because the press had implicitly said so for years.

And now it's too late. There are too many alternative channels of information; the traditional press as an institution doesn't have enough of the audience to convince the public as a whole that it is a representative of the public. And economically, it can't -- because a significant stratum of current viewers/readers would go away to their own alternative media if they tried.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 15, 2005 10:10 PM | Permalink

Journalism is a job.

Succesful journalists present information in an entertaining way.

The measure of a journalists success is making the future less suprising.

MSM and other legacy media are being beaten hands down at this by Blogs.

On the Internet we route around your censorship.

Posted by: Rob Read at August 15, 2005 10:18 PM | Permalink

I don’t understand how any journalist could believe themselves capable of reporting anything without introducing their own bias. Everything we experience is filtered through our own worldview before we ourselves even understand it. What is reported and how it is reported is inherently biased by the reporter. I don’t know what they teach you in J school, but I suspect that the “higher calling” concept is crippling your understanding of bias.

US troops fought Iraqi army troops in Iraq. Are they colonialists or liberators?
Some Iraqis celebrated in Baghdad after US troops moved in. Were they liberated citizens, collaborators or a mob preparing to loot? Was it a large crowd or a handful?
A bomb exploded killing Iraqi army recruits. Was it the act of a resistance fighter or a terrorist?

The Internet has completely changed the way I gather information. I have access to news and commentary from all over the world. I especially enjoy blogs since, in some cases, they are written by the sources themselves or by people who are closer to the sources than any reporter could be. I know what those sources’ biases are because they tell me, and in some cases, those people’s worldview is what I’m interested in learning about.

Posted by: Mark K at August 15, 2005 10:21 PM | Permalink

I love how dedicated journalists are to their profession! However, and i doubt anyone will understand much less respond.

As dedicated to your profession as you all claim, why is it the average american majority is the one who still feels left out?

I'm afraid there is a widening gulf between the press and the public! Don't get me wrong, you guys have a very hard job to fill (starting to realize that myself). But, after reading the comments in this section, you all are still grappling with why you love your profession, (which is good and all in and of itself), instead, of remembering that the public at large is what pays society's bills!

Instead of being hijacked by the extremists of our society, in search of the sensational. Remember those of us who do make society go around!! We love this country as much as those screaming extremists (no... i'm not just talking about mrs. sheehan either!)

I know my writing sucks, but hey, that's why i used to count on you guys/gals on getting my points across! Now... i have to show the entire world my written ignorance!!

Regards...

Posted by: Panther at August 15, 2005 10:31 PM | Permalink

The idea that journalists should "make a difference" has ruined modern journalism. They should report the facts objectively, not in service of an agenda. We don't have a press corps these days, we have an ideology corps.

Posted by: TallDave at August 15, 2005 10:32 PM | Permalink

I agree with Steve. The "I want to make a difference!" and "I want to speak truth to power" is exactly why you are losing market share.

Your job is to provide information, not spin. This happens way too much when some journo decides to spin the monthly unemployment figures into 'speaking truth to power.' You know, many of us have taken econ classes and we don't buy the spin.

It gets even worse with military reporting, where many journos apparently don't even bother to learn the terms of the story...the factual errors boggle the mind. Maybe instead of learning how powerful your job is and how you're going to use that power you guys should be doing some basic reading.

That's the crux when selling information. Once your information is deemed unreliable or tainted, of course people will go elsewhere. I also agree with the poster who asked for more context. I despise CNN when to cover an issue it puts on two opposing viewpoints...gee I could simply go to those people's blogs and learn that myself. I also despise when journalists interview other jounalists...seeing Larry King ask Christiane Amanpour about the Afghani legal system is simply hilarious.

and if you keep spinning for one side, don't be suprised when you lose half the population to a competitor who does the same as you, but from the other angle.

Posted by: Aaron at August 15, 2005 10:40 PM | Permalink

Glynn, I offer this: there are lots of academics who define professionalism in terms of the "technology" of the profession, by which I mean the skilled work of enacting the profession. The doing of surgery, the diagnosing of disease, the arguing of a legal case, the writing of brief, the design of building that will stand up, the creation of a machine that will turn energy into movement.

Education is in deep trouble because it failed to define the practice in terms of specific professional technology. Now, anyone and everyone thinks it's easy. It is, or it's not. But what's worse for teachers who have struggled to learn to teach better, the profession has abandoned them by clinging to some wrongheaded notion that ethics or some sort of wedding to government or higher thought is more important that actual work of teaching or learning.

Journalism is right there. If you argue that there is no practice of journalism to be taught professionally, then it is nothing more important than embroidery. It's a craft, and anyone can do it. Just pick up a book at Michaels and couple of threads and you're in. Is that really what you mean?

There's no practice, just desire? Really. That means a drug addict could be considered a professional.

I don't think so. BUt you are started down this path. Be careful where it takes you.

Posted by: JennyD at August 15, 2005 10:42 PM | Permalink

a couple of things. First, electronic media, whether online sites of the established media or the new blogging media is probably exerting a profound and growing influence on news reporting. As an anecdotal aside: a friend who delivers newspapers as a side job mentioned that when someone moves, the new owner/renter is often unlikely to subscribe if age 40 or under.
Second, the "just the facts" part of journalism (I actually had a class in high school) seems to be discredited. I find that also in my profession(am a behavioral scientist type): just reporting the findings is denigrated, especially if you work in a "hot" topic like HIV or gay rights or civil rights. You are expected to take a position. Personally I find it quite hard to find news sources that present to their best ability the facts, as well as commentary about the facts. Often the facts are slanted, either through judicious use of words with connotations in the right direction, or through the omission of information (for example, that the person being quoted is a former Clinton or Bush appointee).
This is why I recently discontinued my own newspaper subscription and now -- when there is a topic of interest -- read multiple online news reports as well as blogs.
But, if there were a newspaper that really tried hard to present all the relevant facts, and made efforts to disclose the mysteries of the king, and provided commentaries from all sides (kind of like the McNeal News Hour), I would be eternally grateful.

Posted by: David Chiriboga at August 15, 2005 10:51 PM | Permalink

I am reminded of the guy who looks for his keys under the lamppost because that's where the light is.

Journalists are still looking in the wrong place: they think that if they found a truer, more pure idealistic version of journalism, THEN they'd have readers.

The fact is, your customers don't give a darn about you "making a difference." They just wanted the facts, ma'am. Yes, you can argue about bias and ethics and pontificate about the role of journalism to fight corruption, but the only people who think that journalism is about such issues are journalists and other intellectuals. Everyone else wants the news.

That's your problem: not that a girl who know so little of the world that she thinks a SOCIOLOGY degree "makes a difference", not even that she might have a better chance at it than you. No, that "making a difference" was your goal, and still is theirs.

Consider what your customers want news for. Maybe then your torch wouldn't be the white flame of justice that you hoped for, but at least it would provide you some light.

Posted by: anonymouse at August 15, 2005 11:23 PM | Permalink

It is obvious that Jenny D and Steve have has made the best and brightest comments on this thread. Their observations fall on deaf ears. Only the nutjob searching for a life or a meaningful thought has responded to her. This is no surprise. Some covering fire over Kilgore Trout... an easy target to the nodding heads. (no offense KT, but you left yourself open to the talking point counter attack... no bias here, just move along)

If you want to determine the problem with journalism, journalists should look in the mirror. But no, that is logical. When one is on a crusade (make a diff), logic is not an option.

Posted by: Horst Graben at August 15, 2005 11:41 PM | Permalink

You see, this is why I don't like news driven by focus groups.

Here, in a short time, we've had a mini-focus group on the future of the media. And if we count votes, the media lost. We in the biz can all shuffle off to retirement. Or find job as 'content providers.'

But the findings are contradictory and self-referential. The order is in for news that isn't biased but has an opinion; that is fact-based but not too many facts. Straight-forward but feisty.

OK. You win. But first a question: those of you who get your news from blogs or Yahoo or news sites, where exactly do you think the reporting comes from?

Somewhere behind the verbiage and flash art, you'll likely find it was reported by a MSM reporter.

That's not to say the web isn't a good source of news. It is. But if you think you're leaving the old media behind, you're in serious denial.

I'm all for gathering news from as many sources as possible - all received with large amounts of critical judgment. But reliance on blog news too often leaves you in affinity-group land, where you hear the things that justify your own beliefs. If that's how you want to learn about the world, that is, I suppose, your choice.

David Crisp asks where the Hannity's and Instapundits fit into the media equation and it's a good question. Largely, the cable talk shows and many of the political blogs are the triumph of opinion over news. We all have opinions much as we all have belly buttons.

As for the folks who confuse bad journalism with reports that challenge their own political/cultural bias, they have always been with us.

Posted by: Dave McLemore at August 15, 2005 11:51 PM | Permalink

Given some of the grand "missions" that journalism has adopted--legalized abortion being chief among them--perhaps it's better that the profession is losing its sense of mission and becoming just enough 9-to-5 job. We've been fussing about abortion for over thirty years, yet the press still calls one side by the name it likes, "prochoice," while refusing to use "pro-life" outside direct quotes.

And there's the the fact that many in the media, as a matter of stated policy, avoid words like "terrorism" when the victims are Israeli Jews. Kill a Jewish child, and you're a "militant." But kill a BBC journalist and you become a "terrorist." That isn't bias. That's bigotry pure and simple.

Unborn babies and Jewish children as Untermenschen. Is there any wonder why young journalism students are becoming disillusioned?

--Mike Perry, Seattle, author of Untangling Tolkien and editor of Dachau Liberated

Posted by: Mike Perry at August 15, 2005 11:56 PM | Permalink

Journalism does not seem to me to be a profession if it is practiced correctly. Rather, it is a question of a person having a certain kind of talent - the ability to correctly apprehend the reality underlying appearances - coupled with an ability to convey that understanding of reality to readers by using language skillfully.

But what I see in the papers, when I bother to read past the comics, is a kind of superficial and even adolescent understanding of whatever is being reported on, coupled with a pathetic inability to use language c