|
|
January 29, 1996
JAMES FALLOWS ON "PUBLIC JOURNALISM"
In his new book, "Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy," James Fallows looks at the deteriorating state of American Journalism and argues in favor of a possible solution: the "Public Journalism" movement in regional news that emphasizes covering issues that make people feel "reconnected" to their community. Click here for excerpts from "Breaking the News."
In a recent David Gergen dialogue, he said that the creed of Public Journalism is that journalists have to take seriously the effect of what they do on public life, and if news organizations insist on presenting all political issues as just being a mud fight among politicians, they have to recognize what this will do to the public sense of politics in the long run.
Click to see a Forum Menu.
To all questioners:
The points you raise are crucial ones, and I am honored to have the chance to deal with them in this forum. Given the harrassing circumstances of the standard book tour, I can't give any of these as full attention as I might ideally like. But here is the best I can do in the next few minutes:A question from Mike Opitz of Norman, OK
It seems to be relatively unprofitable for the media to objectively report on a wide range of important issues in the public interest. Much of this is, no doubt, caused by a lack of citizenship on the part of the American public. Is it possible to make this type of reporting profitable? If so, how? If not, how do we otherwise encourage it?To Mike Opitz:
The issue of finance in journalism is fundamental, and in more than the obvious way. The obvious way is of course Liebling's old dictum that freedom of the press is guaranteed to anyone who owns one -- with corollaries involving the fact that newspapers and TV networks have always been big businesses in themselves and have often thrown their weight around in local politics. (I grew up in Southern California, and when watching the movie Chinatown or reading Kevin Starr's books about California's growth I have often thought about the role the L.A. Times has played in local development.)There are two questions of 'profitability' in today's journalism that I think are particularly important. One is the market fate that will await publications if they do NOT change from today's emphasis. For the last half decade at least newspapers have been bemoaning their loss of market share. The same is true of mainstream network news operations. Something in today's news "product" is, in one way or another, not providing what "customers" seem to want. This is the self-interested reason for journalism to think hard about what it is doing. Can papers and networks afford to do better reporting? The question could also be whether they can afford not to.
The other financial issue is the one I find more and more problematic. It is whether an INHERENT conflict exists between market forces as we usually think of them and journalism as we would like it to be. Journalism has historically been profitable -- think of the Sulzberger, Chandler, Wrigley, Bingham, and other dynastic newspaper families -- but the people who were in the business had something in mind other than pure profit. They liked the political influence, or the self-esteem, or something. Because they were taking some reward from the product other than pure profit, the profit level was less than it might have been in, say, an investment-banking firm. Broadcast news operations were in a different way sheltered from pure profit-maximizing forces -- by the pre-60 Minutes idea that news would not make money, by FCC requirements for public service coverage, by whatever. Now these buffers are eroding, and the news is increasingly being managed for the same profit-maximization purposes as any other product. Query: can this last? We recognize that, for example, the care of children is not a good 'product' to leave to pure market forces. Does news belong in that category too? Maybe so.
------------------------------------------
A question from Terry Griffin of Hillsboro, OR
I've seen a lot of forums and panel discussions over the years on C-SPAN, CNN, and PBS in which members of the press evaluate their performance and relevance to democracy. The discussions invariably come to many if not all of the same conclusions that you've come to in your book, but still nothing changes. What event or process will cause a change for the better?To Terry Griffin:
I recognize that very few of the symptoms I'm discussing are completely new. I think the talk-show industry has reached an unwholesome recent prominence, but the underlying phenomenon has been there for a long time. Does this make me feel unoriginal? Not really -- almost any problem worth worrying about in the world has been around for a long time.Will things be any different just because I have presented a new version of a time-honored diagnosis? Probably not -- BUT I thought there was at least a possibility of getting people both inside and outside the press to think differently about this system. My purposes in writing the book, in fact, were (a) to give consumers of news a set of mental pictures that would help clarify things they didn't like (and did like) about the news, and (b) to cajole, force, or embarrass my colleagues into thinking about their work. Some book or piece of writing, some time, will make a difference. I thought the best I could do was take a try myself.
-------------------------------------------
A question from Jon Moser of Las Vegas, Nevada
The best solution for this country to get beyond the hype, the hidden agendas and the disinformation is already here: the Internet. A broad diversity of content providers exist, the information is timely and it's getting easier to access that which one wants to know about.If most Americans get wired to the Net, as I believe they ultimately will, and if the free flow of information is not stifled, the foundation for the democratic ideal of a well informed citizenry will exist. Please comment.
To Jon Moser:
I agree and disagree about the potential of the Internet. I am a long time nerd and computer user. My first computer, in 1978, actually had wooden sides (Processor Technology SOL-20, with mahogany panels!) I love using the Internet and think it will change many things. But I think it will have an evolutionary rather than revolutionary effect on news.How can I say that? Two main reasons. (1) Like the telephone, I think the Internet will expand and augment things we already have done, rather than fundamentally changing them. Indeed, let me propose that the Internet will probably have a "less" revolutionary effect than the telephone did, since the phone was the first device that really let people transcend distance. (2) Precisely because so MUCH information is available over the Internet, the need for someone to sort it out, tell us what is more and less important, will be as urgent as ever before. That is, we'll still need "editors," by whatever name, because otherwise we'd be drowned in data.
But to be clear about it, I am a big Internet fan and think things will be better if more people are connected.
-------------------------------------------------
A question from Ron Thornburg of Ogden, Utah
I'm the managing editor of a 65,000 circulation newspaper in an area where our public officials still expect the newspaper to be their public relations agent. After being beaten up a few times it's tempting to slip back into the old adversial role. Any ideas for ways to educate them on the proper role of a newspaper that is serious about practicing public journalism?To Ron Thornburg:
You have very well described a fundamental psychological problem for journalists in any role. We spend so much time getting 'spun' by the people we are covering that, in exasperation, we start reflexively anti-spinning back. I was under this pressure constantly when I was working in Japan, feeling as if I was being fed a line every second, and reflexively rejecting whatever I was told. Unfortunately I have no non-platitudinous answer to offer, except to suggest frank conversations with the people you're covering, explaining to them exactly the scenario you have laid out (and that we both have lived). i.e., if they have at least a glimmer of understanding that they can make things worse for themselves by 'spinning,' maybe they will eventually change. I know this sounds pie in the sky, but it is the best I can do.----------------------------------------------
A question from Stanley Detering of Portland, Oregon
Even the Lehrer NewsHour falls victim to the primary focus on public relations strategy of political office holders, candidates for public office, and policy makers... The Hour has lost focus in helping citizens understand the facts of the issues as contrasted with the strategy and effectiveness of public opinion strategies by the contenders, regarding contentious issues or contenders for public office.Public opinion management seems to have become the most lucrative and dominant industry in the United States. What does this mean for the efficacy of popular democracy? What remedies are available?
To Stanley Detering
The public-relations industry is a distinctively American one, invented by (if I remember the name correctly) Ivy Lee at the turn of the century. It is lucrative, as you say, because the stakes are so high. The last chapter of my book is called "News and Democracy" and represents my best attempt to explain and explore how the news media could help offset the dominance of pure PR. What I will say at the moment is that it involves not simply a matter / anti-matter approach, in which journalists are so suspicious of every statement that they automatically knock them all down, leading to even more intense spinning from the other side. Instead it involves a re-conceiving of the journalist's role as a participant in "public education." More details in the book.This is the best I can do for one and all in the time available. I sincerely appreciate your interest and apologize for what I've left unexplored.
Additional Thoughts
Comments from our visitors, in addition to those answered by Mr. Fallows
-----------------------------------------
John Greenman of Old Town, Maine
What's needed is a recognition by media and press executives that the freedoms attached to and expected by the media MUST coexist with responsibility. Public Journalism is one such approach.
-----------------------------------------
Jon Moser of Las Vegas, Nevada
Commercial TV news, national and local, including CNN, is the menace. It has devolved to nothing more than infotainment. Anyone who relies upon these programs as a significant source of information is badly disserving themselves.
The best solution for this country to get beyond the hype, the hidden agendas and the disinformation is already here: the Internet. A broad diversity of content providers exist, the information is timely and it's getting easier to access that which one wants to know about.
If most Americans get wired to the Net, as I believe they ultimately will, and if the free flow of information is not stifled, the foundation for the democratic ideal of a well informed citizenry will exist.
That makes me feel optimistic.
-----------------------------------------
J.R.Beall of Newark,OH
I've read your piece in the latest Atlantic and seen the interview on the NewsHour. I agree with your comments but have no idea as to what can be done about the situation. I don't think enough of the public realizes the extent to which it is ill-informed. I may be too cynical about the intelligence of the electorate but it seems increasingly clear to me that we are incapable of governing ourselves wisely. Particularly since mass media has made it possible for opportunists to demagogue endlessly to nearly everyone. No sane person would wish to lay themselves out to be flayed in the current public forum so thoughtful people will be unlikely to pursue political careers. The complicated issues with which we need to deal can hardly be explained in sound bites and I fear our attention spans have been conditioned to tolerate little more. And the press is a fungus on the body politic, sometimes producing mushrooms but more often now, toadstools.
-----------------------------------------
Jim Lewis of Wichita KS
You refer in your book to the newspaper editors and publishers who offer a sharp critique of "public" journalism. Here in Wichita we have a newspaper (The Eagle) which has taken an advanced position in favor of what Editor Buzz Merritt calls "community" journalism. Frankly the whole concept seems terribly flawed to me, with the grave danger that journalists, if they really attempt to be part of the "solution," will find themselves in the position of consciously or unconsciously distorting the facts to fit the preconceived desired outcome. No explanation of this so-called answer to "public" journalism has convinced me that it offers a better path than "public" journalism. In fact, in private conversation with one of the senior staff at the Eagle, after a hour's attempt to say something coherent about "community" journalism, he admitted that its main function was not journalism, but marketing. The paper's marketing studies have shown that people who are interested in the community and in solutions to its problems no longer buy the paper in the same numbers as they once did. Hence, so-called "community" journalism, a marketing attempt to sell more papers.
-----------------------------------------
Craig Williams of Indianapolis, Indiana
I think it would be generally agreed that a strong, independent press is a vital part of the backbone of a strong democracy. I doubt that anyone in America would suggest that having a government run press like Pravda would be a better system than what we now have. But it appears to be difficult to have a strong-willed press without having one that too often crosses the line. Although it sounds a bit trite from overuse, it is true that the press too often creates news rather that just reports it. I think that is due in part to the fact that being a person of the press is not a particularly respected, well paid or well treated position. I also think it is not inconceivable that a degree of jealously exists between the press and the subjects about whom they report and the press, like the rest of us, feel a little better when these people are brought down a peg.
If all of us, and the press in particular, felt better about our stations in life I think there would be less bashing and more reporting going on. The press will explain themselves by saying that they are just writing what the people want to read and in fact we are guilty of buying the papers that they are writing. 150 years ago the people wanted slavery, just 30 years ago they wanted segregation. If we all simply responded to what the people wanted this country would not be as great as it is today and, in fact, I think that the obvious loss of intergrity among the press is making it a little less great.
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
