In his chapter, “News from Somewhere,” Carpini distinguishes between at set of frames used by “traditional journalists” and a set of frames used by “public journalists.” According to him, traditional journalists take a view of the public rooted in the outlook of Walter Lippmann, and frame themselves as an elite presenting objective and strategic information to the public without taking positions on issues. Public journalists, in contrast, frame themselves as being members of the community to which they are speaking, and present news as part of a conversation in which they do take positions on issues and attempt to solve problems. Carpini see public journalism as being rooted in the outlook of John Dewey.
Suggest what you think are good examples of traditional and public journalism, and also some example of journalism that is not easily classified as either. Drawing on these examples, describe what do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of public and traditional journalism. You might also comment on whether the categories still useful in the contemporary media landscape.
The Times of Israel, a fairly new site dedicated to current events in the country and the Jewish world, has some examples of both types of journalism discussed in our assignment readings. The popular opinion section resembles public journalism and its headline articles are better examples of traditional journalism.
For example, Democratic leader Debbie Wasserman Schultz recently posted her own opinion piece under the title “Courting Adelson is not Jewish Outreach”. Whether or not you agree with the Congresswoman, she is a public servant, not a professional journalist, and that she is trying to convince the reader is implicit in the title.
On the other hand, the most recent headline “Satellite Images Reveal New Hezbollah Airstrip Near Syria” does not have an implication that it is attempting to convince the reader. Instead, it simply prioritizes this issue of Israel’s security above other articles. This is what is important for the public to be aware of, says the Times of Israel editorial staff. It’s an event that may not have been brought to the public attention had the media not gone fishing for it.
Both styles, I believe have worth. Even an ignorant member of the community can read the first article and consider he or she has a decision to make regarding the validity of the argument. A reader of the second article is introduced to an important event. It may not be what he or she cares about the most, but headlines recycle throughout the day, and perhaps we should trust expert journalists to frame what is most important right now.
Both styles also have weaknesses. Aaron Sorkin stated (and I’m paraphrasing) that “everyone should have the right to free speech, but only some deserve the microphone. The internet has given everyone a microphone.” The Congresswoman, though politically motivated, is likely a greater expert than most of us on the subject she states. Consider however, that public journalism has been given a boost by platforms that allow writers to jot down a sentence or two, without the context that professional journalists find integral to their work. The public should not be, but is lead to certain ideas based on the writings of people who claim to, but do not truly have expertise or evidence to back up their ideas. Similarly, traditional journalism is manipulating. Even subconsciously, editors create opposing headlines for stories covering the same issues. When the public reads the headline, or is convinced by it more often than they read the article itself, is the public truly getting the substance that the article covers?
Both categories are still useful today. Ironically, it is arguably the more knowledgeable who continue to read traditionalist media when perhaps they are the best suited to read the other without falling prey to its negative consequences.
You make a good point about trusting journalists to frame the important issues. Although we are bombarded with news and information and opinions, in our ever-expanding culture it’s necessary to ensure a more informed citizenry.
I think you are entirely right– both types of journalism have a time and place, and both are important to the public. You make an interesting point. More educated viewers tend to align with the traditionalist journalists, but they are the readers who would most likely be bolstered against the public journalists. I think you are completely right. Can we even get the less informed readers to read traditionalist articles? Would that help them become more informed?
Either way you look at it, the traditional and public journalism “both place high value on independence from official versions of the news. Both value a society in which nonelite citizens are capable of reasoned judgment.” No matter what your view is, the journalism system in America, no matter how biased you think some news is, it is up to you to find the other opinion, which can easily be done in this age of technology.
Both styles have their place in journalism. Being able to form your own opinion through unbiased media is virtually impossible these days. Each outlet is selling something.
I applaud you on your use of the Sorkin quote, that is an excellent statement. However, it’s important to stress that an opinion piece (especially that of a politician) is not journalism and should not be taken as such. Be wary of political campaigns dressed in sheep’s clothing.
In my opinion, one of the best examples of public journalism today would have to be Fox News. While watching fox news you’re very likely to hear a journalists’ opinions or beliefs regarding whatever issue is being discussed. People turn to fox news because they hold similar beliefs to these “journalists” and want to hear the news from those whose opinions they trust. The advantage of public journalism is that it’s easier to gain support for an issue when biased reporters are able to draw opinionated conclusions about events in the news. The disadvantage of public journalism is that it’s essentially tainted news. If someone is going to report the news to the public with a hidden agenda, than the public ultimately doesn’t benefit because they are missing key details, which help them draw their own conclusions and become informed citizens.
The best example of a source for traditional journalism would be PBS. I believe that for the most part PBS discusses key issues without forcing an agenda on their audience. The majority of materials that are published by PBS are primarily educational and meant to take a more neutral viewpoint than most major broadcasters. However, its difficult for me to defend PBS and this position after it admitted this week to withholding information about Ben Affleck’s slave-owning ancestry on its “Finding Your Roots” series, where celebrities are brought on to discuss their family’s background. While the issue here isn’t political, it brings up questions of reliability and credibility about a television network that’s seen as unbiased. The advantage of traditional journalism is that the facts are presented to the public without motive or goals in mind. This allows for the public to become educated on issues and develop their own beliefs and opinions. The disadvantage is that readers feel that the authors are indifferent about the issues and lack a strong sense of relating to the readers personal interests.
These categories continue to be useful in the modern media landscape. It is important for the average reader to consider whether their news source is opinionated or not and whether there is a reason or motive behind the facts being presented to them.
I sometimes fear that public journalism makes us lazy. I find myself looking for other opinions before even forming my own–sometimes shapeshifting as I learn more. Of course one could argue that this is precisely the point and the importance of public journalism, but I sometimes wonder if we’re capable of original thought.
“Originality is undetected plagiarism.”
-William Ralph Inge
Ryan I think you hit it right on the money with public journalism making us lazy. I also wonder if “public journalism” journalism is real or if its just become “lowest common denominator” journalism. Its become too easy to watch this form of news, regurgitate the two or three talking points presented and go on with your day feeling informed.
Hey!! I love their documentaries!! The Secrets of the Tower of London, Nazi Mega Weapons, & The Secrets of Scotland Yard were educational, absolutely fascinating. I highly recommend all three and they’re available on Netflix.
I think your last paragraph says it all. It IS important for the average reader to consider whether their news source is opinionated. However, can we trust that the average reader will? In a perfect, Dewey world, this is best. Still, I can’t help but to think that it is not true. I agree for this reason that both types are crucial and likely balance each other out.
“Journalists” is my favorite quotation of a quotation from your piece! Do you ever watch Fox for the comic value? With all that said, I do agree that they are appealing to a very specific demo, and I guess they do that well. People know what to expect, and the views are consistent.
PBS on the other hand is just amazing! I love public television and radio because both showcase that it is possible to put together great programming without all of the (insert here) controversial messiness. With the Ben Affleck situation, I agree, but mistakes can be made. And at the end of the day, they do have to sometimes follow the wishes of the people they’re making programs with – especially for a program that may not be pure news…
Traditional journalism might educate on events but will not help with context. Having people explain why they feel so strongly one way or another is certainly useful when it comes to forming my own opinion.
I absolutely agree with the challenge that shorter attention spans pose to media outlets, and think that’s one of the reasons why public journalism has gained so much traction. “theSkimm” is an interesting attempt to combine public and traditional journalism. theSkimm is described (according to their website) as “the daily e-mail newsletter that gives you everything you need to start your day. We do the reading for you – across subject lines and party lines – and break it down with fresh editorial content.”
Traditional and public journalism utilize very different frames in reporting the news. According to Carpini, traditional journalists focus on the elite, conflict, information, and problem-identification frames while public journalists focus on citizen, issue, consensus, conversation, and problem-solving frames.
Some of the more well-known outlets like Fox News and CNN utilize these public journalism frames. They present relevant issues in context by providing more discussion and debate—effectively framing the issue in a manner that coincides with its audience. Carpini would argue that these examples reflect the public will. Generally, topics are introduced and then various opinions are brought to the table and discussed in a manner that’s obviously biased, but reflect a common set of fundamental values either shared or understood.
In contrast, traditional journalism is more concerned with “objectivity defined as the neutral presentation of facts.” The BBC is a good example of traditional journalism. A simple search of current events on BBC reveal less opinionated articles focused on providing facts and figures that provide a general overview of the issues. They are less concerned with framing how we think about the issues and more concerned with what we think about.
I think both forms of journalism are useful in educating the general public while informing key stakeholders of the public opinion. When I simply want the facts, turning to traditional journalism is helpful. After understanding the issues, it’s helpful then to seek out public journalism to have more context and to understand the various opinions and arguments about the issue.
I agree that both forms of journalism may have benefits for educating the public, but only to a degree. Public journalism is great for learning about the different viewpoints of an issue or discussing critical thinking skills with youngsters. Traditional journalism is great for learning about the news without the agenda of another person or group. The more useful of the two, in my opinion, would be Traditional journalism because the reader gets the unfiltered truth. However, the more interesting of the two would be Public journalism because overall, people want to read about what interests them by an author who holds similar views to themselves.
I agree that it is important that viewers participate in both types of journalism. We should gather the facts for an education on the topic. Then we can turn to public journalism for more context and the human perspective. It is important to see reactions to an event to get a more emotional connection to some events than traditional journalism may offer.
I agree that traditional media outlets have become masters in utilizing the public frame. Not only do they base their stories on the interests of the public, they create forums for debate such as Twitter during newscasts, and forums under articles (though you’d be hard pressed to find me reading them… the public is often not very polite).
I also think you’re on point about the utilization of traditional media as a utility for just getting the facts. Sometimes (when I’m not totally lazy) when I want to get the facts without forming an elaborate opinion, I find the same news stories, and open up articles from a few different sources. It’s an incredibly simple way of finding bias in traditional media, and a good way to contest the consequences of traditional media – taking advantage of an ignorant public.
I tend to think that the differences in public vs traditional journalism are more visible in issues or news that is highly politicized. Which is also one of the reasons why I’d like to believe that PBS as a media outlet leans more towards traditional journalism since their subject matter is usually not political, but more historical or scientific.
I also think that more people would take in interest in the news if they believed they weren’t trying to be pushed in one direction or the other. While traditional journalism might just present the facts and details as they stand, I believe that public journalism negatively influences the readers by failing to cover all of the significant information.
I think Slate.com is a perfect example of using public journalism. The site describes itself as having “strong editorial voice and witty take on current events”. This implies a purposeful slant to articles. They seem conversational, like you and your very opinionated friend are discussing current events. Facts are incorporated, but there is always witty criticism and loaded asides clearly indicating the author’s stance. I think these techniques help to make reading these articles more entertaining. It’s easier to digest an article that makes me laugh, so I am more inclined to read it. While it engages me in current events and politics, this type of writing does not encourage me to form my own opinions.
I’ve recently done some work with the US Department of State website. On the site there are some Op Ed pieces. I think these articles are the perfect combination of traditional and public journalism. The pieces are clearly slanted, supporting whatever action was taken and laced with some opinion, but the facts are still there. The articles always clearly outline the goings-on at the Department. Of course, there are no major criticisms included. This shows bias, but also adds depth to the potentially dry reporting of policy.
I think that both types of journalism are still crucial for a well rounded approach to news. Traditional news sources offer important facts that help to fully understand a topic. I think this is especially important for news stories covering law and politics. Without a factual backdrop, the story cannot successfully be reported. Then we can turn to public journalism for more context and the human perspective. I feel like part of news is human interest. Compelling, and at times tragic, stories connect us to an issue. We may not be too interested in the earthquake in Nepal (sadly) until we hear heartened stories from the survivors or families of the victims. It is important to see reactions to an event to get a more emotional connection than traditional journalism may offer.
Hi Emma,
I agree with you when you say that we turn to public journalism for more context and the human perspective.
I feel that I would not be satisfied if certain topics are just explored via traditional journalism alone. If I am looking into the topic of same sex marriage, I would not only want to read about the policies that exist, what our elected officials are saying about this topic, and the court cases that are taking place debating this issue. I would also want to hear from the people that this policy directly effects.
Emma, I totally agree with your analysis. I also feel like a combination of both traditional and public journalism are needed for the public to have a well-rounded approach. Public journalism is needed more for context and human perspective, as you stated, but I also feel like it’s needed because attention spans are unfortunately getting shorter and shorter.
Emma,
You are right on the money with your last sentence. Facts are a great way to allow people to formulate their own opinions but when emotions are involved its a way different ball game. Even with the most recent event of the Nepal Earthquake you mentioned, I was sad when I got my NY Times alert for this tragedy, but when I went on facebook and someone posted an article of Sofia Bush’s good friend, a young google executive Dan Fredinburg, with a picture and a story, I felt way more heart broken and found a way to connect to that more than to there was an earthquake. There needs to be a balance between news so that it appeals to all senses in people and keeps them interested in wanting to read, listen and stay informed.
One interesting initiative that is an example of public journalism was established in Ukraine in m mid-2013. Hromadske.tv is an internet news station that was created by a group of journalists who resigned from a Ukrainian television channel called TVi in the midst of an ownership dispute because, as they stated, they could no longer “guarantee to our audience to provide objective and unbiased information”.
Hromadske.tv is a civic project, a joint initiative to create a credible source of news in Ukraine, free from the control of oligarchs who own most of the media in the country. The station is publicly and privately funded through local fundraising, and the financial support of Western embassies in Ukraine (Netherlands, Canada, U.S.) and private charitable foundations. Here is a link (though so far, the content is only in Ukrainian): http://www.hromadske.tv/ .
Over the past two years, hrmadske.tv became very famous among the Ukrainian-speaking public, especially given the turbulent events in Ukraine. Local journalists present themselves as members of the public who are representing strong perspectives on current issues. Their reporting is quite passionate and emotional. Despite the fact that many of Hromadske.tv’s contributors are not professional journalists, there is not much criticism of this station. However, it looks that sometimes journalists cannot handle their own emotions during live interview. For instance, in July 2014, an anchor of Hromadske.tv cut off, in a fit of anger, cut off an interview with a well-regarded researcher in the Russia office of Human Rights Watch because she refused to go on record in blaming Russia for the conflict when speaking about civilian losses. This example shows that public journalists may be more connected to their audience and able to influence them to be more engaged, but less equipped to keep their emotions in check.
Reuters immediately comes to mind as an example of traditional journalism. Traditional journalism may be accepted more as a ‘professional’ journalism by a wider public, as some news outlets have proven themselves over time to be credible. But even such a reputation does not prevent the occasional accusation that the news agency is putting a particular spin on the news rather than presenting purely factual information to the public.
An example of journalism that is more difficult to classify as either “public” or “traditional” is VICE, the popular news website and weekly HBO program. VICE delivers powerful (and often dangerous) investigative journalism from around the world, but it tends to have a very particular tone, which is critical of mainstream journalism for not exposing the stories that matter. Another HBO program that may fit into this category is “Last Week Tonight,” though it is obviously more satirical.
I will start out by identifying the toughest to place: the Polish journalist/traveller Ryszard Kapuscinski (1932-2007). Kapuscinski was a giant in his field. He traveled the world, and described destinations as varied as Iran under the Shah, to Haile Selassie of Ethiopia. In his books he jumps from being a journalist, to pure poetry on his subjects, to commentary and scenic description. I really respect Kapuscinski for being able to spot differences in people without condescension – a very hard achievement for European journalists, who often speak from a pedestal.
In terms of public journalism, a notable figure who jumped suddenly into public journalism was Walter Cronkite (1916-2009). Cronkite essentially turned the tide of the American public against the Vietnam war. Historically a traditionalist, Cronkite felt forced to present the true view of the real American experience in Vietnam. The horrors that he witnessed forced him to speak out against the war, and Cronkite saw as his duty the need to report the truth as an American who was suddenly against the war.
Traditional journalism to me elicits tones of superiority coming from a place of traditional and consistency. I really do sometimes think of the New York Times, despite the newspaper’s definite liberal slant (arguably recent?). Outside of editorials, the Times delivers on an experience that seems to possess little bias, and is very careful to frame issues with as little controversy as possible. It almost feels as if the newspaper reports the news it feels needs reporting, and then allows consumers to decide their final views.
Krysz, it’s interesting what you say about the New York Times. I agree that the NYT’s articles generally are bias-free (other than the Op/Ed section), but the bias may creep in in the prioritization of the articles within the paper. Certain stories that are important get pushed to the back of the paper, while some stories show up on the front page and it’s not exactly clear what makes them so newsworthy. There is a fascinating short film from 2013 called “Reporting on the Times”: http://reportingonthetimes.com/
It describes how the editorial staff of the NYT deliberately buried stories about the murder of Jews during the Holocaust in tiny articles at the back of the paper, perhaps because the Publishers were Jewish and were reluctant to spark an antisemitic backlash. So this is a stark example of how the objectivity of a news organization has to be evaluated not just article-by-article, or story-by-story, but with a view of the entire context of how information is being presented.
Lena, it is interesting what you have just posted. If someone is accustomed to getting his or her news from one specific source, say CNN or MSNBC, then he or she should take time to see what is being said at Fox News, and vice versa. I thinks that citizens have a responsibility to understand the differences in the way the issue is being presented. I also think journalists have a responsibility to present all sides as well, and I think many are doing that. However, if you feel that your news source is not doing that, there are many ways that you can get other perspectives on this issue.
Krzys, Ryszard Kapuscinski sounds like an interesting person, I will definitely take a look at his writings.
I agree that NY times is probably a safe place to get reliable news and analysis, however besides their left leaning inclination, I do think that their foreign policy stories are not as accurate as one would hope for.
Do you think that the responsibilities that Carpini highlights should all be met in one piece? I feel it’s interesting that a place like the Times would have a few articles with different slants, to showcase the variety of the reporting/editing. Of course, the Times leans left, and it’s pretty visible. I find it interesting when the Times is clearly being very careful when reporting on issues that Republicans are sensitive about – almost going out of their way to appear neutral(ish).
Great method of analyzing different articles from one source. I immediately looked for different sources, and I think you have a more interesting approach. And of course, I do always like Jon Stewart, who I honestly feel is one of the best sources of news in the United States.
-Traditional journalism: A form of journalism where facts are considered the ‘be all and end all’ sounds great. Where truth and sound argument trumps any fallacies – even though they may be covered under the guise of grandeur statements and eloquently formed sentences by sharp witted speakers, Is a hard form of journalism to practice.
Two of the journalist I personally admire for carrying these traits are Nickolas Kristof and Paul Krugman.
Both are experts in their respective fields (Human Rights/social issues & Economics) and provide arguments that are rooted in facts, figures and numbers. Though they deviate from the original definition in the sense that they sometimes take sides, not a trait of traditional journalism, they do so on the basis of concrete pieces of evidence. Nickolas Kristof for instance recently did a series of pieces on sexual abuse in women, a scholarly study with many case files, personal interviews and statements from both sides of the spectrum. At the end, the premise was hard to deny, that sexual abuse in young women is a serious problem in America. Similarly, Paul Krugman had written extensively above why President Obama had to bail out the auto industry during the ‘great recession’ when the 3 largest car makers were on the verge of collapse. The conclusion again was for most, undeniable because Krugman made a strong case.
-Public journalism: Bill O’Riley, Hannity, Chris Mathews & Rachel Maddow to name a few would fall into the category of our modern day news media that practice public journalism, a more popular form of journalism in today’s society.
Since they all fall in the category of Opinionated shows rather than actual news, they are perfectly legitimate to speak from a personal position rather than as neutral professionals. The problem arises when these folks start portraying themselves as serious journalist on a mission to inform the populace about the actual issues of our times from a neutral prospective.
5 minutes in and the biases, corporate agendas and partisan rhetoric is clear for all to see (okay maybe not all!).
-Advantages and disadvantages of Public & traditional:
Readers and viewers seek out voices that reaffirm their own ideas and belief systems. For these people, public journalism meets that demand. However a major disadvantage of this is that they are forever confined to a very narrow definition of society. Anything that deviates from their world view is ‘wrong’ and rejected. This causes polarization and what we see today is potentially the result of this way of thinking.
-Are they still useful?
Perhaps, because both forms cater to a different set of people and so, as long as they are happy with being constantly reassured that their way of thought is the right way, things seem to remain stable.
For achieving a brighter more informed populace however, there are many disadvantages of a public style of journalism.
The frames describing “public journalism” are pretty easy to find in the 24-hour news cycle. To focus on, admittedly, the worst example of this form we can look at any of the debate segments, and often the interview segments on these channels. Anchors and producers of these segments seem to be public journalists but in the most disingenuous ways. During interviews many times the anchor will take a position in opposition to their guest in the name of being “fair and balanced” (as a side note, did anyone else notice how many times this phrase or a derivative of it was used in the reading/lecture this week. It bothers me that the Fox News “standard” for journalistic integrity has become the norm). The effect is that the expert guest ends up being discredited, or the anchor looks foolish if the guest is well prepared and able to defend their positions. It’s a fight instead of a conversation.
Debate segments are even more poorly produced versions of public journalism. In the name of presenting every side of the argument, producers book guests representing sides that should not be given a voice. For example after the measles outbreak in Disney land I saw several segments where a doctor would be on one side explaining the benefits of herd immunity and defending the safety of vaccines, and on the other side a mother of 5 unvaccinated children, with no science background and the conviction that “it’s unnatural so it must be poison” is given the same clout. The same thing happens when they debate global warming. Some positions shouldn’t be represented and ideally the journalists and producers on these shows should be the gatekeepers.
While it does have flaws, and it does tend to editorialize a bit the best example of traditional journalism that comes to mind is the Economist. It’s tone is dry, formal, and objective and its writers anonymous. It effectively presents the conversation without (generally) participating in it.
An interesting example not easily classifiable and in my opinion one of the best news magazines on television, is VICE News on HBO. One of the precious few doing long-form international investigative pieces, VICE has a unique way of presenting its stories. It’s reporters are imbedded with the subjects of their stories, often in dangerous areas, and conduct themselves with a level of respect for the people they are interviewing that they have gotten unprecedented access (interviewing the leader of the Taliban in Afghanistan, imbedding with ISIS and getting tours of ISIS controlled cities, being granted access to North Korea multiple times). While they do editorialize to an extent, this generally comes across not in the copy itself but rather in the tone of the piece, they have an agenda but are pretty artful in the way they present it, leading you to a conclusion rather than hitting you over the head with it. VICE magazine does an even better job of this with their in-depth print pieces. And its FREE!
Interesting point on the debates! With the 24 hour news cycle, I feel like this is due to the fact that the networks want to feel like they have “relevant” coverage of a prominent issue. Your example of the anti-vaccine movement being represented by someone with no medical experience is interesting – I wonder how many potential guests the network invited before settling on using that particular proponent of the anti-vaccine movement.
Ben, I’m glad you mentioned VICE as a show that is in a category of it’s own.
I think its one of the best means of getting actual news these days that the media seems to ignore. HBO has finally undertaken an initiative that deals with the realities of our times.
great show!
I’m with Krzys, I think its great that you are comparing stories from one source, very interesting. Do you think the NYT encompasses all of these different styles as a method of more broadly educating a wider audience, or just so they can move more papers? My question isn’t whether this is a good or bad thing, but rather what is the driving factor pushing the paper in this direction. If the new york times is presenting its stories in a variety of ways to increase readership and profitability and is doing it well, is that a defense for the, debatably evil, corporatization of the media??
Hi Olena, I agree with you that bias often times creeps into the New York Times articles, though this publication tries very hard to be a source of “traditional journalism”.
The newspaper had published an article last year titled “Michael Kors Locked-Up Luxury” in the NY/Region section.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/nyregion/michael-korss-locked-up-luxury.html?_r=0)
It was published under the NY/Region section. The article’s opening makes me think the author is intending for this article to be an interesting report on a New York City cultural item; women who buy Michael Kors bags. But as you continue reading you realize that she is actually really intent on discussing why Michael Kors bags are so popular with minority working class women. Her article actually comes across as her judging these women for purchasing expensive bags instead of spending their money in more practical ways, such as on their families.
The author writes, “[at the Fulton Street Macy’s a] woman, with two children in tow, had already bought several of the bags, some of them on layaway.”
I think that the author of this article is unintentionally displaying social class bias. And I think that this is an unintentional bias that can sometimes be found in their lifestyle and real estate articles.
I am a big fan of the New York Times and rely on this publication as my number one source of information on a daily basis. However, I do acknowledge that there is a certain degree of bias most of the time. This bias its not just reflected in their editorial columns, but in many of the articles they publish they have a liberal agenda. Most of the time, I am guilty of not questioning this bias or looking for other sources of information that may provide a different point of view.
The New Yorker Magazine is a good example of traditional journalism. The magazine publishes articles on a variety of subjects, such as the arts, science, current events, etc. This magazine’s articles are known for being long and I think that whenever they report on a subject, they present a variety of sources, experts and viewpoints on this one subject; which is what leads to the length of their articles
As for public journalism, I think that the blog “Angry Asian Man” is a good example of such.
http://blog.angryasianman.com/
This blog is run by Phil Yu who reports on a variety of current events that effect the Asian American Community. He also reports on entertainment news items which highlights Asian American artists, actors and musicians.
He is a member of the Asian American Community and a member of the community that cares to social justice, which are the two communities that he has written his blog for. He notes in the “About” section, that he is “using the blog as a way to highlight the racism that Asian Americans face, and hopes to use it to activate people to work on solving this problem”.
I also agree that both forms of journalism have its merits. There is always a need for traditional journalism; to know just the facts about the current events that are happening.
Meanwhile public journalism is very useful when the journalist has an agenda to pursue. In the contemporary media landscape, with the rise of online blogging, which contains writers making their own decisions (as opposed to their editors) about what to report on and what stories to feature, I think that this has led public journalism to become more and more prevalent.
Dianna, I agree with you. Public journalism can be good under certain situations, and I think it will continue to gain popularity with the expansion of social media and blogs. Today, young people are able to interact, share and participate more easily than ever, and they will continue to make use of the tools available through the internet in order to express their opinions about what they are reading, and what is happening in the world.
I am an avid reader of Time magazine. I rely on Time way more than any person should rely on any one news source. I’ve discovered many if not most of my favorite journalists from reading Time. I have never seen any one publication put in so much effort to stay neutral.
For example, in their April 13th issue, the cover story was about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana. In this article, the editors combined traditional journalism and public journalism smoothly to allow the readers to utilize their own values when forming their opinion.
The article titled, “The Battle of Indiana: How a Showdown over Religion and Gay Rights is CHanging the Culture War,” uses traditional media to explain the issue at hand with facts and figures. Without taking a side, the journalist, David Von Drehl, goes into depth describing the controversy. At the conclusion of the article, TIme asked two journalists, how they felt about the impending Act. Both journalists, Rod Dreher and Jonathan Rauch, had biases before hand and Time gave each a platform to express their opinion.
Many of TIme’s articles are certainly slanted, and many journalists with weekly columns have predictable biases, but they do well in preserving their integrity and maintaining their credibility as a news source.
I agree with your point on the slant in weekly columns. Weekly columns are similar to TV shows, in that the consumer is looking to be entertained. They have selected the opinion of an author they enjoy, and they look forward to hearing those opinions reiterated week after week. In this instance, readers are seeking out a bias rather than seeking out news.
It is hard to find truly neutral journalism. The best example I can think of is National Public Radio. They present the news in a neutral manner and in many of their shows, issues are debated and analyzed by offering two or more distinct points of view. However, I assume that at some point, they are also influenced by big donors who may donate to NPR as a way to set an agenda.
Sadly, in my opinion, none of the major networks that most people have access to or rely on are neutral or objective. In theory, public journalism may sound like a good idea: public participation, community involvement, etc. However, if we consider any of the major networks to be examples of public journalism – simply because they broadcast or write about issues that will get the public involved – we must re-think our idea of public journalism. Nowadays, traditional networks like CNN, NBC, FOX, etc, are interested in retaining audiences because that will ultimately bring them more advertising dollars. This situation results in extensive coverage of issues that the public may be interested in, but have are practically irrelevant or inconsequential to our every day lives. Take for example when a few months ago the Asiana Airlines plane disappeared. CNN ran countless hours of coverage on that issue, interviewed dozens of aviation experts, and analyzed the situation day after day for weeks. Initially, it was very interesting, but I cannot believe that nothing else of importance was happening in the world or even our country during that time of time.
An interesting alternative that I would consider “good” public journalism is VICE news. This is a show that normally runs on HBO but also has a YouTube channel. While I cannot say that they are completely objective, they do cover issues of great relevance that other networks barely mention, by taking heir journalist to the places where the events are happening, interviewing the communities affected, and getting expert opinions on the different issues. VICE news is proof that the internet is definitely changing the way we receive information and I think this is relevant specially for the younger generations that are not traditional TV viewers.
Maria, you bring up an important point about another factors that influences journalism, which is advertising dollars. I also agree that it is hard to find or categorize any journalism as neutral or objective. I think there are biases in reporting whether it is traditional, public, or a hybrid.
The New York Times is an example of traditional journalism. When I get my articles from my NY Times app appearing as a flash on my phone, I believe I am receiving news that is strategically inclined to presenting me the consumer/ reader the information. Most of the time I get snip-bits sent stating pure facts like Yankees win again Mets and the score attached, or a plane crashed somewhere. Off course inside those snip-bids are articles that do show some inclination of the journalists opinion, as does any news source. Especially in the world we live in where ratings and competition drive news production for profits.
A news publication that can be considered as public journalism are news publications such as Haaretz news or jpost, these publications are based in Israel and are biased towards portraying news in a light that tends to shine on Israel. Even though national issues are discussed, Israel and Jewish matters are biased towards the side of Israel, news is conformed to make Israel seem like a victim and make people sympathize to siding with the Israeli people. However, unbiased articles do exist that strictly have a purpose of presenting news to people. Public journalism is not always bad, when a nation needs to stick together to protect itself, this is a great form of getting its citizens to partake and trying to create a United Nation, it does however, leave little room for allowing people to create their own opinions. Both public and traditional journalism examples can present articles that can have an appeal to both sides of journalism.
An example of traditional journalism is the New York Times, which has investigative reporting and uses Associated Press and other credible sources for its articles. At time same time, the New York Times has blogs and the Magazine which mirrors the kinds of journalistic formats that I believe is aimed to reach a younger audience who might get their news from non-traditional sources. An example of public journalism I think is CNN and MSNBC, which presents the news to the public and offers its perspective on the news. I guess examples of media that does not fall into either the traditional or public journalism categories are publications such as Salon or the Atlantic. I think the advantage of traditional journalism is that the public views these media as being more credible and more reputable. However, it is important to have public journalism being accessible to the public because it offers other positions and perspectives to the audience. A disadvantage to public journalism is that it is not under the same scrutiny as traditional journalism, and thus may offer disinformation to the audience.
Ryan ,
I agree with your early post about BBC and their more traditional role. They recently and a great article explaining the history of baltimore and the divided “good and bad”neighborhoods there and the draconian tactics by police that seem to possibly have caused tensions to boil over in that city. I learned more from that article than everything else I’ve read so far on the story because it stated facts and a deep explanation of the possible reasons for the problem.
Ryan ,
I agree with your early post about BBC and their more traditional role. They recently and a great article explaining the history of baltimore and the divided “good and bad”neighborhoods there and the draconian tactics by police that seem to possibly have caused tensions to boil over in that city. I learned more from that article than everything else I’ve read so far on the story because it stated facts and a deep explanation of the possible reasons for the problem
Adam S.,
Agree about Time magazine, It has this wonderful way of presenting you the news in a very interesting fashion without boring and dragging on while at the same time keeping it’s integrity as a traditional source.
In Carpini’s summary of the social responsibility theory of the press, the press should provide a truthful and comprehensive account of events, but what strikes me the most are the expectations within the requirement: the press would be “accurate and objective, would distinguish fact from opinion, and would provide balance by presenting competing points of view.” Similar to what our class discussed as a criticism of the immigration-centered event we attended during Public Affairs Week, it would be really great to learn about the different dimensions of issues in the news on a regular basis, instead of solely getting one side of the story more often than not.
I don’t know if this fits directly in with the prompt here, but I think about interviews with a social media-hybrid component when thinking of public journalism in its effort to enable citizens (rather than Lippmann’s elite) to set the agenda. In February, MNBC, in conjunction with Telemundo, aired a town hall on immigration reform with President Obama. The host bilingually asked a few pre-determined questions, but the majority of the discussion came from Twitter and Facebook – folks throughout the country dictating how the discussion would go and what the agenda would be. I think this popular trend is a great way to incorporate public journalism and the public in important discussions and debates.
Traditional journalism talks TO people while public journalism includes people in the conversation. This is a key element because it helps formulate how the public makes important decisions, such as elections. However, times are changing and traditional journalism has realized including readers in the conversation is better for business.
The New York Times, as others have mentioned, is the best example of traditional journalism because it tries to remain objective while informing its readers. But the comment section exemplifies public journalism because anyone can respond to the article. For those of us who get our news online, this is the best of both worlds. We get the facts from the articles and the opinions from the comments. The same is true for television programs that lets viewers call in (Talking Dead, anyone?). Journalism no longer has to settle for either traditional or public views. Savvy editors– and business owners– know it pays to include both.
I think one good example of traditional journalism would be the BBC, I think it’s content is strategically thought out and presented in an unbiased way. It seems almost emotionless and dead sometimes when I hear it on the radio. The news reporter is calmly delivering the news in a steady unwavering voice, no matter how serious the topic is.
A great example of public journalism would be something like the huffington post where the news is infused with an opinion and a stance that is clearly stated by the writer frequently throughout the article. It is also considered a blog as well. It was launched in 2005 to counter the drudge report which is a right leaning version.
I think in todays contemporary media climate both styles of journalism is need and will continue to be used. There are those citizens that would rather get their news sources with a biased stance since they may identify with that political mindset and there should be news available to them whether they are liberal or right leaning. And of course there will also be people who would rather hear the news that is dug out by hard working reporters that may not necessarily be important to them. One great example in the reading was the Appalachian poverty that was not high on most peoples lists but was dug out by reporters who thought it was important for the american public to hear and learn about.
The disadvantages of public journalism is that the news could be skewed and cherry picked to further a political agenda that may sway people one political direction over the other. And the traditional journalist approach may overlook an issue that is seemingly unimportant but has relevance to the public.
Perhaps you’ve noticed the growing tendency of media outlets to present themselves as the Zeus on Mount Olympus you should go to for everything – your “most trusted” source.
In the process, some outlets seek to build business by having an editorial viewpoint that guarantees a large, like-minded following. Sometimes the bias is obvious, other times subtle or unintentional.
What concerns me is that we are being convinced to rely on one biased source and exclude other points of view. That is frightening.
No wonder we seem to be more polarized, and less knowledgeable, than ever!
But we can do something about this.
There is nothing wrong with bias, as long as you’re aware of it.
If we don’t see the bias, we simply accept the information as fact.
Bad information leads to bad decisions. This is where I go back to Thomas Jefferson’s great quote:
“If a people are sufficiently educated and informed, they can rule themselves.”
What he didn’t say, which is obvious, is “If they are not, they can’t.” But I’m concerned that that’s where we’re going as a nation.
So often, people don’t really know exactly what’s going on, they just know to repeat what they’ve been told so many times that they believe it in a brain-dead, ditto fashion.
People used to read and openly debate multiple sides of important issues.
Back in the days of the American Revolution, each town received, by horseback, pamphlets from multiple sources on different sides of the issues of the day. People would gather, read the pamphlets, and debate.
In those days, they understood that whoever was writing about the issue had an opinion, had an agenda, or had a bias. They didn’t expect somebody else to put it together for them. They didn’t trust anybody to do that. So they read more than one viewpoint, or at least they had to debate it with their neighbors.
Before Walter Cronkite, we didn’t have this concept of one unbiased source for news. Though I have remarkable respect for this famous CBS news anchor from the 60’s and 70’s, I think the idea has grown into something negative. If we really want to solve our problems, we need to be willing to look at issues from different perspectives.