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 news of the Naval Blockade of Cuba of 1962 broke on the television and radios and was written about in the newspapers. This is a true example of traditional journalism. President John F. Kennedy announced to the American people that he ordered a blockade of Cuba in response to the discovery that Soviet missiles were being installed on the island. The news aired a televised speech, where JFK condemned Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev for the “clandestine, reckless and provocative threat to world peace” and warned that the United States was fully prepared to retaliate should missiles be launched. Public journalism broke the news about The Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting on the news, radios, Internet and the newspapers. The news of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting flooded social media websites and everyone knew all they needed to by just opening up various Internet browsers. Another example where public journalism broke was Osama Bin Laden dead, the story twitter broke.
To me there is nothing better then holding a real newspaper in my hand and reading through the different sections. Traditional journalism in this decade has become considered something of the past. Information sharing started with traditional journalism and will never be the same as it once was. Tradition journalism is seen by many as rooted in the outlook of influential American journalist and political commentator Walter Lippman. Lippman believed that experts should play a vital role in helping to inform public opinion. We used to hear the up-to-date news on the radio or television, and read about it in the paper. In the past decade newspaper ad revenues have significantly dropped, producing poor quality reporting which in turn has resulted in journalism companies cutting their staff. These journalists were able to provide us with objective and strategic information without taking any position. There are fewer jobs within the traditional journalism job market as the journalism market has moved more to blogs and social networks.
Public journalism exists because we the people are interested in public life, if we weren’t then theses journalists wouldn’t have a job. John Dewey put his faith not in an organization of experts but in the citizens themselves. He believed that “democracy is a way of personal life controlled not merely by faith in human nature in general but by faith in the capacity of human beings for intelligent judgment and action if proper conditions are furnished.” Anyone can participate in public journalism. A public journalist doesn’t have to apologize for having an agenda while they are improving the publics dialogue. Public journalism has many advantages; public journalists deliver fair-minded news to the public. Different ideas, statements, and facts are explored and questioned. Public journalism moves from seeing individuals as consumers to seeing them as a public, describing what is going right and wrong in the current times. There are also disadvantages to public journalism like everything else. In order to have public journalism we need to have public life to write about, they depend on each other. This type of journalism’s prime focus is on drama and about revealing the truth behind the facts. Most of the time writing is done in the first person point of view. Another disadvantage is that some writers can have distorted views and have ulterior motives. These writers are reporting information before having proof to back it up. These journalists are seen as objective and impartial.
Technology is changing how individuals are consuming news. In the recent decade people are accessing and receiving news in real time on the Internet rather than a traditional newspaper reporting days later. My father used to go out every morning and buy the paper, now he reads the paper on his kindle. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media sites spread news rapidly on their news feeds. Individuals can leave comments on social media sites and online newspaper sites that bring about constructive criticism and debatable discussions. The public is finding new ways to get information while journalism is moving online.
Hi Katie,
When I think of traditional journalism, I think of the name Walter Cronkite. His reputation is one of integrity and honesty. I read that “he was the “most trusted man in America,” as determined by a 1972 Oliver Quayle poll. In fact, he beat the president and vice-president of the United States, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, the Democratic candidate for the presidency (Senator George McGovern), and all other journalists.” His style of journalism is why my mother-in-law thinks that journalist “just give us the facts”.
Mary,
Walter Cronkite was a great example of traditional journalism! My parents and grandparents always told me how Cronkite reported only the facts. He was the go to source for unbiased news from World War II to the death of John Lennon and everything in between. Unfortunately, the news outlets today do not provide the same level of confidence or trustworthiness as Cronkite once did. They seem to be pushing an agenda and it’s unfortunate that a viewer needs to listen, read, and watch various news sources to get all the facts of the story instead of the anchors biased message.
Katie, I think its great that you touch on how technology is really influencing the way individuals are consuming news. People don’t need to wait for the evening news or the next days newspaper when they can be updated on anything at any time. Journalism needs to keep up with the changes which is totally changing the way its delivered. Also people can share their views with others online, opening up doors to further deliberation on issues.
Hi Katie,
I think you did a phenomenal job illustrating the difference between “traditional” and “public” journalism. I definitely agree with you that technological advancements and media are diminishing the lines between the two. Additionally technological advancements have opened the gateway and broadened the horizons to basically allow any individual to report information in a biased way through the internet. Although this new movement towards heightened technological advancements can prove to be beneficial in bringing us news “faster”, as you said it can also be detrimental to our society as well.
Hi, Katie,
I like your post. This world is changing unexpectedly fast. As you mentioned, in this digital world, technology is really changing the way how people get news. The public are participating in the social media to an unprecedented extent. Every one has a chance to leave comments on social media, and broadly speaking, they are all journalists. This changed the traditional concept of journalist who must be professional in media industry. When we are arguing the pros and cons between public and traditional journalism, it’s really important to take the current digital media situation into account.
Traditional journalism has changed over the years due to advances in technology. Newsworthy stories are similar to when you buy a new car, it depreciates in value for every minute of ownership. It used to be you could have the six o’clock news and the paper in the morning. Now, that same morning paper is often “behind the times,” as it is telling yesterday’s news and the world has moved on to today’s stories. The move to online publications has allowed for greater real time access to information, as well as expanding our overall consumption of the news.
Staying current is one of the most difficult aspects about selecting which news stories a media outlet should present. Since we now have the ability to know about a news story the moment it happens, with continuous updates and developments, the more traditional forms of journalism have become more of a recap of the days’ stories, rather than informing the public for the first time. The evening news has traditionally been the time when the most important stories of the day are broadcast to the world. It used to represent the hard cutting edge journalism that you did not find in the local midday or late evening news. Today, those lines are blurred as the traditional news outlets feel the need to be seen as more connected to their viewers or readers, an area that used to be the bastion of the local reporter.
Traditional journalism is beginning to fall by the wayside. The direct reporting of facts and information can be a bit dry in today’s instant fast-paced world. Now, with the need for speed, there are usually only a few minutes dedicated to a particular story, even on what many would consider the traditional news outlets, like the major television networks, or large nationally recognized newspapers. People’s attention spans have gotten shorter and they want to get the information in quick sound bites, especially since there are so many outlets if they want a more detailed review. Traditional journalism has merit, and is needed, but for real in-depth analysis of a story, today you will often see this as a Dateline Special, or in one of the publications that review the week’s top stories, such as Time magazine (which, like its competitors, also has a website that offers real time reporting and other content not available in the published weekly).
In an attempt to be more relevant, and less elitist, the trend for news reporting these days is for the reporter to become part of the story. Perhaps they are embedded with a fighting battalion or join a protest. This type of reporting gives the viewer/reader the feeling of “being there” and can offer a true first-hand account of the situation. By allowing the reporter to express real emotions the audience gets a better understanding of the story. This is also reflective in the choice of news anchors we wish to watch. We tend to favor one channel over another as we give a greater credibility to one news anchor compared to another. We want to feel that we are being told the facts in a way that feels more personal to our beliefs.
The times when it is more difficult to discern between traditional and public journalism is when you have news outlets that have clear bias, such as the varying slants of stories on CNN vs. FOX. Although these news outlets (and print publications are not exempt from this) are basically telling the same story, there is a slight difference in the approach to the story. The use of certain vocabulary, or the tone of the reporter is different. Different stories may or may not be covered at all due to these biases. For the audience, the tendency is to seek out the news outlets that are more in line with their way of thinking. They want the story, but they want the story told from their point of view.
Sometimes this gray area between the two types of journalism can be blurred, resulting in disappointment and a failure to be able to find the truth in the story. The recent controversy concerning Brian Williams is a perfect example of this problem. His need to offer a version of public journalism in the traditional journalism setting of the evening news resulted in his “stretching” the truth, so much so that his integrity as a journalist has been questioned. It makes it difficult for the viewer to trust him, even when he is merely reporting the news, rather than making it.
Another example of the blurring between traditional and public journalism is the magazine The Week, which reports on the current week’s stories. The Week is issued on Friday and brings in not only the top stories of the week, but shows the opinions of varying sources. This allows the reader to learn about a range of opinions on one article in one place. The reader can then go and research the original articles and find out more.
Another problem for both types of journalism is the accuracy of the story. Often times news stories that are published online are rushed. They may not have enough reliable and reputable sources, or could potentially be reporting misinformation. You will often see an article being updated at various points throughout the day as more information becomes available. Although every news media outlet wants to be the one to break the story, they are more often than not, reporting the same information in a different medium. What started out as an online story will then appear on the nightly news, and finally be the front page news in the print version of The New York Times the following morning.
Dewey and Lippmann had differing views on the involvement and perspective of an informed citizenry, but they both relied on people becoming informed about the issues. Both straight facts, such as those found in traditional journalism, or a more nuanced piece, such as that found in public journalism, will both sway a reader. It is up to that reader to continue to probe further into an issue and learn more in order to make a more informed opinion.
Hi Michelle,
I’m glad you brought up the Brian Williams story. What a tragic situation. I certainly don’t excuse his behavior and can’t see how the public could trust his reporting after that stunt; however, after your policy option brief I have a bit of a better understanding of the pressure and competition of getting the story in first. Although your situation involved Alaska Reality TV, you indicated that pressure was on you to get the job done quick to get it out there first. I imagine the same pressure is on journalists, unfortunately, Brian Williams went too far.
Thank you.
Michelle, I like how you touched upon the degree of connectedness within public journalism. Nowadays, society is very cohesive, and people want to feel as if they are acknowledged by others. By showing readers that their perspective is considered, journalists who use public journalism are very validating toward their audience. The audience feels as if the journalists are more connected, and therefore they are more likely to readily agree with those journalists.
Hi Michelle,
It is interesting what you write about people’s attention span getting shorter. I think this is particularly true in the world of social media. It seems that we live in the world of “twitter news” where traditional journalism is brought down to 160 characters.
Hi Michelle,
I agree, traditional journalism is taking a back seat as it doesn’t make for good t.v. for 24-hour news outlets. I also agree with your statement that the different news outlets MSNBC vs CNN vs FOX all use different vocabulary and catch phrases in their traditional journalism segments that create biases.
The unfortunate part is that most of the public will not take the time needed to sort the facts from opinions and will be easily swayed to one opinion or another.
Michele,
This is a very thorough write up. I enjoyed your analysis and think your last point really hit the point home. You stated that “It is up to that reader to continue to probe further into an issue and learn more in order to make a more informed opinion.” This is really what it comes down to. Living in an age where media is in your face all the time, and every person, company, or internet source has an agenda, it’s imperative for every person to do their own due diligence to come to the right conclusions.
Michele,
Like your example of CNN and Fox. They are telling the same story, just using a different approach. Like using different vocabulary or the tone of the reporter is different.
Traditional journalism includes the strong effects theory which contends that the news can put “pictures in our head” or inject ideas into our brains. In this view, media does influence the public. A form of traditional journalism is the Agenda Setting Theory. I believe this is the theory most used at this time. In this theory, media tells us what to think about; media tells the stories that we “should” be focused on. Public concern follows the media coverage. An example of this is the recent coverage of police brutality across the nation. Now, I do not approve of police brutality in any way; however, do I feel that it has increased recently? No, I feel it has always been there, we are just hearing more about it because it is now being covered. The media is covering these stories therefore we hear about it more often.
Public journalists present news in which they take a position or attempt to solve a problem. Dewey believed that citizens “were capable of engaging experts and their ideas and contributing to public deliberation.” Although John Stewart and Steven Colbert are comedians, they have comedy TV shows that look at recent events (in a comedic fashion). I had the opportunity to be in the audience of both shows and enjoyed each one. I found it interesting that while waiting in line and talking with other show watchers, some confessed that these shows are the only place they get their news.
I think that the media does have the opportunity to put pictures in the public’s head. Even if it is simply by choosing which story to report.
Mary, you pointed out that the media has the opportunity to “put pictures in the public’s head”. I believe that to be true as well. After all the media decides what stories and information they share regardless of whether or not they take a position when sharing that information.
Hi Mary,
I to believe that the pictures are placed in our heads. Many times when there is a “top story” no matter what channel you turn to or the front page of the paper you can not get away from it. It is the story that they want you to focus on. I think people are definitely influenced by what they want you to hear or see. Just like reality television where the clips that are seen are just a small segment of what took place. This segment just shows you a small picture and it might not be the whole story.
Maria
Mary, I agree with you and all of our classmates that have replied to your post that the media does put a picture in our heads. Maria makes a good point that media decides on what the “top story” is and that the other newspapers and television news stations just jump on board. Media overall influences our minds and our daily life choices when we might not have all the facts.
I agree that we are often feeling the increase in a situation, such as police brutality, because it is currently front page news. This, like so many other major issues that have crossed the front page of the paper, have always been around, it’s just when we decide to fully pay attention.
The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are both entertaining, especially when you can attending a taping. Now that both shows have ended (or are soon to end), it will be interesting to note where those who primarily obtain their news from those shows will turn. New replacement shows are being added to the schedule, but there is no guarantee that they will attract the same audience.
You are right, there is a bias in what to report. Several factors are often considered and stories can be bumped if there is breaking news or an unexpected event. If you look closely there is a general formula of stories shown; the more hard hitting news at the top and the lighter, fluffier human interest stories at the end. Networks are all working to not only bring you the news, but to bring in the ratings. The mere fact that the less hard-hitting stories are appearing on the news outlets considered traditional illustrates just how blurred the lines are becoming between the two types of journalism.
Mary, you are right that media coverage predicts how much people know of certain kinds of events. I think that it is interesting that traditional journalism has such power to cause the public to believe that certain phenomena, such as police brutality, has just recently become a problem, when in fact police brutality has existed for years. Since public journalism is so obviously biased, it does not have the same power to convince as does traditional journalism.
Hi Mary,
I have always believed the media was a powerful tool used to manipulate the public by putting pictures in our heads and targeting opinion leaders to influence those around them. I’m glad the professor presented studies and theories that prove those points.
In addition, I always questioned why is pop culture suddenly apart of the traditional new segment both on a local and national level. It was usually up to Entertainment Tonight, Inside Edition and Access to report pop culture news. I wonder why the shift (I have my speculations, but will keep it to myself).
Hi Mary,
Interesting post and I absolutely agree. The media has a very real power to shape the debate. This weekend one of the top stories on CNN was the Bruce Jenner interview despite the devastating earth quake in Nepal. CNN also repeatedly aired nonsense over the missing Malaysia flight for weeks.
Mary, It’s interesting how some people only gain their knowledge of certain issues from public journalism. For example, Republicans often read conservative newspapers, and therefore will only get information that is probably less than subjective. Public journalism is made for people who have biases similar to that of the journalist, and effectively strengthens those biases even more.
I often find myself just as guilty of seeking out biased materials as conservatives. I love reading The New Yorker, because I know that I will likely agree with the values of the journalists included.
I think a good example of traditional journalism would be the stories in Newsday. Newsday is a Long Island, NY newspaper that informs readers about top news and events in the Long Island area without really taking a position on any of the issues. They just present the information to the public. I think a good example of public journalism is “Good Morning America” on ABC. Special interest news stories are discussed as well as positions on issues. I think the advantage of traditional journalism is that its main focus is providing citizens with information and the facts, whereas public journalism tends to manipulate the information to draw viewers. I think in a time like today when there are so many outlets to choose from, people tend to gravitate more towards what they are interested in and public journalism often does a good job of keeping people interested. The disadvantage of that is the bias that comes with taking a position while informing others. Both traditional and public journalism have their pros and cons.
Danielle,
I think you have given two exemplary examples to portray the difference between traditional and public journalism. Although the lines are becoming more and more blurred these days and true traditional journalism is slowly diminishing.
Danielle, I think you write about two great examples. I’m from Long Island and in the past when I read the article in Newsday I believe they do a great job writing the articles without taking a position on the issue. I also believe that you can make a list of the pros and cons of both traditional and public journalism but most individuals will choose to watch public journalism as that is what they are most interested in!
As someone who is originally from Long Island, Newsday was often a staple Sunday read. Although Newsday has an online presence, the tone of their website is similar to the paper, just with video and the ability to keep the stories up to date. I agree that public journalism is really what is dominating the news stories today. There is a lot of bias in any story, but the advantage of multiple sources, both traditional and public, is the ability to find the information from all sides of the argument. The news is generally viewed as a rather depressing subject (war, death, accidents, etc…), and sometimes people want more of the those lighter stories and commentator input in order to not only read about heavy subject matter. There is a place for both types of journalism, just as long as we are able to distinguish fact from opinion.
Hi Danielle,
I agree people tend to watch what they are most interested in and it seems like public journalism is winning. Even in my household it is interesting to see my 13 year old and husband watch CNN and have discussions on the topics presented. As my son points out he doesn’t mind public journalism as long as the topics presented are factual and unbiased. Public journalism helps people become more engaged.
Maria
Danielle, I like how you mentioned how people naturally gravitate towards that which interests them. I think that many people already have views on certain issues, and don’t really want to learn about other views. Rather, they want their own views to be confirmed by authorities more knowledgeable than they are. Public journalism accomplishes just that; it confirms the perspectives of its audience.
Today, Journalism is not just about reporting facts and getting news out. Journalism has become more of a public service; in which it is a journalists duty to communicate local, national, and international information to the public in an efficient and effective way.
However, any journalist must create and portray their ability to be trusted in order to gain credibility.
“Traditional Journalism” was debated by Walter Lippman in the 1920’s, as a form of journalism in which it was the journalists responsibility to strictly record and report political information to the public. There are not many examples of traditional journalism today; consequently technological advancements are defeating more and more instances of traditional journalism existing today.
John Dewey; however, believed that a journalist should act as a responsible member of the community whose job it is to consider the pros/cons of political options and help formulate a solution for the public, a concept referred to as “public journalism”. Although this may be beneficial at times, other times this may provide for a very biased report in which the journalist takes a side with ulterior motive and intent. During 9/11, many eye witness accounts of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center were examples of public journalism.
Hi Dona,
I agree that traditional journalism is getting more difficult to find today. I personally prefer seeing an attempt at traditional journalism because then I get to see for myself and make a decision for myself. That’s why I guess I like seeing the raw footage of journalist in the field because you get a better understanding of where the information is coming from.
Public journalism provides people with detailed news and information about specific issues to allow them to make the decisions they are called on to make in a democratic society. It tries to connect with the real concerns that viewers and readers have about the issues they care most about Traditional journalism asks the questions who, what, when, where, and why. Public journalism expands to ask ‘why is this story important to me and to the community? It tries to aim to develop more democratically active citizens and does this by to do this by providing expert comment on an issue.
An example on television of public journalism is Meet the Press. Meet the Press is made up of a panel which has interviews with national leaders on issues such as politics, economics, foreign policy and other public affairs, and provide opinions and analysis on each topic. An example of traditional journalism could be any of the major networks news shows where they just deliver the facts on what happening.
Some strengths for public journalism is that it can be used to raise widespread public awareness of community issues and offers citizens the chance to determine what makes news in their community through polls or community forums. Some cons the media must decide whether to become involved to this extent, it may accommodate to those who are most ‘media friendly’ and may not be represent of community views and influenced by the media’s agenda.
I think that public and traditional journalism need each other. I believe we need to use the who, what , why, when and where to present the facts and add discussions so that we can come up with thoughtful opinions and decisions of our own.
Maria,
I agree with you. Public and traditional journalism need each other. You need both to be effective.
A good example of traditional journalism is the early March New York Times’ article on Netanyahu’s then-planned visit to the Congress. The article does not express any opinion or specific perspective on the visit; rather, it just gives over factual information about Netanyahu’s planned speech. An example of public journalism is the New York Times’ reporting of how the U. S. is planning on reacting to ISIS. The article speaks about how the U.S. plans on recruiting the help of various Sunni tribes, and then discusses how this plan might not be most effective. The article takes a clear position against Obama’s plans toward combating ISIS, making it a prime example of public journalism. I think that traditional journalism has advantages in that it is more convincing toward its audience, since there is no obvious bias being introduced. In the case of Netanyahu’s speech at the Congress, the New York Times article would most likely not be doubted by people, as there is no specific perspective presented by the authors. Public journalism, on the other hand, enables readers to gain a deeper understanding of the factual information presented, and further provides them with perspective on those issues. Furthermore, those readers that belong to the same community as the authors are likely to trust the information in the articles more. However, readers who feel as if the authors have biases that are not similar to their own will not trust the information presented in the article.
I think it is also important to note that the same media outlet can offer both forms of journalism. As the New York Times and its bloggers and op ed authors have given very personal analysis of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and what it means for America’s geopolitical interest. Sometime reading the same media outlet we have to be careful in what section of the paper offers what kind of journalistic perspective.
Hi Batya,
I liked that you use the same source to depict both traditional and public journalism. It really is a matter of how the journalist and editors approach the topic that makes the difference.
We live in the world of the 24-news cycle. Most of us have applications on our phones that provide news.
Personally i have Associated press and BBC applications on my phone that are set to deliver breaking news. I often get short alerts on breaking events worldwide. Information on breaking news is often short and brief as the news is almost real time and media outlets often do not have access to full information. This is an example of traditional journalism where real time news are delivered based on information currently available without much space for opinion analysis.
Public journalism is for example Time magazine, that once a week takes a look back at all the trends in the world, and attempt to make sense of it though opinion makers. Reporters like Joe Klein and Fareed Zakaria offer opinions and analysis that stem from clear conservative and liberal perspective, respectively.
They key to being an informed citizen in the fast changing media war is understanding the outlet providing news.
Public journalism is when Don Lemon dons a gas mask in Ferguson, MI in the middle of protests as a member of the community to report the reaction of the grand jury. Or when Piers Morgan attempted to tackle the American gun control issue. Although journalists are better able to connect with the community using public journalism, it makes them choose a side and does not give objective journalism.
Traditional journalism is 60 minutes coverage on national and world events as they have both sides of the story present and the viewer makes their conclusion.
Since 24-hour news outlets are looking for ratings, public journalism most likely will be the dominant type of journalism as it makes for good television. However, traditional journalism, in my opinion is more important as it brings all the facts in one story and allows the reader/viewer to make their own opinion.
Years ago during my undergrad I wrote my capstone on several of FDR’s agricultural programs that were eventually declared unconstitutional during the New Deal. To get a feel for the public perception of these programs I went through hundreds of New York Times, LA Times and Chicago Tribune articles. I was stunned at the way in which these articles were written compared to what is written today. It was a traditional journalism view, where the authors of the articles wrote who, what and where but left out anything that might have been seen as opinionated and the authors consciously kept themselves out of the story.
Public journalism is quite different, although not always for the worse. One example I was introduced to recently by another student in my management class was Geraldo Rivera’s investigation of the Willowbrook State School. Rivera acted as a member of a community to speak up for the mentally disabled population who were living in squalor and horrific conditions at Willowbrook.
I won’t argue that public journalism is always, or even mostly, a force for good. I would much prefer our journalists maintained the traditional view and let the public decide for themselves what they think.
Dan,
I think your Geraldo example is great. It definitely depicts a public form of journalism.
Dan,
Very interested factoid about the newspapers back in the time of FDR. Unfortunately, those types of newspapers probably wouldn’t sell as much as a Huffington Post or a New York Post in today’s times. I’d be curious to find out when bias started to enter more and more into the “traditional” sources.
An excellent example of traditional journalism would be Bloomberg News. Bloomberg is a news source used all over the world (especially by financial professionals) to sort through data. The people reading Bloomberg want fact, not opinions. On the other hand, a good example of public journalism would be CNN. CNN offers special interest stories and is always pushing an agenda. I think both traditional and public journalism are an important way of keeping people informed. Some people may not have an opinion on a specific issue and public journalism from a variety of different media sources can help form someone’s opinion. However, I personally prefer traditional journalism since my job involves me sorting through loads of facts. I prefer to come to my own conclusions and not be guided towards a certain opinion based on some talking head.
When thinking of traditional journalism I think of the HBO show VICE. They provide an observational objective view of social situations. In one episode they follow a few people on their quest to quit their addiction to heroin by traveling to Peru to take a hallucinogenic drug to help. The reporting is from an observational stand point and doesn’t really take any opinion of the topic.
The public journalism that I can think of is meet the press where they bring several different opinions together and try to solve problems. They bring a lot to the table and make valid attempts at deliberation.
Anothony Bourdains beyond borders is journalism that combine the two traditional and public. It shows an objective, observational report of a travel destination while also reporting with opinions on their cuisine.
The NYTimes is an example of traditional journalism that presents its reporting as factual and unbiased.
A great example of public journalism is the many blogs dedicated to tracking the process of gentrification in New York – vanishingnewyork.blogspot.com and evgrieve.com come to mind. The writers for these blogs are purposefully chronicling the affects of gentrification in order to inform a broader public and help fight against gentrification.
I am unsure how I would categorize editorials written by mainstream news outlets. On the one hand, they are clearly opinion pieces meant to influence decision-makers of the particular issue. On the other hand, they are often written as objective analyses from a detached/impersonal perspective. Perhaps they are somewhere in between!
I also listed blogs as an example of public journalism (although I was referring to neighborhood blogs in particular). Maybe it is because of the more informal formatting or tone of language, but they have seemed to emerge as digital soap boxes.
Sara, you reminded me of blogs that are part of major media outlets, such as the ones on Forbes, NYT, Washington Post, etc. While they are funded and marketed by these major traditional sources, they still have public dissemination of information through the nontraditional authors. I think these are good meshes of traditional and public journalism.
Sarah, although I am against gentrification I agree with your definition of what a public journalist is. I have trouble reading blogs that are full of biases that misleads the public while the author indoctrinates himself as being a journalist. A journalist has a responsibility to the public to deliver information for all sides. I believe if there were more “journalist” that did we as a society would understanding each other and get along better.
Traditional journalism is best exemplified by Walter Cronkite’s reporting of John F. Kennedy’s assassination. Cronkite reported the incident as it occurred, without deviating from the details of what he saw. He did not identify with any specific group, nor did he express his own opinions or his own proposed solutions on how the issue might be resolved. In contrast, the Robert Cribb of the Toronto Star constantly voices his opinions on issues such as modern slavery and medical malpractice. Therefore, Cribb’s reporting is a great example of public journalism.
I think that nowadays, society is so stratified that it is difficult to openly identify with one particular group without losing members of your audience who belong to other groups. People want to believe that they are getting an objective reporting of current events. Therefore, it is always a risky move to use public journalism. However, many people are interested in understanding how others feel about certain issues. Public journalists usually represent certain groups, so people who want to understand what those groups’ positions are on issues can gain that knowledge via public journalism.
Many Americans turn to BBC News for traditional journalism, particularly of American events. I personally have the BBC app on my phone and use it to review the latest news in the mornings. Though it might be closer to “traditional journalism” than the New York Post or the New Yorker, which are more openly conservative and liberal, respectively, I am sure that some bias exists in its coverage and editing.
An example of public journalism would be neighborhood blogs. My own neighborhood has a very active blog – Ditmas Park Corner (www.ditmasparkcorner.com) – which collects and disseminates news and information to citizens of the community. In their social media posts they actively include personal feelings on topics (empathy over house fires or disgust at a corner store stick-up), and try to engage as an equal with their readers.
C-SPAN is hard to categorize in my opinion. Their network of tv broadcasts and radio act essentially as a means of disseminating information and public affairs events without adding their own commentary or viewpoints. In the truest since this is the presentation of “just the facts.” However, because there is little or not interpretation of the events, is it even journalism or just live streaming?
Even newspapers have mostly public journalists than traditional journalists, that’s why I tend to read the non-name brand newspapers, such as Huffington Post, and others. Sorry couldn’t think of them now, since its been a while that I have read them.
A perfect example of traditional journalism is any form of a publicly funded media outlet such as NPR or PBS. I currently have the NPR app on all of my devices, and use it as my main source of news. While I’m sure there is at least a tad bit of bias, the “glorious monotone” that is unheard of on any other news station is something that is respectable, and allows the listener/reader to interpret the presented facts however they want.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t sell. People like their own ideas reinforced, and will seek out news sources that do so. It would be a very purposeful effort for any individual to go out to try and find a news source that disagrees with them, and listen to opinions that fundamentally alter their world view. For this reason, public stations such as NPR and PBS (which do their absolute best to stray from bias) are heavily subsidized.
Personally, I think public journalism and the rise of the internet has made the country more divided, and caused more partisanship. In the era of traditional journalism, there were opportunities for the media to be “checked.” It was a virtue to be nonbiased, and to present news as is, with no fluff or diminishments.
Today, public journalism and the internet has distorted the presentation of facts (looking at you, Dihydrogen monoxide assignment), and created an echo chamber for people to find things that only agree with their viewpoint. Any conservative can find hundreds of websites spouting anti-liberal rhetoric, and vice-versa applies for liberals as well.
I just want to point out a very recent example of public journalism gone horribly, horribly wrong. For those unfamiliar, http://www.reddit.com is a website dedicated to sharing news stories, where users vote up or down as to whether they think the story is interesting. During the Boston Marathon bombing, many Reddit users banded together to try and find the culprit before traditional journalist/the police could.
After video analysis, photographic evidence, and “hacking,” Reddit thought it had caught the culprit. The address, name, telephone #, etc. were all made public, and there was a virtual witch hunt for the individual.
Unsurprisingly, without any journalistic training or ethical qualms, Reddit had indeed found the wrong individual, causing that person a huge amount of stress and public humiliation.
Examples such as the Reddit case show the fallbacks of public journalism. While more easily accessible and “inclusionary,” the standards are significantly lower. In addition to that, what appeals to the masses may not always be right. Traditional journalism has the advantage that even if the story reported isn’t pleasant to report and counter to what most people think, it’s still reported – and reported correctly.
Hi, Carmelo,
I think you made a good point that public journalism has made the country more divided and partisan. It provides a safe harbor to unite the people who have same opinions in order to harm others who hold opposite views. This can be very harmful to the society if not constrained properly. This runs contrary to the principle of social media which should provide a forum for the diversity of opinions. Traditional journalism can better achieve that goal by giving information as objective as possible.
In recent time journalism has taken on additional meanings. Anyone with a camera and/or a computer can refer to themselves as a journalist. In my opinion public journalists are not as distinct as our traditional journalist. Public journalist operate from their core belief system. That core belief system may not be factual or objective. Their reporting may come from a place of bias. Traditional journalist are expected to deliver the news without prejudice or personal opinion. As classist as it this may seem the educational background for traditional journalist are pretty substantial and are accredited by many in their industry. I happen to place more trust on those that have degrees to fall back on. These journalist have made a career in delivering factual news whereas public journalist expertise in journalism can not be fully guaranteed. Diana Swayer started out as a weather forecaster on local television. She is a journalist, television correspondent and news anchor. She worked in the Nixon Administration as his staff assistant. Diana Swayer has delivered creditable news with a long resume to support her. She has interviewed Jacqueline Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Malala Yoursafzai just to name a few. Diana Swayer is the definition of what a traditional journalist is. Granted, there are many other traditional journalist throughout history like war correspondents, and those other traditional journalists that have delivered the news as it happens. It is hard to say who broke the story first but those are good examples as well.
I agreed that with internet at our disposal, anyone can become a public journalist, however, their stories always tend to op-ed to me. Which can be a good or bad thing, depending if their information or story is well-informed and not made up just to criticize their opponents.
During the past decades, the central goal of the press has remained stable which is to enlighten the public in order to make it capable of self-government. Traditional journalism is essential to achieve this ultimate goal. Social media is a forum to provide information as objective and accurate as possible. The real purpose of objectivity is to “frame problems in ways that enable society to talk about them.” Journalists are expected to be watchdogs of government. They are responsible to uncover the truth behind the fact and facilitate the people in making decision in public affairs.
The campaign coverage is a good example of the public journalism. The advantage of this news reporting from a particular perspective is that journalists can have a close focus on the specific issues and mobilize all the possible resources. This enables journalists to overcome the obstacle of practical constraints such as time, space and expertise. On the other hand, the disadvantage is the risk of declining public trust of the news media. Given the overwhelming number of news which can be considered newsworthy, the available information given by the journalists affects citizens making decisions.
Journalists are gatekeepers to determine what the public can see and hear. The traditional journalism is a Utopia which we can hardly achieve, but infinitely approach. In reality, the public journalism is an unavoidable phenomenon. Even though columnists, editorialists are explicitly opinionated, at least they are doing so not intentionally serve interest groups. Therefore, as long as journalists have “social responsibilities” as the moral standard, both categories can coexist in this technological world in order to better inform the public.
Lippman and Dewey have opposing views but are correct and based on that depends on how people seek out news either through traditional journalist or public journalist. Lippman stated the public is uninformed and are easily swayed, Dewey believed citizens were capable in engaging experts and their ideas in order to be able to deliberate those ideas. I believe there are two types of people, people that seek out their news based on if they are more Dewey or Lippman school of thought.
I believe people that tend to be more aligned with Dewey are seekers of traditional journalism that utilizes experts are used to convey facts. I believe those people that are aligned with more Lippman may seek their news through public journalism, they choose not to seek out the news but rather choosing to let it present itself. Turning on their chosen channel listening to the news and accepting it at face value.
Original post: reposted not signed in
April 27, 2015 at 11:52 am
Lippman and Dewey have opposing views but are correct and based on that depends on how people seek out news either through traditional journalist or public journalist. Lippman stated the public is uninformed and are easily swayed, Dewey believed citizens were capable in engaging experts and their ideas in order to be able to deliberate those ideas. I believe there are two types of people, people that seek out their news based on if they are more Dewey or Lippman school of thought.
I believe people that tend to be more aligned with Dewey are seekers of traditional journalism that utilizes experts are used to convey facts. I believe those people that are aligned with more Lippman may seek their news through public journalism, they choose not to seek out the news but rather choosing to let it present itself. Turning on their chosen channel listening to the news and accepting it at face value
Hi, Carmelo,
I think you made a good point that public journalism has made the country more divided and partisan. It provides a safe harbor to unite the people who have same opinions in order to harm others who hold opposite views. This can be very harmful to the society if not constrained properly. This runs contrary to the principle of social media which should provide a forum for the diversity of opinions. Traditional journalism can better achieve that goal by giving information as objective as possible.
Lippman and Dewey have opposing views but are correct and based on that depends on how people seek out news either through traditional journalist or public journalist. Lippman stated the public is uninformed and are easily swayed, Dewey believed citizens were capable in engaging experts and their ideas in order to be able to deliberate those ideas. I believe there are two types of people, people that seek out their news based on if they are more Dewey or Lippman school of thought.
I believe people that tend to be more aligned with Dewey are seekers of traditional journalism that utilizes experts are used to convey facts. I believe those people that are aligned with more Lippman may seek their news through public journalism, they choose not to seek out the news but rather choosing to let it present itself. Turning on their chosen channel listening to the news and accepting it at face value.
Traditional journalism is the old Wall Street Journal, which was full of fact and figures without the bias that it now contains after Robert Murdoch purchased the paper.
Public journalism would be a Fox News twitter feed. They present themselves to a community they speak too. And take position on issues.
I totally agreed with you, especially with the twitter account, I almost forgotten about that one.
When comparing traditional journalists and public journalists, I tend to think of editorials article found in the newspaper. From my point of view, traditional journalists are trying to write and delivery the news to the public without any bias approach. So, I believe traditional journalists are good in delivering stories/medias that have sensitive topics to certain general public.
As for public journalists, who put themselves as part of the community who is trying to solve the issue tend to be editorials to me. Since, they can criticize their opponents, and voicing their opinions to the public to hear. Sometimes it can be a good or bad thing depending on how they deliver, and written their materials.