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.
An example of traditional journalism is the continuous coverage of the terrorist attacks in Paris. The media (mostly) has been presenting objective coverage of the attacks as they report the information that is released by the French government or other governments involved like the United States. From this end, the media is not taking a public position on the terrorist attacks, but informing the public of the attackers, the causality list, who was involved, etc.
A different style of journalism is public journalism, which entails being involved with the public and presenting potential ideas to alleviate a problem. One may think of muckraking of the early 20th century. A modern day example is the New York Times breaking story of the working conditions in regards to nail salon workers within NYC. The story exposes some of the deplorable conditions in which these workers operate in. While the original story does not explicitly call for changes, it does outline the problems and implies what can be done to improve the conditions for workers in these salons.
The strength of traditional journalism is it presents the facts on a particular issues to the public with no additional opinions attached. This allows the reader to draw their own conclusion to that issue. However, this style of reporting is not the most motivating or energizing form of journalism to create greater public dialogue.
The strength of public journalism is that it is more energizing for the public, as it outlines an issue and then presents ways in which that issue maybe solved. It goes one step further than traditional journalism in that it provides opinion as well. The only downside of this is that it does just that, provide opinion. Unfortunately, the opinion involved may exclude several key facts that may not support the journalist’s view and therefor distort the actual situation all together.
I agree with your definition of the two types of journalism. I think public opinion reporting can be difficult to define. I remember the article regarding the nail salons in NYC. I guess that would be considered more local issues. Special interest reporting could also be considered public journalism. Channel 7 does special interest reporting with a segment called 7 on you side. The viewers write in and report disipcable acts or living conditions that can be picked up by the show. Some of the stories are highlighted in the News with follow-ups and resolutions. The segment is actually a non scripted encounter that the actual news crews gets involved in and sides with the victim of the alleged abuse. Local problems and some special interests groups I guess would be considered public opinion.
The segments like 7 on your side have always seemed odd to me because it is a vey obvious form of ,”Gotcha” journalism that seems unethical. Almost always though they are fighting for the rights of a citizen who is being wronged simply because a larger organization feels they do not have to respect them, so it is fun to see the little guy win. I hope that public journalism can lie someplace where it can present viewpoints of people fighting for rights without having to resort to tactics that can seem hokey at times.
I agree with you that the coverage of Paris was a great example of traditional journalism. Because it was so sudden and all of the information was second hand, journalist focused on just getting the information out to the public. In crisis situations, information needs to be presented clearly and quickly without bias.
I agree with your point on the advantages of traditional journalism. Traditional journalism are suppose to present facts, and facts only, without taking positions. However, I think perfect traditional journalism does not exist. There is always some individual opinions inserted into traditional way of presenting information.
I think you provided two great examples. With Paris, and often with today’s news stories, we are getting the information so quickly that there isn’t even time to insert opinions or judgements. It is simply giving us the facts in almost real time as they are occurring.
A good example of public journalism is shown by Jeff Brouillard in the following example: Several of the voters in Manchester 1992 spoke up to the new law allowing saying that it was completely immoral. A certain Jeff Brouillard took his stand saying that he could not allow political moral beliefs being inflicted on his daughters. Buchanan, who was involved in the campaign, was quoted in reply, “Every single law – virtually – imposes someone’s values on someone else,” (Merritt)
Traditional journalism, as of this day is considered outdated by most people. Some of the best examples of traditional journalism can be found in event news reports pertaining to old years. One of the most intense and influential examples of traditional journalism can be found in Bob Woodward’s 1970 reporting of the Watergate which eventually led to a disgraceful resignation of the then President Richard Nixon.
There are, however some journalist reports which fall neither in the framework of civic nor traditional journalism. A good example is citizen journalism- which is the idea of normal country civilians doing reports off a live event taking place in their immediate vicinity. This is a dynamic new framework which requires reworking of the “What’s how much credible?” quotient because such journalists/reporters aren’t usually paid.
The main positive about public (or civic) journalists is that they attract more trust because they do not present reports in a plainly objective manner, but rather put themselves in the shoes of the situation and take a stand based on their own ethical standards . However, one possible con about public journalism could be that it can be, more often than not, biased by individual opinions.
The greatest advantage of traditional journalism was that it depicted reality the way it was, untarnished by petty views of the individuals or communities. Because of its strictly objective standard, traditional journalists were given a lot of prestige because they were thought to be fearless. However, as the years passed, traditional journalism lost hold of the media as more and more people wanted engaging stories rather than plain, straightforward news reports.
Your two examples of traditional journalism and public journalism are excellent choices. The Watergate Scandal, broke by Bob Woodward, is arguably the most famous news broken by news media ever in our country. On the other side, the example in Manchester represents how an individual may take up the case of several voters while reporting a certain piece.
Your explanation of the pros and cons of traditional and public journalism are right as well. I believe traditional journalism is a dying art because of the public’s need for an engaging story. In my opinion, this is disappointing because instead of the public just wanting the facts and understanding a story, they want somebody to create one for them.
I agree that we have begun to see a decline in traditional journalism because people want to see engaging stories. The media are owned by corporations, and are essentially businesses. Today, the media want to appeal to advertisers, and advertisers want to sell ads to places that have a large readership. Therefore, the media are trying to appeal to as many people as possible. People want to read interesting, controversial, sensational stories. Traditional journalism just doesn’t seem to interest people anymore, even though we can argue for its importance.
Examples of traditional journalism are objective news reporting spanning politics, international affairs, culture, sports, entertainment and so on. Vivid illustration of public journalism include the postings on personal websites and social networks such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
Compared with their counterparts, the traditional journalists are very familiar with the ethics of journalism and more cautious of the danger of misinformation and the copyright issues. They know the most appropriate writing style to communicate to the readers. They also tend to be neutral.
However, public journalists provides the community with a different perspective. And more importantly, it may extend the coverage of events that the traditional journalists miss. Public journalism also helps to get local citizens more engaged and promote activism.
Nowadays the borderline between traditional and public journalism becomes more blurry. As many public journalists from other professions can receive equivalent trainings in reporting. They are hired by traditional media companies as columnists and express unbiased opinions on an issue. One of my favorite columnist is our famous Economics Professor Paul Krugman at CUNY Graduate Center. His column on the New York Times provides deeper insights of economic affairs for the readers. His articles complement the news reported in other sections of the newspaper.
Your explanations of what public journalism and traditional journalism are are correct. I also like your point in that the line has become increasingly blurry between public journalism and traditional journalism. So much opinion or bias is seen in reporting now (intentionally and unintentionally) that it is hard to differentiate sometimes.
I am also a fan of Paul Krugman and read his op-peds quite often. Although he is a professor who writes opinion pieces, Professor Krugman is very insightful with U.S. and World News.
I agree with your explanation of public and traditional journalism. It is true that the line has become very blurry between both which is associated with opinions and bias. I like how you give an example of professor Paul who gave insight of economics affairs from his involvement with US. and World News
I think a lot of the perceived blurriness of traditional and public journalists are the result of semantic differences. Most of us can agree that a traditional journalist is someone that retains neutrality above all else, probably went to a school of journalism, and has a higher standard when it comes to writing and editing information. As you mention, nearly anyone on social media can be a public journalist. If you believe that a traditional journalist is someone that never takes a public opinion on a news story, than everyone else with a regular news program is a public journalist. I take no issue with people on social media who record an event an act as a public journalists. On the other hand it is deeply disturbing the number of public journalists on the television, that present their view as “the news” and not their opinion. The NY times and the Wall Street Journal at least have the decency to distinguish between the news and the opinion sections.
I think the point of social media and public journalism is an interesting one that has become a greater issue lately. During the arab spring most of the information that was being released from protesters was coming out via twitter or facebook. Without these outlets the outside world would not of had the insight to the conditions and uprisings that were taking place in the name of freedom. It is interesting that one of the first things that countries do when trying to suppress a rebellion now is to shut down social media. Never before has there been a time when so many people can express their views and conditions to people all over the world.
I definitely agree that the line between public and traditional journalism has always been quite blurry over time, but has become especially blurry as of late. Your point touching on columnist and contributors like Professor Krugman does bring that point home very well.
I also have to agree that the line between public and traditional journalism has become blurry. It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell when a media outlet has put a spin on the information they are providing, even when that information is just basic facts. That is why at this point I believe we can’t rely on one source alone, no matter how “unbiased” that source may be.
Over the past weekend we have gotten to see examples of the different types of journalism that exist and how they are received by the public. There, rightly, has been a great deal of coverage of the attacks in Paris both from traditional and public forms of journalism. While the traditional media outlets have focused on the when, what, where, when, and why aspects of the attacks, it seems as though public journalism has focused on the who, in order to let others fill in the why. The NY Times had an excellent piece yesterday that broke down the events of the attacks in a timetable and gave a greater understanding of just how coordinated and well thought out the attacks were. Other news outlets have become mouthpieces for people to scream and fear monger about the attackers themselves in order to sway the minds of listeners. Having an audience has become grounds to forgo fact checking and encourage outrage. Public journalism is wonderful as it brings a position and argument to a conversation, but it needs to be viewed in that light. Simply shouting the loudest does not make one correct and viewers need to remember that in public journalism there is often an agenda to accompany a point of view.
There has been both public and traditional journalism coverage of the Paris attacks. I think that, like with any issue, it is important to have that balance of both types. It is important that we first understand the issue and all the facts that go along with it, and then have a chance to form our opinions and see the opinions of others.
I really like your concluding sentence that “simply shouting the loudest does not make one correct and viewers need to remember that in public journalism there is often an agenda to accompany a point of view.” I think it is key that with public journalism one needs to be able to recognize facts from positions and biases. I think it is often very informative and thought provoking to receive someone’s opinion and view on an issue, but I believe that this should be in coordination with an opposing view so that people can see all sides of the issue.
I believe the major news stations such as FOX, CNN, and MSNBC all take the form of public journalism, while the lesser watched, and sometimes-boring stations such as PBS and BBC are the traditional forms of journalism. When I hear of traditional journalism, I imagine a trusted non-biased anchor that reports only the facts, and no opinions. The role of the anchor at PBS and BBC is to only ask questions, if there is a debate about the subject the anchor will usually have two opposing expert viewpoints, and act as the moderator. The hallmark of traditonl journlasim is the neutrality of the anchor, even if the anchor has an opinion they should not let it be known to the public.
FOX, MSNB, and CNN are primarily public journalism. Most of their programs have a “so-called journalist”, such as Bill O’Reilly, Don Lemon, or Rachel Maddow, that presents the news in a clearly biased manner, trying to persuade the audience to accept a certain cause. These stations allocate some of their time to “traditional journalism” with a moderator and opposing viewpoints, but the bias is so obvious it resembles little of the traditional news. Another hallmark of these stations “traditional reporting” is the attractiveness of their “journalist”. I am always amazed that every journalist on major news programs can also have a career in the modeling field, this goes for females as well as males. This is in stark contrast to the real traditional journalism at PBS and BBC, where you do not have to have good looks to report the news.
While public journalism may have been rooted in the outlook of John Dewey, it has become corrupted by placing an emphasis on ratings over integrity. I should hope that people are not so ignorant that they need a “journalist” to tell them what to think. Ideally, public journalism can be a good thing, but the “journalists” biases can lead to routine cherry picking of information. Traditional journalism places integrity at the highest standard, and that is why it is a more reliable and honest news source.
I agree with your comparisons of the Fox news and MSNBC. There is major opposing political rhetoric and you get the some of the same stories with a republican vs. democratic opinion. There is definetly political polarization between networks. It is really bizarre to watch the one network emphasize some supporting facts that either highlight or critize a political candidate. It seems that Bill O’Reilly is hellbent on blaming the president for the troubles in the middle east and the formation of ISIS. The republican theory is that if you remove one dictator or regime you have to help implant another government or you create a vacuum where new evil grows. The other side of the argument is to stop US involvement in the middle east and get our soldiers home. Those are the main themes I have been hearing in the media right before the attacks on Paris.
I agree with you on many of the points you have pointed on what our current media anchor appearance have in relationship with the information they are reporting. I personally know of someone who is in the Fox news business and was told to change the way she looks if she wanted to become a anchor. So, as you said, they care more about who attracts the most viewers and not so much on focusing on reporting important issues.
I agree with your analysis here. The point about the attractiveness of the reporters was especially poignant and interesting. I would argue that the emphasis on attractiveness is something that more so affects women than men. Let’s face it, after all, there is no way Bill O’Reilly or Chris Matthews can also have a modeling career.
Its a shame that public journalism has come to this. Yes, most so called journalism present news in a bias manner just to persuade the public interest. Physical appearance of journalism has changed over the years. You may now have to look a certain way to report a news to attract ratings and not integrity.
I recently researched the crisis in Syria because I find the whole situation insane and very confusing. I did a brief search on the internet and I have to say that the BBC had several websites dedicated to educating people on the facts surrounding the civil war in Syria and the involvement of the radical jihadists. The BBC has the whole story of the conflict spanning back from 2011 through today. I found the webpage entitled Syria: The story of conflict (October, 2015). The story of the Syrian civil war is illistrated with graphic pictures and an eight facts storyline that chronicals the entire situation. I believe that this is great journalism. I totally understand that the some of the British journalists may have their own biases but I could not find anything quite as educational with exact timeline of the events that I vaguely remembered. The New York Times came in a close second in regards Syria but it was more electronic bullets of old articles.
Now the whole Syrian crisis has been polarized here in the United States with the recent attacks in Paris. The Republicans are refusing to take in any Syrian refugees and most of the Democrats are stating that they will work with the president in allowing citizenship. The New York Times specifically wrote about the conflict in an objective manner that highlighted statements from opposing parties and did not insinuate a position on either side of the issue of Syrian refugees.
Pulic opinion reporting is much more difficult to define because I regard some of the articles in the NY Post as position statements which attempt to force an opinion. Most recently Jonah Goldberg (November 17, 2015) wrote an article that critizes the Democratic position on the “reality of ISIS”. The president was specifically mentioned and indirectly blamed for underestimated the Islamic State. This is the type of journalism I cannot quite categorize because it forces a position. I imagine Mr. Goldberg considers himself a public journalist. I am not exactly sure if the category of public journalism is really possible unless you are doing special interest pieces or reporting local problems. Some Blogs sites maybe considered public journalism but social media in and of itself is extremely difficult to define.
Like many other people, I am trying to figure out what is going on in Syria recently. In general I feel like each country (US, Russia and other European countries) is selling a different version of the story to the public. Traditional journalists are supposed to stand in the middle to report the situation. But politics influences on their reporting because the politicians want to rationalize their diverse decisions and gain support from their citizens. In many cases, traditional journalists “pretend” to be neutral in describing an issue, but they can always only quote opinions from one side they support but ignore the counterargument.
Excellent! I totally agree with you.
As I wrote in my post, there are some good places to get traditional journalism on Syria. The NY Times has been very good, but also look to online sources like the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. They’ve got the best sources on the ground even inside ISIS territory, and they’ve been providing most of the stories that the world media then disseminates. Defense journals like Jane’s and RealClearDefense also provide a detailed picture of the conduct of the war on the ground, helping to answer questions like just how accurate have US airstrikes been? I would point to these as further examples of the proliferation of choice, and the existence of more media than ever before thanks to the internet. If we relax FCC rules it will have no impact on these online players.
I agree with you. I too have been trying to learn more about the crisis in Syria. It is hard to find truly traditional journalism on this issue. I would love to have more information on it, from both a foreign and domestic standpoint. Also, I know that this is and will continue to affect my day to day life, so I want to ensure that I am informed on various aspects of the issue.
I believe that an example of traditional journalism is financial reporting. While one can say shows like Mad Money actually influence buyers, their reports are typically compiled from actual data. The reading states that one of the fundamental principals of journalism is providing general information to the people. Financial reporting traditionally does not show personnel bias towards companies but gives a well-rounded financial analysis.
Public journalism is most evident in local news programs. Constantly before a commercial break we hear a headline along the lines of “this local vegetable could be killing you, find out when we return!” It’s a perfect example of how Public Journalism takes a stance against something and suggests that their report is a remedy to the situation. It also shows the corruption of this form of journalism. Cliffhangers like this make concerned citizens stay tuned and view copious amounts of commercials and advertisements.
The strengths of traditional journalism is that it lets citizens form their own opinion. It’s very easy to come home, turn on the news and be told what to think. While it may be frustrating for some, traditional journalism requires an investment in order to understand what is being reported. In traditional journalism, reporters can give you an outline of what happened, but it is up to you to utilize that information and develop your personnel take.
I agree with you about the local media. It seems as though everything is about the attention the new stations or anchors are receiving and how high the rating are – rather than the quality of news communicated to viewers. This reminds me of the first republic debate held by CNN. I used to think that CNN was a credible source of news, and in some ways they still are. However, it seems as though they may have shifted from solely traditional to a more traditional, yet public, form of journalism.
I agree with you about the local media. It seems as though everything is about the attention the new stations or anchors are receiving and how high the rating are – rather than the quality of news communicated to viewers. This reminds me of the first republic debate held by CNN. I used to think that CNN was a credible source of news, and in some ways they still are. However, it seems as though they may have shifted from solely traditional to a more traditional, yet public, form of journalism.
I agree with your view on public and traditional journalism. You do a great job of explaining how the two can influence the opinion of those consuming the media. Traditional journalism is more focused around exposing or outlining the facts of a given story, while public journalism is more focused on creating the news based on a set of facts. Where traditional journalism tends to start from investigating a story to determine what is really happening, public journalism finds a specific fact of a story to focus on and creates an issue or background around that specific fact. This results in an opinionated presentation of the news through public journalism while traditional journalism presents the facts of a story without forcing an opinion on the reader.
Our current media is actually a good example of both traditional and public journalism. Mainstream television stations such as CNN, Fox, and MSNBC inform the public about different issues. These issues can range from a variety of topics such as politics, local, and international news. For example, the recent terrorist attacks in Paris. CNN and Fox were at the forefront of this issue. They made sure to report every detail of this issue to the public. Thus, the strength of traditional journalism lies in the fact that the public is very well informed. At the same time, these news stations also took specific positions on this issue. Fox for example, was very critical on how Obama is handling this issue and they were very clear on what position they took in regard to this issue. Moreover, there is no room left for the public to think on their own opinion because the news station they get the information from influences their opinions. Lastly, there is always a need for traditional journalism. However, today’s media landscape does not seem to possess true traditional journalism, rather, it is a mix of both traditional and public journalism.
I would say an example of traditional journalism would be an article presenting the facts regarding the Affordable Care Act, while an example of public journalism would be an article (say, a New York Times op-ed) where the author discusses why the Affordable Care Act is a good or bad idea. Another example of traditional journalism would be an article presenting the facts about global warming/ climate change while an example of public journalism would be an article stating that man-made global warming exists and that something needs to be done about it. An example of journalism that would not really fit either category would be journalism from members of the public who do not consider themselves journalists. Whether it be writing a blog post or posting on twitter, average members of the public are acting as journalists who do not fit into the mold of public or traditional journalism. They are many times witness to important events and can report what the saw happen, or what their opinion is.
I would say that an advantage of traditional journalism is that the public is presented with an objective view of an issue. They are only given the facts, and so they are left to form their own opinion based on them. However, there can sometimes be an issue with being too objective. Sometimes a journalist is trying so hard to remain unbiased that they can lose important aspects of the issue. An advantage of public journalism is that people feel like they are getting news from someone just like them- an average citizen- and that they understand their struggles. People may be more likely to trust news from this type of source because they feel they can connect with the author. A disadvantage is that if you are only gaining news from a biased viewpoint, you are likely to believe that viewpoint without considering other aspects of the issue. I feel that these categories may not as useful in the contemporary media landscape as they were previously because there are so many dimensions to journalism now. As I previously mentioned, through the use of social media and other sources, pretty much everyone can act as a journalist. People have access to more news than ever, and can find virtually anything online. It seems that we can maybe update these categories to reflect the more diverse media landscape we see today.
I agree with you that public journalism makes readers more engaged and that makes the reporting more attractive to the readers. While the traditional journalists use very professional writing styles to report an event, it may not be able to raise as much interest from the public as their counterparts. That also forces the traditional journalists to cross over the border line to change how they are reporting in order to boost their circulation.
I agree that public journalism makes helps the viewer interest but I also feel that it can take away from the argument over facts. Often times you will see news organizations just spewing their opinions over policy instead of talking about the facts of the situation and often times the reality of a situation falls between the cracks of the opinions.
I agree with you assessment that traditional journalism focuses on the presenting the objective facts, but I disagree that there is something wrong with objectivity. As I said in another post, I feel the issue comes down to semantics. For example the NY times is both a traditional an a public journalism forum, the first section of the paper reports the objective news, if you want the papers take on the news, then you read the opinion pages, which function as public journalism. Like you state in your post, the problem with public journalism is that it often leads to bias. Unfortunately today we have seen a major rise in public journalism, MSNBC does not even have a traditional news hour anymore, they are totally committed to their agenda. FOX News retains some of its news hours, although they are still blatantly bias, but the big rating come from shows like Hannity and O’Reilly which are biased and public journalism. The ratings will dictate that they will move more and more in favor towards public journalism.
I liked how you showed the difference between public journalist and traditional journalist . Traditional journalist are very professional on writing and public journalist can make a issue interesting to public .
To use the issue of climate change here, an example of traditional journalism would be any of the news reports out there presenting only the facts regarding the issue (such as the percentage of scientists who believe that climate change is happening, and that human beings are to blame). An example of public journalism would be a report that exhorts viewers to take action on climate change in the face of the facts. An example that would not easily fall into either category would be a report discussing climate change facts, but slanting the discussion in a way that leads the viewer towards a certain conclusion or policy change.
Traditional journalism certainly has the advantage of providing the public strictly with facts, while public journalism is often more biased in that regard. However, given that humans are often emotionally driven, the style inherent in public journalism can do much more to inspire people to action and is more likely to lead to any sort of change.
As of recently, I have been using different sources of information to research topics for my classes. For one of my assignments, I was discussing the pros and cons of an issue, so I used QR Researcher as a great format and source of information. Prior to this course, I had not used this a resource. However, after reviewing it, I found that QR Researcher truly was a clear example of traditional journalism. The articles give background on the issues, without any basis or sides taken. I really like the way the authors clearly present the information as well as include a debated question of the topic. At the same time, when looking at public journalism, I think of the New York Times. For me, the New York Times often provides me with both traditional and public journalism; however, I appreciate their public journalists and their open opinions on various issues. For me, the New York Times provides a good balance of information, in both frames of communicating information. With that being said, I think that both these categories are helpful and necessary in the contemporary media landscape. Like most topics, I think it’s good to introduce a both sides of the spectrum as well as different individual’s diverse options.
I think your analysis of your everyday activities provides a great example of how we as a society should interact with media. While each source of journalism is important on its own, it is crucial to use them in conjunction with one another. Although it is significant to know the straight forward facts of traditional journalism, it is also important to understand how society feels about an issue and what we collectively think matters. Public journalism alone can negatively impact a persons perspective on vital issue but when used alongside facts, it allows for informed opinions that create social reform.
i agree with your point that New York Times is the prominent news paper in the country . There features are unique and excellent example for traditional and public journalism .
I think two great examples of traditional journalism are the coverage that took place after the Boston Marathon bombing and after the Paris attacks. Everything reported was in real time so there was no room for opinion, bias, or position statements.
My favorite news station to watch is CNN. I think that they actually use a good mix of traditional and public journalism. They present the facts of a story and then either the news anchors discuss their opinions between themselves or they bring in expert opinion. What is key with CNN though is that if they are covering a controversial story they will include the opinions of multiple experts who cover varying views and opinions of the issue. This allows viewers to hear the facts, hear opinions and stances, and form their own thoughts on the issue.
I think there is a value to public journalism. Viewpoints and backgrounds of others help add color and complexity to stories rather than just a listing of facts. They can help us understand a situation and also understand differing views. However, it is essential that a) the bare bones facts are included and b) multiple views are offered. Without these key elements, the reporting can easily turn towards bias and fulfilling an agenda.
My favorite public journalism would have to the Daily Show – does that count? Not the show I would tune into for breaking news, but it serves a good purpose of keeping things light when the news is often filled with a lot of darkness!
I agree with your take on the Boston bombings as a good example of traditional journalism. The problem I have with CNN though is I feel like when they have disasters they give out false reports to gain viewers instead of vetting their sources first. We saw this instance with the Malaysia flights and the Boston bombings, though a source of traditional journalism i would say a very poor source.
I like your point about traditional journalism being typically in real time. I think this is an important aspect or this form of journalism because it does not allow time for bias to influence how the media is portrayed. To your point on how CNN mixes both traditional and public journalism, I feel as though this is the best and worst way to present information. On one hand the journalist takes on a human element when they present in a way that sparks interest, actions and feeling toward an issue, which can be powerful for the public. On the other hand this can sway the public’s objective opinion on subjects, and control how we perceive important issues. Overall I enjoyed your analysis, it truly got me thinking.
I don’t have cable so I can’t watch CNN, but whenever I can watch their political coverage I’m always pleased. I’ll add that the best Republican debate so far was the one hosted by CNN and Jake Tapper. He was very fair, and very well informed. As a Republican, I didn’t feel like our candidates were being questions by someone who doesn’t understand them (as it felt on CNBC). Instead, Tapper was speaking our language, which I’m sure he can do just a deftly with the Democratic candidates.
Good points! But to play devil’s advocate, I’d say that the daily show doesn’t count as journalism. It proffers great opinions, and has some facts, but in the end, does it really give quality information / news? Just a consideration.
I think you make a good point about the need for both public and traditional journalism. While CNN is a good example of a media outlet that tends to provide both, I think we still should be careful to rely on one media source alone (although I am definitely guilty of favoring certain stations over others).
Traditional journalism to me is when the reporter or news anchor doesn’t take a side and just reports the cold hard facts in order for the public to decide on themselves. The journalist can either be reporting on incidents that are occurring or just the every day news like the weather.
Public journalism is typically opinion pieces where reporters find a story, report on it, discuss it then share their opinion. We often see shows with pundits going back and forth on their ideas and how they think the government should be run or policies that are coming up. A good example is the argument on whether or not we should allow refugees into the US from Syria.
An example of neither would be investigative news stories like “7 on your side” where Channel 7 will receive calls about a business who is scamming people out of money and try and use their media influence to correct a problem.
We can view examples of traditional journalism in our everyday interaction with news media. Popular news outlets such as PBS, CNN, NBC and The New York Times provide in depth fact telling information about events taking place within our communities and abroad. Although each of these and similar news outlets portrays the information in their own way, for the most part the information is direct and to the point.
Conversely there are outlets for information in our society that act in a public journalism manner and interact more with our thoughts and ideas on popular community and world issues. Looking at comedic yet informative sources like the Colbert Report or The Onion, we are forced to think about real world issues in a way that challenges us. These types of media although vastly different from the traditional journalism approach provide information in a way that suggests action of some kind rather than just the facts.
Aside from these two very different sources of journalistic expression, there are forms of media that we may not be able to distinctly classify. Looking at social media as an example, it is not necessarily clear what position the author takes or expects the reader to assume. The posts may be to inform about a particular issue or rally support for a cause, either way this form of media and civil journalism is dynamic and often ambiguous.
I don’t believe there is a best practice for journalism but rather that each is in some way related to the next. Public journalism is a product of concern or connectedness to the issues being presented by traditional journalism; by contrast, civil journalism may influence either public or traditional journalism. Each of these journalistic entities in my opinion is necessary to the process and informative and beneficial in their own way.
Traditional journalism serves a public need. People need to know what’s going on and they want news about the world around them. I prefer long-form journalism so I watch PBS & CBS for news, and I read lots of papers but particularly the NY Times and the Economist. I think both of these outlets provide great traditional journalism but I’d have to single out PBS Newshour as the best. They do a great job every night with really detailed reports on top issues, and they take the time to do expert panels to provide deeper background. The NY Times has also been really great with coverage of ISIS. I’m particularly interested in defense issues, but it’s often difficult to learn critical details about what’s happening on the ground, and the manner in which ISIS fights. The Times however, has consistently provided rich detail and information. For instance, last week it was widely covered that the Kurds recaptured the town of Sinjar, but most outlets don’t discuss the conduct of the battle. The Times reported that ISIS essentially retreated and did not give battle to the Kurds, choosing to conserve their force for another day instead.
For public journalism, I like Frontline, Charlie Rose, and 60 Minutes. All of these programs also conduct traditional journalism but their public work is great. Earlier this year for instance, 60 Minutes did a big expose on wood flooring from Lumber Liquidators and revealed that they were selling a dangerous product that wasn’t made to American standards. I consider all of this as providing a public good, as opposed to a public need. I also think that the differences between public and traditional journalism are still very relevant and very necessary. What we’re missing today is people not knowing the difference. I have no problem with Fox News or MSNBC, but I do wish that more of their viewers understood what they were consuming.
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.
It is difficult to find good traditional public journalism, since it has becoming increasingly challenging in these times to maintain objectiveness with reporting, when news stations race to get the highlights out first. However, The Economist does a fair job at maintaining a relatively unbiased perspective when reporting news. Albeit, its articles are somewhat inaccessible to less educated readers, it provides thorough facts and analysis.
National Public Radio exemplifies quality public journalism. NPR clearly admits to its liberal bias, but also tries to use reputable sources and honest facts. If one listens to its radio casts, one would notice the large spectrum issues that NPR covers. Furthermore, although it’s likely that NPR is in the race to provide breaking news, its public basis in place of private suggests that it is less motivated by financial incentives that other news organizations.
Both forms are journalism are important to informing the public. Traditional public journalism that reports without a slant is generally a better form of journalism, because listeners are less likely to be tainted by an ideology. Given that many new organizations fail to recognize their conservative or liberal bias, traditional public journalism may be more reliable than public journalism. However, today, with social media, public journalism has the incomparable value of being accessible to young listeners. Even further, citizens themselves can provide information on the ground sooner and more potentially (if practiced in good faith and smartly) more accurately than new organizations.
It is difficult to find good traditional public journalism, since it has becoming increasingly challenging in these times to maintain objectiveness with reporting, when news stations race to get the highlights out first. However, The Economist does a fair job at maintaining a relatively unbiased perspective when reporting news. Albeit, its articles are somewhat inaccessible to less educated readers, it provides thorough facts and analysis.
National Public Radio exemplifies quality public journalism. NPR clearly admits to its liberal bias, but also tries to use reputable sources and honest facts. If one listens to its radio casts, one would notice the large spectrum issues that NPR covers. Furthermore, although it’s likely that NPR is in the race to provide breaking news, its public basis in place of private suggests that it is less motivated by financial incentives that other news organizations.
Both forms are journalism are important to informing the public. Traditional public journalism that reports without a slant is generally a better form of journalism, because listeners are less likely to be tainted by an ideology. Given that many new organizations fail to recognize their conservative or liberal bias, traditional public journalism may be more reliable than public journalism. However, today, with social media, public journalism has the incomparable value of being accessible to young listeners. Even further, citizens themselves can provide information on the ground sooner and more potentially (if practiced in good faith and smartly) more accurately than new organizations.
I think traditional journalists today tend to be in the thick of the news. That is, they are reporting the facts as they come in, and are often on site of incidents. One recent example of this is the attacks in Paris. While the attacks were going on and immediately after, news reporters were focused on reporting the facts and informing the public of what exactly was going on. They were less focused on putting forth the information from a certain perspective. Of course this is not the only time we see traditional journalistic reporting, but I think it is a good example of presenting the issues without taking a position.
On the other hand, a public journalist is more likely to look at information and present it from a certain perspective. A simple example would be to compare democratic news stations vs. republican news stations. For example, FOX news is traditionally conservative, while MSNBC is considered liberal. When a viewer puts on one of these news stations and watches an interview, they usually are aware that the reporters will be taking one side or the other when presenting the information and coming up with solutions.
I think both types of journalism has benefits and downfalls. Traditional journalism is extremely important for allowing the public to get unbiased facts and letting them form their own perspective. However, public journalism helps to bring forward debate, which can in turn lead to deliberation and more debate, and thereafter [hopefully] a well-rounded opinion.
I completely agree with your statement that both types of journalism have benefits and downfalls. If the particular topic demands that it should be presented unbiased and from an objective and factual perspective, traditional journalism approach should be applied and leave the decision to the people how they evaluate the situation. On the other hand, if the news demands more deliberation to engage more people in the process or promote a particular perception, the news should be covered by public journalism approach with an opinion as a solution or view towards the subject matter.
Jerin Choudhuy
Traditional journalism contains the strong effects theory which opposed that the news can put “pictures in our head” or insert notions into our minds. In this view, media does effect 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 concept, media tells us what to think about; media tells the stories that we “should” be emphasized on. Public apprehension 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 spread recently? Actually, it has always been there, we are just hearing more about it because it is now being covered. The media is covering these stories frequently as a result we hear about it more often.Public journalist’s shows news in which they take a position or want attempt to solve a problem. Dewey claimed 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 got 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. To sum up. I strongly believe that mass media has strong and effective power to insert pictures on peoples head and capable to divert public opinions.
Jerin Choudhuy
Traditional journalism contains the strong effects theory which opposed that the news can put “pictures in our head” or insert notions into our minds. In this view, media does effect 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 concept, media tells us what to think about; media tells the stories that we “should” be emphasized on. Public apprehension 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 spread recently? Actually, it has always been there, we are just hearing more about it because it is now being covered. The media is covering these stories frequently as a result we hear about it more often.Public journalist’s shows news in which they take a position or want attempt to solve a problem. Dewey claimed 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 got 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. To sum up. I strongly believe that mass media has strong and effective power to insert pictures . However, it is also important what news or stories they are sharing to public .
I agree with the point that people crave to avail reliable news. At the same time, it is common that people show interest to news which is presented with an opinion attached to it. This motivates journalist to use public journalism to attract more people which is good for the news business as well. But apart from the fact that, media is business, and money matters, I believe that whether a news can be presented by either traditional journalism or public journalism, depend on the nature of the news itself, and how ethically the journalist is bound towards his responsibility.
When particular news has to be covered by a news media or a journalist, a decision is to be made how the news will be covered. This is a journalist’s call whether a topic can be chosen to be kept as an objective, factual and neutral of biasness to be presented as the traditional journalism approach without attaching opinion to it; or, the topic can be framed to a particular framing approach to label and persuade it to a particular direction by attaching an opinion to it. Same news can be presented in a traditional approach in news channel like BBC or public journalism approach in news channel like Fox news. Undoubtedly news via traditional journalism is more reliable but public journalism seems to be better for public deliberation in my opinion. If there is news broadcasted in a traditional approach how a global warming is occurred by industrialization, as a viewer I might show indifference towards the news as this is a common topic I have seen so many times. On the other hand, if I see news that refutes the idea that global warming is a threat, and more industrialization without proper pollution control should be encouraged, as a citizen I might feel motivated to engage myself to the matter and join in a public deliberation medium. Like there is both side of the coin, public journalism can also be used to bias people or persuade them to a particular political belief to achieve political support which might be harmful. Attack on terrorists on different parts of the world can be presented via public journalism which may completely hide the fact that these attacks also kill so many innocent lives and the necessity to help the living victims.
I think public journalism has become the norm in most current media outlets. Public journalism lends itself easier to quick consumption of information and allows the consumer to form a quick opinion based on cherry picked facts. I think news today, especially depending on the source, has to be consumed knowing that there is more information out there and one story may not cover the entire situation.
Election coverage I think has also become a type of category of journalism in its own way. No longer are stories about election coverage mingled in with other national news, or occasional updates through the campaign process. Today, election coverage is its own category of journalism (and in many cases journalists are sent for months to cover a candidate’s campaign trail). It has evolved into a unique type of journalism that doesn’t always fit into public or traditional journalism. Election coverage has a very specific mission and isn’t always necessarily geared towards providing information but may be designed to compare and contrast opponents based on the journalist’s opinions or those of the organization that owns the media outlet. Election coverage has evolved into long-term coverage and no longer focuses on the campaign trail a few months out of the presidential election but instead covers nearly two years of tailored coverage, focusing specifically on how national and international events fit into the election cycle. This is a very specific type of journalism that has developed over the last couple of presidential elections.