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.
Both traditional and public journalism utilize different frames when reporting the news, both are needed to have different approaches. Both forms of journalisms can be very educative to the general public and key stakeholders. One example of traditional journalism that I can think of is “Le nouvelliste” ( from my mother land). Although there is an opinion section, its tone is very objective/neutral, formal without any motives or goals. It lets you form your opinion on your own. I think the same can be said about the economist. Besides, its writers are anonymous. When I read the economist, it doesn’t feel as if the news is being injected in my brain, it incites one to think. I’d say it gives room for more effective, less biased deliberation. Just like BBC, PBS, current events are reported discussing issues without or shall I say with less formulations of opinions. ( or not so obvious, at least)
On the other hand, when it comes to public journalism, I mostly sense that journalists incorporate their opinions or beliefs when reporting the news. Examples that come to mind are fox news, CNN, Slate or TV5 monde. People mostly turn to these to ,perhaps, listen to reporters whose opinions they can rely on or reporters who share similar beliefs as them. Relevant issues, by all means, but in a more conversational, debatable, opinioned format. Therefore, making it, relatively, more relatable, interesting to the audience. The disadvantages in that when stating a news subjectively, one takes away the right for the population to become informed citizens. It impedes one to reflect as to draw conclusion on its own because in that instance, there is evident missing pieces of information.
I agree with your point about how public journalism is misused now-a-days. Many news channel such as Fox, CNN, MSNBC used opinions to present their news. These channels tries to present their options along with the news and tries to specific audiences with their news. I think this is dangerous because if someone solely depend on this channels, he or she can be misguided about what is actually happening in the reality. The person will be misinformed and might take wrong decisions. This situation might create conflict in the society.
I agree with you Nabila and other news outlets force their opinions on the audience which is detrimental to viewer knowledge. News reporters have the power to influence change and educate the masses so when some abuse this power but constantly reporting on their opinions you take away their ability to formulate make informed decisions. This is not what Dewey had in mind when he believed the public was smart enough to make good decisions when presented with the facts.
Jennifer, you make a very good point about the writers for the Economist being anonymous. I also think that when news is delivered from unbiased experts or analysts, it allows you to determine how to process that information. Everyone has different experiences, and where some news sources, like public journalists, want to use that common experience to incite a communal response; traditional journalists want to allow the reader to form their own opinions and develop their own ideas and actions off of the news.
Anna, I agree. When the writers remain anonymous, the public is able to form their own opinions on a subject without the bias of a writers perspective. Today’s public journalist’s end up being “personalities” which we associate a certain perspective with. The anonymous aspect of traditional journalism allows the public to distinguish information on their own.
I agree with you – I definitely think that a big disadvantage to public journalism is that news that’s relayed is usually skewed. Especially during the political campaigns the public is already used to turning to Fox to hear all about the Republican candidates and how great their reform strategies are and bash the reforms proposed by Democrat candidates. Then when you turn to MsNBC you can hear all about how great of a change the Democratic candidates will make and so on and so forth. It’s like a way to get the public to think one way, rather than deliver the informations as facts and have the public decide. However, I won’t even say I prefer traditional journalism; they both have their disadvantages.
You hit it spot on. I agree that people will listen to news sources that use public journalism because they feel the reporter has similar beliefs and are a member of their community of thinking and it essentially helps them better defend their stance on a subject. Traditional journalism seems ideal however difficult and time consuming especially in today’s face paced society where people want answers imediately.
I view certain articles in the NYT as traditional however depending on the complexity of the issue at had articles can be fairly long and sometimes present such a good view for both sides of an argument that I can’t even form an opinion and become frustrated. However the oped section is clearly public journalism however you do get a sense that there is more to the story which you are not being told.
An example of a public journalism is the event of the Boston Marathon bombing. The news channels were heavily relied upon the status updates of citizens living in the area to establish what was happening. This was captured through videos, pictures, tweets, Facebook, blogs and other mediums. People relied heavily on social media. We live in a society, where people want information as quickly as possible. Public journalist is able to obtain that through social media, whereas traditional journalist can’t provide that. Traditional journalism can be seen during the reporting and newsgathering of September 11. During that year, people were watching television, waiting for the news anchors and news reporters to give the public information. These two examples put in light of this that as a society, we are always trying to find information in a speed of light and the effortlessness of access verses real integrity (traditional journalist).
Advantage of traditional news-Traditional news stories are primarily summaries of events. They are unbiased and not colored by the opinion of the writer. A major feature is the one sided nature of communication and the exclusive images. News is the prime focus, so only verifiable facts are reported and stories are repeated as accurately as possible. The goal of the reporter is to find a piece of information not yet revealed by other reporters and channels. In contrast to this, public journalism allows the uploading of any thoughts at any time. News and events can be discussed as soon as it happens on websites. There are pictures of the events in which society would never be able to obtain if it weren’t for a citizen who took the pictures. It involves a two way communication in which it is not bound by traditional rules and procedures and one does not have to be trained to be a journalist. Stories are told using characterization and setting. Different thoughts, reports and facts are explored and questioned. The objective of the reporter is to use curiosity about an event or an individual to reveal what is already known in a new light.
Disadvantage- The main problems that traditional journalism faced was the need to broadcast the stories or information to a wide consumer base to be successful in the field. The barrier of time and distance that holds the world back. As public journalism rises, it aims to target a greater range of people about its information which traditional journalism does not offer, because it only has a limited space for each section. In addition, it does not bring a sense of involvement and intimacy between the author and the citizen. This is a disadvantage compared to public journalism because the engagement of the reader gives the author an insight into what sort of news is popular. As oppose to traditional journalism, public journalism is that sometimes news can be misinterpreted and deceptive with the spread of facts. It is only human nature to add and edit what they hear to make it sound plausible, which makes it unreliable.
Elaine, I like the point you make about public journalist rising to do what traditional journalist has failed to do and in response broadcast stories to a wider range of people. I like that aspect of public journalism which includes the opinion of the public. I think it creates a more interactive atmosphere where opinions are to be voiced and debates are encouraged. Unlike traditional journalism that relies heavily on facts and unbiased reporting, public journalism is becoming the norm due to the lifestyle we now have. Our social media and the virtual way we now communicate has drifted our journalism towards the realm of public journalism which allows for the easy publication of opinions.
Today’s contemporary media landscape embraces both styles of journalism and this trend seems set to become the new normal. There are those who prefer to be fed with unbiased informative and there are those who prefer to have their news with a biased stance that feeds into their way of thinking.
Traditional journalism turn to give information from a neutral perspective, it makes a genuine effort to present the facts as they are. A good example of traditional journalism would be the BBC, it tries to remain objective while informing its readers. The content is strategically thought out and presented in a professional form that suits its diverse audience. Its traditional nature allows it to be very professional in its presentation and it crafts its contents to reach its targeted audience no matter their background. We have traditional BBC networks like, BBC America, BBC Africa etc. which are all strategically structured to effectively talk to a specific audience.
Most traditional media outlets have the editorial sections that promote public journalism. These sections afford writers the opportunity to express their opinion. It encourages their audience to read and openly debate multiple sides of important issues. A good example of public journalism would be the editorial section of the New York Times where the information is infused with an opinion and is design to generate dialog.
Technological advancement and social media have changed the media landscape beyond the traditional news sources. Traditional media now have online versions that give their audience the chance to respond to their articles. The internet has allowed them to include their readers in the conversation with comments sections that allows readers to contribute to the narrative. There are various platforms for information dissemination due to advancement in technology. These new platforms are fast evolving and opening new channels for communication and publishing and are blurring the lines between the two main journalistic frames.
Chris, your take that some people want to receive news in an unbiased form, whereas some people want to be told how to think is very interesting. I think we forget that not everyone is intellectually stimulated and that they would rather be told what to do, what is right and what is wrong. This is the 2nd post I have commented on the mentions the BBC. Why is it that the BBC is so well respected in terms on delivering news whereas American news outlets are mocked for the positions they take and the content they deliver? It would be interesting to see how people in America would interact, vote, and handle the situations if our media and news outlets were run like the BBC.
I definitely agree with you that traditional journalism, this way of delivering news in an unbiased stand point is great. I like the point you made about having articles online and including the comment section so that the public can respond and this does create some form of debate and gets the public involved. However, the thing is even with such a platform many people do still prefer public journalism because as Anna mentioned not everyone has the time/ability to try to process information and formulate an authentic opinion. Most people rather the news do the work for them and that’s more so the culture of our society.
Chris and Hanna I think you both make an excellent point some people do prefer to get their news in an unbiased form as others value the opinion of the news reporter and use that to formulate an opinion of their own. Traditional journalism is and always will remain it is timeless and can’t be altered. Social media and public journalism is very popular now however how much longer will it be? When people have opinions that are not favored on social media they become instant pariahs, news reporters saying inappropriate things on air and giving wrong information filled with bias is always judged.
Traditional Journalists – National Sports Reporters
I don’t often watch sports channels but to me, a national sports reporter for ESPN, Fox, NBC Sports are a good example of Traditional Journalists. These people are generally considered elite reporters with inside sources in contacts in the industry for which they receive information. They are often given information by a source, so the source can control who breaks the story, when it is broken, and provide only the information they want to be disclosed. These reporters are mostly working without serving an agenda, other than advancing their career and credibility, so you can accept their information at face value. They just want to be the first to report breaking news. Their job is not to provide insight or commentary on the news. That is what the sports analysts do.
Public Journalists – Local newspaper reporters
I see a local newspaper journalist or a local news anchor as a good example of Public Journalism. They are mostly researching and reporting breaking stories in their own communities, typically within a defined proximity. They report crimes, health issues, missing persons and local government topics to name a few. These public journalists take sides either based on the political agenda of the affiliated station, or on the pulse of the community. Some regions are more blue collar, middle class workers. So the positions the reporters take support the views of those types of people. This raises ratings and can help convince the viewers to take actions on a certain cause.
Washington DC/ Major national reporters (NY Times, WSJ, Post)
National newspapers as well as Washington D.C. political reporters are not easy to classify. For D.C. reporters for a newspaper like the Washington Post, they do not serve just a local community. Their contact is consumed across the nation for people wanting to follow what is happening in our federal government. One could argue that they do not serve any agenda because they just want to get news out there, but since no information is ever leaked without it wanting to be leaked, the sources who give information to the reporters are doing it for specific reasons.
The same goes for New York Times reporters. Due to the popularity of the newspaper, their words have a much farther reach and can affect more people than a local county paper. This raises a cause for concern because we cannot always validate what their agenda is. Their goal is not to convince a community to take a certain stance but rather, to convince the country to a certain stance.
Public and Traditional journalists both serve a purpose in the way we consume information. The advantage of a public journalist is that you are receiving news about the community in which you live. The reports are often directly related to your day to day life whereas a national paper is more about the state of the country/world as a whole. While those issues are important as well, people want to be informed with what is affecting them directly.
The advantage of a traditional journalism is that viewer or reader is receiving facts. The facts are reported without analysis or bias but are presented so the consumer can decide what to do with that information. This often sparks deliberation within the society which members form their own opinions about the information they have received.
I like your argument about how public journalism mostly used in local newspaper and channels. I think local channels got the news from the national channels, and they try to share those facts along with their own options. This techniques get the attention of many people easily because it reflects how locals look at the issue.
I also like your points about how traditional journalism mostly focus on facts rather than opinions. The audience then can come their personal options based on those presented facts.
Hanna, I agree with you that the national media seeks to present the facts in an effort to educate and inform the masses. This may be true when it comes to dealing with the print media and your examples to some extent proves a point, but I am not sure the same can be said for the electronic media. I think I can rightfully classify Fox and CNN as national media but we all know their reporting is always infused with biases and opinions. Whiles the national print media do more of traditional journalism the same cannot be said for the nationwide electronic media.
Political campaign coverage offers good examples of both types of journalism. Traditional journalists tend to focus more on reporting the ‘horserace’ angle of the campaign – where candidates are speaking, what they said, their polling numbers, etc. These are objective facts about a candidate, including his or her quotes on a particular issue. Each candidate is covered equally, allowing the voters to sort through the facts to make a choice in the election.
Reporters who, on the other hand, analyze candidates’ statements and policy opinions for feasibility, truthfulness and also put it in a historical context fit the mold of public journalists. Rather than letting voters sort out the information, their goal is to evaluate candidates and provide voters with an opinion about how their policy thoughts might work in reality.
While traditional campaign coverage offers equality to the candidates and lets voters judge for themselves, I believe candidates have become too savvy for it to be effective. They know how to keep their beliefs vague and to spin them in a positive light.
On the other hand though, while public journalism is more informative than the latest poll, it is also easy for candidates to attack unfavorable articles, labeling themselves as victims of biased reporting. Unfortunately, campaign reporting mirrors the current political state – people gravitate toward sources with opinions they already support, and have a hard time being objective.
A newer type of journalism – data journalism – doesn’t clearly fit these categories and could perhaps be a bridge in politics. In these articles, journalists are transparent with the data (in the tradition of traditional journalism – let people form an opinion) but at the same time they evaluate the data themselves to form an opinion for readers.
I agree Doug candidates have become very savvy for traditional journalism to be honest. They feed the reporter what they want to get across and it isn’t too often that you see candidates honestly answer the questions. It is difficult to be a reporter and get an honest answer in today’s world.
Traditional journalists are the news correspondence and reporters that we see on TV today. These reporters as Lippman describes are mediators between the public and the policy makers/ individuals making the news. Traditional journalists put their opinions aside and present the facts to the public in way that is easy to comprehend. When I think traditional I think non-opinion articles in the New York Times. The writers of these articles inform the public of important issues and topics without inflicting their own personal biases. However I do disagree with Lippmann’s logic behind the concept of traditional journalism claiming people are not smart enough to understand complex issues affecting public policy. People can formulate opinions about complex issues if provided with the right information; no one is above learning if you teach them.
Public Journalism in my opinion is the entire MSNBC station. For example Rachel Maddow. Every day Rachel presents the news to viewers with a strong emphasis on democratic views. Fox does the same thing with strong ties to the Republican Party. Both news stations could be presenting about the same topic and make it sound completely different. When describing the unemployment rate MSNBC would say “Unemployment rates are an all time low at 20%” Fox would say “3.7 million Americans are with out jobs”. These public journalists are immersed in the topics they speak about with such conviction, which is a good thing and a bad thing. Passion is always welcomed but not when it unequally leans toward one side of the truth spectrum.
Today most media campaigns and social media platforms are examples of public journalism. Social media and propaganda run ramped constantly influencing our opinions not giving us the chance to think or formulate our own. This is a grave disadvantage we face. This is similar to the public journalism Dewy spoke about we are indeed capable and competent enough to make decision by sharing information in public forums.
I agree Shanice that most blogs are essentially public journalism. Unless its the online component of a major news site, a blog is essentially an outlet for people to share their opinions and frame news stories as they see fit. I don’t see it as propaganda though – most blogs are fairly transparent about their views, or its not hard to figure it out after reading a few posts.
Shanice-I agree with you on your points. Those two networks in particular have been criticized recently for their bias. I have heard comments at work from both sides of this issue, some saying that they refuse to watch Fox News because of their views and others saying the same thing about MSNBC. I have a mixed opinion on how this effects our society. I think that in some ways, it is helpful because people who have certain opinions or biases can watch whichever outlet they feel reflects their views that they are entitled to have. However, I do think that it limits the chances that the public will make educated decisions on what side they want to take on a particular issue.
Shanice,i agree with your statement about social media. Technological advancement have led to a drastic increase in public journalism. Journalist, pollsters and researchers can now get instant feedback which they incorporate into their reports. It is now easier to seek public opinion and monitor trends. People can now instantly reacts to news items and express their individual opinion on a worldwide platform.
Shanice, I like the point that you bring up regarding today’s media. Trying to do this assignment it was difficult for me to distinguish and think of examples of both public and traditional journalism. Although the concept of what each encompassed was clear, it was hard for me to think of examples that would fit the traditional journalism aspect. The point that you make about most of today’s media being public journalism, ran by public opinion without much an analytic perspective of things, would explain the difficulty I had finding an example of traditional journalism. Our ability to communicate so much faster and to expose our opinion so easily in forums and through social media has caused this drift to public journalism. Which makes me wonder what the future of journalism may be.
Shanice,
You mentioned how the media can present the same story completely different from one another. I completely agree. News channels tend to be polarized with their views and it shows based on how their information is presented. If Lippmann wanted the “experts” to inform the public, shouldn’t the material be neutral? Yet, we know this is not the case. In a sense, public journalism is needed to shed light on the grey areas that exist in the black and white of traditional journalism.
Public journalism I imagine to be a report on a topic driven by public opinion. For example, weeks ago when Starbucks reviled their holiday cup design, certain customers expressed their dissatisfaction with the company. Those who were dissatisfied felt that the design was not representative of the holiday season. The story was broadcast through many news outlets and it was structured in a way that the reporter would interview customers to get their opinion regarding the marketing decision of the company. The story was pretty much ran by the customers’ opinion especially since many of them claimed that their dissatisfaction was so extreme that they would abstain from purchasing at Starbucks. The advantage is that public opinion is taken into account. The disadvantage is that the topic is subjective and open to many interpretations and opinion, a consensus will never be reached.
Traditional journalism attempts to report in an unbiased manner. Both sides of the story are presented to allow the reader to make up their own opinion. An example would be the debate of whether the United States should accept Syrian refugees after the attacks in Paris. A traditional journalistic article would define the issue and obtain interviews from both side of the story to present the pros and the cons that will allow the reader to create their own opinion. After the attacks in Paris, State Senators are express their disagreement with welcoming Syrian refugees to reside in their states on the basis that supposedly one of the Paris attackers entered the country as a refugee. The traditional journalist would report on the tough screening process refugees undergo and the unlikely hood of a terrorist entering the US through the refugee screening process. The journalist would then leave it up to the audience to decide whether or not s/he would be pro or against allowing refugees into the country. The advantage is that the story can educate the public, for those that are undecided it can help them reach a conclusion. The disadvantage is that although it aims to be unbiased, the report leans to reflect the opinion of the journalist.
An example of not easily classified journalism could be an interview with a particular individual. Take for example the Charlie Sheen interview on the today show. He decided that through that interview he was going to come clean about having HIV and finally get rid of people that were extorting him in exchange for their silence. This type of journalism doesn’t require of any public opinion nor background research on a topic, it is simply an individual being interview and sharing his personal experience.
I think what is interesting about the Charlie Sheen example, they clearly just allowed him to tell his story, knowing it would attract attention. However, they could have easily interviewed friends, former co-workers, etc. who may not have strong opinions of him or could refute what he said, and then it becomes more traditional journalism.
Hello Shareny,
You provided a great example of journalism that is not easily classified. As you mentioned, no public opinion or substantial research can change the situation at hand. It did grab the public’s attention and made it a topic of interest. A unique example indeed.
One example of traditional journalism is used when the factory building Rana Plaza collapse in Bangladesh in 2013. For the collapse of Rana plaza, more than thousands labors died. One of the key reasons there were more damages because industry owner locks the door so laborers cannot leave their work. It was a significant issue for United States because the factory the laborers were working deals with US Retail companies. Therefore in this type of news, traditional journalism is used to give the facts on how many laborers died, what was the financial damage for both parties. This is an example of traditional journalism because it only states, the facts, the numbers with no additional opinion attached with it. The advantage of traditional journalism is that the readers draw their opinions based on the fact given on the news. The reporters do not create biasness through his news.
On the other hand, public journalism is with the recent topic of Syrian refugee crisis. Moreover, the situation got more complicated after the Paris attack on last Friday. The news of whether we should take Syrian refugees in the states shows an example of public journalism. In this news the reports used public opinions to draw upon the conclusion on that matter. Therefore, there are different opinions in same single issue from various reports. The reporters are not stating the fact over here. In this situation of public journalism people feel more connected than traditional journalism because their opinions are presented.
Lastly, now a day, I think the journalism in todays use a mixture of traditional journalism and public journalism. So, it is getting clearly hard to distinguish between both journalism techniques.
Hi Nabila,I really like the fact that you pointed that currently, it is becoming hard to distinguish between traditional journalism and public journalism. It does feel like although traditional journalism tries to keep its tone of neutrality, they try to incorporate techniques used by public journalism( for instance, maybe in their choice of news titles, they use titles that the public will be compelled to read) Isn’t that a bit flawed? Can we , in today’s time, say that traditional journalism still exist?
Nabila and Jennifer, you both make a great point. I think the question that should be asked is, can traditional journalism survive against public journalism? Which goes back to Jennifer;s question of whether traditional journalism still exists. To be honest, I think the numbers are slowly falling for traditional journalism. In today’s society where the emphasis on freedom of speech is great and the value of opinions have become vital, it becomes difficult to keep the objectivity of traditional journalism. Additionally, society seems to seek the opinions of the media now more than ever to help formulate their opinions, which can then again leads to the idea of how can traditional journalism survive with the mindset society has.
Public Journalism is what is the new form of journalism where news is distributed through many media outlets and through social media because it is a big part of how people currently access information. This also leads to journalists and writers and anyone who is relaying this information to express it through their own personal opinion. An example is like saying “The new No Child Left Behind is causing schools to be dishonest in the way they grade students.” Automatically, the news title is not only thought provoking but it also expresses the opinion that this writer is against the No Child Left Behind, or wants the reader to feel like the No Child Left behind is pressuring schools to have to pass all their students at all cost.
Advantages can be the public is exposed to different kinds of opinions and perspectives and it can also cause a debate and allows for public input. A disadvantage is that the public id being fed opinions rather than putting effort into formulating their own.
Traditional journalism is news that is neutral and direct and has a lot of facts without really formulating writers/journalist opinions. Traditional journalism lets the public do the thinking work in figuring out their opinions where they stand. A lot of complex information like economy tend to be more traditional journalism (i.e. Wall street Journal). Disadvantages to this can be that news as such will not reach a lot of people and this will cause a lack of interest and information among the public. An advantage however will be that it does not provide any opinions and lets the reader formulate their own opinions which gets the public involved in understanding the information being provided to them.
Kristia-
I agree with what you said about public journalism. In an ideal society, the public would want to be informed on all opinions and views regarding the issue. Then, they would form their own opinion after analyzing those views. However, we know that is not how some of the public forms their judgments. I think that a good amount of people today rely on “opinion leaders” like celebrities or “experts in their field” to form opinions for them and do not take the time to consider all aspects of the issue.
An example of traditional journalism are stories reported on C-SPAN and the London news agency Reuters. C-SPAN is in the same category as BBC and PBS in that its stories seem to be more objective than other news sources today. Reuters prides itself on being objective on news stories. In fact, I read that they sometimes receive criticism for this objectivity. In an article about them, I read that they were called insensitive on their reports of September 11th because they put “terrorists” in quotation marks. They said they were trying to be objective in their reporting. An advantage of this journalism is that the public is presented with simply the facts of a news story, without bias. However, I think that the more the public is exposed to a variety of different opinions about an issue they are more likely to find opinions they agree with and form their own. (I realize that this is a tough thing to have happen properly because in order for this to happen the public has to be a) exposed to a variety of opinions and put an effort into making their own opinion based on their own thoughts and b) have a motivation to have an opinion about an issue and not be apathetic)
In my opinion, it is significantly easier to find examples of public journalism in reporting than of traditional journalism.One example is The Nation. On their website they list a short description that reads “Weekly journal of opinion, featuring analysis on politics and culture. Founded in 1865.” Not only does The Nation state that it provides opinions in news stories by analyzing politics and culture of our country, it makes you aware in this statement that it has the credibility of being around since 1865. Today, public journalism is popular because of social media advancements and the public’s connection to electronic sources of news and media. This can be a good thing if executed properly, the public are exposed to a variety of different opinions on matters of public interest. However, without motivation, this could allow for the public to be easily swayed on issues of importance simply from reading a few, strongly worded opinions of journalists. (That may or may not be accurate).
I think both of these things are useful today, although public journalism is more prevalent.
I think that in current media, it is acknowledged that the Big Comm news agencies employ a type of public journalism. Still, with technology allowing for print to reach farther and faster, and the advent of the internet, it is possible for those who desire to access diverse news sources to do so.
Walter Cronkite was notorious for changing the way that the public received their news. He allowed the public to fall in love with his personality. Prior, journalism was not approached as something that should be synonymous with the type of trust that Cronkite, and modern journalists with loyal followings, have garnered. In past, the ambition might have been objective and strategic reporting, but this is difficult to achieve with limited resources and opinions to draw on. Seemingly objective facts are difficult to verify without diversity. In this regard, more is better, and the internet allows for this. There are so many opinions now available to the general public that anyone who desires can seek out multiple slants.
It is difficult to find a modern example of traditional journalism. There are examples of large, but less mainstream news agencies that deliver their news with, at very least, less opinion injected. The Economist stands out. Live news coverage, especially of unexpected events, is likely conveyed in a more traditional format. With information only just being understood as the story unfolds, extremely current and live stories are delivered to the public as they are.
I agree with Shanice that most people get their news on social media. Social media provides us with a vehicle for creating connections with citizens who we would not interact with in real life. Nowadays, Americans are getting news on sites such as Facebook or Twitter. Half of social media network site users have shared news stories, images or videos, and many have discussed issues or events on it. However, this causes some danger because we may not necessarily be more informed about critical issues that is happening around the world. Which causes bias opinions. There are so many resources people can become cultured and informed about the world. Yet, we are not fully utilizing everything that is available to us.
Public journalism seeks to engage readers and viewers in order to make them more involved in the issues at hand in order to solve them. Traditional Journalism seeks to state the attributes of issues but does not define the opinions of that issue. Traditional journalism has the advantage of objectivity, which allows its audience to interpret the information that is given to them. One example of traditional journalism would be any new stations such as NBC news. The problem with traditional journalism as such is that it becomes clouded by the corporation mindset of profit and will do anything to generate as much viewers as possible. This then depletes the idea of objectivity.
I believe a great example of public journalism would be Democracy Now. This website updates viewers not only on the policy issues we face but also provides independent and diverse sources of news and information. It presents opinions from a variety of individuals as well as hosts debates which engages its viewers to develop their own stance on policy issues. The problem with public journalism is that there is so much information and opinions available that the truth can sometimes be misconstrued or twisted. Therefore, audiences have to be wary of the sources in which their information come from.
Chris makes a good point about traditional journalism. A television news channel can direct viewers consistently through a fast-changing situation. The skill of the presenter is vital for connecting and creating a sense of what is happening. At busy times, interviews are at the heart of a news channel. There are correspondents who analyze the latest development or news makers stopping by into the studio to give information. None of this can be easily replicated by the online version of the news.
But many independent voices with eyewitness accounts of the same fast-changing event can contribute multiple points of view to clarify the situation. Perhaps each of these voices would just be considered a source in a larger story. And someone will respond to them with analysis. Still the twitter feeds and posts are out there before the analysis comes and not suppressed or omitted by the journalist.
Social networks such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram give the public the opportunity to voice their opinion. It also provides the public with current news events that can easily be shared from one person to another. The speed at which information spreads is both beneficial and dangerous. It can help increase awareness and support for an ongoing issue that has been televised or aired on the radio. For example, the tension between the police force and the black community has spread like wildfire on the internet. The social media has been used as a means to gain support to protest against the shootings, which was aired on television. In a sense, both traditional and public journalism are at play. As the news continues to discuss issues regarding the shootings (traditional journalism), the public response to the media may shift the focus to local communities, which gives the public the opportunity to voice their opinion or interest on the issue (public journalism). In this case, it sheds light on the treatment of blacks versus their white counterparts when interacting with the police. As a result, unheard voices in the community are given the opportunity to share a different story parallel to what is being televised. Then, both traditional and public journalist approaches should be incorporated when providing information to the public.
A contrasting example of traditional journalism versus public journalism would be the Osama bin Laden assassination story. As it was initially reported by traditional journalists on a variety of media platforms, the American public was given the Government’s account of how bin Laden was killed. It was reporting in the most limited sense of the word in that the news media repeated exactly what the Government asked it to repeat despite the fact that critical details of the story, such as who was in the compound and whether bin Laden had fired on U.S. troops, were changing almost hourly. Despite the inconsistencies, every major print, television and online news outlet accepted and promoted this official version of the story. A year and a half later the official account had been adapted into a Hollywood movie that went on to receive several major nominations at the Academy Awards.
During the time the official version of the story, many people noted that there were major inconsistencies, or plot holes, with the Government’s narrative. Most of this grumbling was dismissed as being the paranoid fantasy of online conspiracy theorists; however, in May of 2015, Seymour Hersh, formerly of the New Yorker, published an article in the London Review of Books detailing how bin Laden was found and killed. The key difference in this story was that the government of Pakistan had been keeping bin Laden under house arrest for years and that he was only “found out” when a disgruntled Pakistani intelligence official gave up this information in the US in hopes of receiving a bounty. This was a major difference from the US narrative, which claimed that we got the key information regarding his location via “enhanced interrogation techniques” i.e. torture. Lots of other contrasting details were noted as well, such as Saudi Arabia’s financing of the house arrest and the fact that bin Laden himself was effectively crippled when they executed him on the spot.
Hersh’s article was useful in that it filled in a lot of the gaps/replaced much of the official narrative. As a piece of public journalism; however, its primary service was to remind readers to be skeptical of government narratives. In that sense, Hersh’s article was as much a critique of traditional journalism as it was anything else. It should also be noted that the most essential piece of the story, the Pakistani official giving up bin Laden, had been revealed as far back as August 2011 when another journalist, R.J. Hillhouse, reported it on her blog “The Spy Who Billed Me.” That Hersh’s story was the one to generate the most traction shows that even when acting on behalf of the public, it helps to have the backing of a long resume and a publication like the London Review of Books.
Interesting post Chris! As you mentioned with Hersh’s article, one of the most important piece of public journalism would be to allow readers to open their minds when reading government narratives rather than critiquing. In doing so, wouldn’t you agree that public journalism imposed ideas on readers in lieu of being objective?
The elite expert of traditional journalism vs. the responsive public journalist — each gathers, presents and interprets information. I believe the two categories are relevant as there are two different approaches and each is needed to balance the other. Both approaches frame the news but public journalism acknowledges this.
I am reminded of NPR’s This American Life spin-off Serial when considering public journalism. This is a multi-episode investigative radio program about the murder of a high school girl, Hae Min, in Baltimore and the guilt of her convicted ex-boyfriend, Adnan. The program is self-conscious in its framing of the story. At one moment sympathetic toward Adnan, the next, questioning his sincerity. Adnan was sentenced to life in prison without parole. As a result of Serial his case is being revisited and the courts will examine new evidence. The impact public journalism has is significant.
When I think of Traditional Journalism today I think of Vice News. They seem to be one of the only mainstream outlets that do in depth investigative journalism where they inbed journalists. In fact they have one who was arrested for being a journalist in Turkey.
I get the benefit of Public journalism, but there is something wrong to me about calling Twitter and Facebook posts, and public opinion, the basis of a news story. Its regaling opinion to the level of objective and that is not what I think the news ought to be. I think in some cases it makes sense because it is the fastest way to get information (like was commented above the Boston Bombing). But it should be noted as what it is, not journalism, and not necessarily factual.
Traditional journalism would be the BBC in the UK. A neutral narrator of current events and a form for both parties to deliberate on the issues of the day. The BBC is effective in remaining neutral by maintaining strict rules on debates and the presentation of facts. This form of traditional journalism has its strengths in that it trusted the viewers to come to their own conclusions based on the evidence presented. A disadvantage of this form of journalism is the neutrality it needs to remain effective is difficult to maintain in the real world, when the news outlet needs more government financing they must curry favor with the party in power or corporate benefactors which have some effect on their neutrality.
Public journalism would be most investigative programming on PBS in the US. Unlike the BBC, some PBS programs make no effort to remain neutral and programs like “Frontline” express clear positions on the events of the day, only offering minimal presentations to the contrary. This form of journalism has an advantage in that many of the complex issues of today need expert analysis to be understood. Expecting the public to be experts in every policy issue effecting their life is unrealistic. Why shouldn’t trusted experts without a horse in the race present their opinions? The disadvantage is public journalism is vulnerable to the same biases as traditional journalism, and they also can provide incorrect expert opinions. Experts are not always right.
When I hear of Public Journalism I think of social media outlets such as Facebook. News travel so fast through Facebook and you get so many different opinions. Some page you follow give you an over view of an issue, take a side and give their opinion on how it can be solved. I think this is good because sometimes you get a view other than what the media is displaying, but its disadvantage is that the real information gets lost because we’re overwhelmed by so many opinions and not facts. Tradition Journalism can be seen through networks like NBC who gives you what the issue is but do not attempt to solve it or form an opinion. This think is the most effective form of journalism because if given all the facts needed, one should be able to form their own opinion on something bases on their own values and beliefs.
A good source of traditional journalism is the New York Times. With a long-running, and mostly consistent, good reputation, the New York Times provides its readership with neutral reporting that doesn’t delve into the reporter’s opinions or preferences deeply. Of course, as they provide readers with a daily model, there’s only so much room for content, so for the most part they include relevant topics concerning domestic and international politics. Although there is an Op-Ed section in the paper, the majority of the New York Times reports on events and politics that are at the forefront of American media, which in turns validates its impartial standpoint.
An exceptional source of public journalism is Democracy Now. This independent news organization is advertisement free, which allows them to report on stories that aren’t hampered by the preferences of stakeholders: a phenomenon that is currently impacting the validity of traditional journalism. Democracy Now provides its viewership with stories that are underreported by traditional news organizations. For instance, Democracy Now was present at the COP21 in Paris last month, and made the environment its prominent topic for three weeks, while news organizations like the New York Times only dedicated a minute portion of their news coverage to the massive concerns regarding climate change.
The Intercept is an example of journalism that doesn’t fit neatly into either of the aforementioned models. I believe this is the case because it provides neutral reporting on underreported topics that emphasize the illegalities conducted by the American government. Many traditional news sources have to keep a convivial relationship with governments in order to get scoops and timely news stories, which puts into question if biases are present: a scenario an individual should be put in if they are a part of a liberal democracy. The Intercept challenges this somewhat uncritical relationship and asks questions to governments about how they are conducting affairs that could incriminate said governments.
The Intercept’s approach to news coverage puts them at a disadvantage because they present consequences to the governments they investigate and cover. I believe news organizations should have the power to questions the misbehavior of governments because, if they did not, the alternative could yield corruption and misinformation. Readers and viewers of journalism need to have access to the protocols and decision-making procedures of the democratic governments that assist them. A lack of transparency leads to a lack of liberty.