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.
I think internet the categories do not fully apply in the context of the internet, where the content you see, unless you actively search for a variety of information, is filtered and tailored and thus based on what platforms like google and facebook think you want to see.
I think the concepts both share an assumptions underestimating the extent to which people choose the information they consume and seek objective reporting, instead of choosing the provider of news that caters content in conformity with pre-existing views, or in some idiosyncratic way. The journalists producing the content are thus removed further from the end consumer. In short, I think the dynamic is more complex than anything captured by those two theories, as there are more actors involved than journalists and consumers.
That being said, I think there’s a place for both public and traditional journalism. Traditional journalism can present an objective account of an event that is significant, while public journalism, such as an editorial can place it into context and include an opinion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/opinion/deputy-attorney-general-open-letter.html?ref=opinion
In the above editorial, NYT editorial board is urging the deputy attorney general to appoint a special counsel to investigate Russian influence to the presidential elections, in response to the firing of James Comey.
For an example of more traditional journalism, I’ll reshare the article about privacy regulations and internet-providers. I think it is traditional in the sense that it seems to objectively present the issue at hand and is balanced in presenting views of sides for and against the move, while also providing background into the issue to put it in context.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/23/521253258/u-s-senate-votes-to-repeal-obama-era-internet-privacy-rules
For journalism that doesn’t neatly fall into either category:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/magazine/can-facebook-fix-its-own-worst-bug.html
The above links to a NYT article (long read) about the filtering effect. I think the long form journalism represents a mix of traditional and public journalism, tilting more towards public. The story, as it is long-form, is not your average daily journalism, but concerns an issue with potentially significant societal consequences and can perhaps be seen as a topic chosen by an elite observer. However, the journalist is taking positions to the topic, representing aspects of public journalism.
I find The New York Times to be a good source of public journalism (although they may perceive their publication as traditional journalism). The New York Times, especially its opinion columnist, write about the news from the prospective of most of their readers, which is liberal. Whereas the information for the most part is accurate, and they stay away from ‘alternate facts’, most of their journalism shows an effort to, as Carpini words it, “argue that citizens themselves, rather than (or in addition) to elites, should set the agenda”.
An example of traditional journalism, which strives to be objective and allow citizens to discuss issues, would the Associated Press Reports. In terms of truly objective news, I propose that the sports column of a local paper is the more objective than public or traditional journalism. The article is filled with actions which can be interpreted by the rules of the game, and you can be that bet that the newspaper is on the side of the local team. The bias, if it exists, is clear and logical.
Of course, many people get their news from outlets clearly have a political agenda, for example Brentbart or Slate. This steps away from the public journalism that Carpini describes, as these publications write their stories with the intention for their readers to take action.
I think the concept of “traditional journalists” is faulty. All news is written by human beings who grew up in a certain culture and background with certain influences and a specific worldview. The idea of neutrality, then, almost never holds up, because you have to ask the question: neutral to who? Opinion and perspective bleeds into reporting as hard as journalists may try to stop it. For instance, the AP tends to identify itself as a “center”, neutral news source. However, its almost always reporting from a Western, capitalist perspective. For instance, a recent article on Venezuela, where turmoil has erupted, quotes only Western leaders denigrating the country and leader Nicolas Maduro. Obviously the situation on the ground is dire, but this writing ignores the perspective of any ally of the country. Their are two sides to every story, no matter how obvious it may seem.
Since pretty much all journalism can be found to be “public journalism” in a sense, I feel that it is better to own the label and be explicit about your stance. I find it much more honest and enlightening when publications are clear up front that they aren’t trying to be neutral. This leftover ideal of the Fairness Doctrine is part of what brought about our current political situation. Journalists’ adherence to this idea led them to feel the need to give as much air time or words to the racist spoutings of Trump surrogates as they did to fact-finding investigations about Clinton’s email server, for example, leading to false equivalency being much discussed.
In terms of ideal public journalists, I think that outlets such at The Intercept (on the Left) or the Daily Caller (on the Right) are more honest forms of journalism as they are upfront about their ideologies and offer differing perspectives on news stories, rather than aspiring to some theoretical center.
Part of the duty of journalism is to weed out dishonesty, misleading rhetoric, and outright lies and incitement. Attempting to be neutral makes this nearly impossible, as we’ve seen.
Thanks Kyle for the post! I agree journalism should be transparent and honest with their views, but it does not appeal to the general public. The goal for many media market is to appeal to all and taking a position on a very difficult topic can mean reduced viewership. There is definitely lack of substance in the news and there is strong movement for theatrics. Jon Stewart made a fool of Crossfire because he believes news media has a responsibility to tackle difficult issues with in depth debate, analysis and investigation of the problems. This is one of the reasons why we need to support more public journalism that takes the time to research an issue and present the views to the public as part of the community.
I agree with jim the media always wants news that sell it does not necessarily have to be the truth but as long as it sells. One morning on my commute to work, listening to them or Ing show the commentator stated “it’s no news if it’s not false news” he indicated lies sells more than the truth and that is true to an extent I have seen individuals gravitate towards gossip and fake news faster than an uplifting or gratifying news story
I definitely agree with you on the fact that traditional journalism is faulty. I can barely even think of an example in today’s media. Every newscaster, writer, and radio host brings their own biases and experiences to their work; we all do. I think it is up to the public to be educated on their sources and be able to identify these biases. However, that clearly isn’t happening either.
Yeah I think in a society where transparency and honesty is so demanded, a traditional journalism is easily seen as concealing and unauthentic. I would refrain from judging on any journalism practice as faulty, at least not to the extent of Trump’s claim of “fake news”. But I do think there has to be some degree of open information and access to that information in order for the public to lend support to. Perhaps that’s what gives the name “public journalism”!
Great point on the AP’s reporting. I myself tend to think of outlets like the AP as reasonably unbiased, and tend to forget that Western ways of thinking are biased perspectives. Exposure to reporting from journalists outside the capitalism realm of thought is so limited in this country, and I wish we had readier access to them.
Hello
You brought an interesting point to discuss about traditional journalism. Do we still have it? Well I do believe that to some extent journalist tend to be bias not because they want to be instead it is part of being human. Even if they try to remain portion to the news they are reporting they still have their own opinion and I think different media outlets actually pick what to report and not to report both sides of the story as you mentioned it. I believe it is our duty as the public to be inform and educate ourselves regarding the different news that are out there.
I would categorize The Economist as traditional journalism as its aim is objectivity – presenting information neutrally without taking a stance. Their intent is not to frame the story or issue in a certain light but to focus on the facts, data, and events to inform the public. MSNBC, CNN, and FOX News would be considered public journalism. Other than informing the public, their aim is to engage the public in discussions, dialogues and debates on relevant and important issues. Because of their political leanings, conversations are typically tilted toward a liberal or a conservative perspective. I think both styles have a place in journalism and they are consumed by the public for different purposes. Traditional journalism presents unbiased news and stories and provides context whereby public journalism delivers a platform for discussions and debates on certain topics, often framing the issues based on a specific person’s or group’s values and opinions that also match with their audiences’. Public journalism may also expand our understanding of an issue when different opinions, views and arguments are being presented, regardless if we agree or disagree.
The first thing that comes to mind that is not easily classified as either traditional or public journalism would be the HBO TV series, VICE. I would describe it to be a combination of documentary and storytelling taking on global issues traditional journalism has not. What makes it much more compelling to watch is that the show takes on such a bold and brave approach to storytelling. Their reporters are being sent to different locations, sometimes dangerous, to gain a deeper understanding of the issues or problems to deliver a unique perspective to the issues. The episode “Asad’s Syria; Cost of Climate Change” was truly mind-bogglingly informative. It also generated certain emotions in me in reaction to the atrocities and brutality the Syrians had to face under Asad.
I totally agree with what you wrote about Vice. I also wrote about Vice in the same way. I wrote more about the nightly news show than the documentary series but their documentary on Asad’s Syria and Climate Change was one that provided unbiased facts while still bringing you in to the community.
To add to what Kathryn just said its important we realize that most public journalists are politically active and so it goes along with what we are seeing today where giant media house such as NBC, Fox and others have always dictated the time and place for most politician because one write up about them or government can land them in deep problem.
I would push back a little on the Economist as an example of “traditional journalism”. The Economist presents a pretty unabashedly pro-business, pro-capitalist perspective on the world. It just tends to couch it in a layer of “neutrality”. For instance, they are a major proponent of free trade and free markets and tend to heavily criticize anyone with differing opinions. It seems to me like the difference between traditional journalism and public is just an openness about particular biases.
An example of traditional journalism in the modern media is the coverage of the heroin/opioid epidemic. This represents the elite journalists presenting the facts and analyzing the statistics of the overwhelming opioid and linked heroin use in our country. An advantage of this is that in general there is little bias and they are doing a good job of presenting the severity of the issue. A disadvantage is that they are oversimplifying it a bit and leaving out some information about those that use opioids to manage chronic pain or for other reasons.
An example of public journalism is the coverage of the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. The journalists have really brought the American people into the Flint community to show how terrible the water situation there is and to make us all really feel for the people of Flint. An advantage of this is that without this type of public journalism, many would not even know about the crisis. Funds have been raised from all over the country to help those in Flint. A disadvantage is that I get a sense that we’re not always hearing the whole story. There is a lot of blame going around, and maybe it is reasonable, but maybe it is misplaced. It is hard to tell based on the coverage.
An example of a mixture of the two is the HBO news series VICE. I really enjoying watching VICE every night, especially their coverage of foreign affairs. They do a really good job of bringing you into the community while also presenting unbiased stories. I think an advantage of this is that viewers are learning about issues and places that they might not normally learn about. A disadvantage is that there is definitely serious agenda setting taking place here. Obviously they can’t cover all the news in every country so they have to pick and choose what gets shown. I think they do a good job but then again I don’t know what I’m not seeing.
Overall I think traditional journalism is on its way out. It is rare that you see coverage without bias or a community piece to it. Even my example of traditional journalism can be also seen as public depending on the network. It is human nature to bring our experiences with us so it is no wonder that it is reflected in media coverage today.
Your examples make me think of the documentary “America Divided”. It features a number of celebrity figures such as Rosario Dawson, America Ferrera, Amy Poehler, and Jesse Williams as the correspondents and narrators. So I see a lot of the “two-step flow theory” at work there using celebrities as the influence. What the docu-series reveals is the inequality surrounding education, housing, healthcare, labor, criminal justice and the political system — as these celebrities explore these issues based on their own investigation. I have recently finished all episodes on Amazon Prime only to find the show quite perplexing. For example, I believe Rosario did the justice on her relentless search for the reason that caused Flint’s water crisis, while on the undocumented immigration piece, I wasn’t as comfortable with America swaying the audience into sympathizing with the “anchor babies” without taking into consideration the justice of law their parents have broken. Regardless, it’s great show and I would recommend anyone to watch it.
If what you say is true, that traditional journalism is on its way out, I’m not sure I’d be happy with that. I think no matter how objective a story appears there is a human somewhere along the line who makes decisions that it should be made into a journalism product (article, tv show, news segment). That human being makes assumptions about how the world works. That’s usually ok if both the reader and reporter roughly agree on core values and ideology. But what about codgers like my dad who is mad Bill O’Riley is off the air? Or myself who is very much on the left? Both of our views are pretty marginalized and, in different ways, we have to put effort into reading between the lines of whatever news item we see or read. So when I listen to NPR, which I do and enjoy, some stories assume I share their center-liberal views while I’m actually much further left. Their public journalism is not my public journalism. A more traditional journalism, just the facts, allows someone like myself to better make up my mind.
A good dialogue on topics that need consistent attention. The heroin/opioid use is a subject where elite journalists who perceive themselves as experts presenting the facts. This epidemic doesn’t leave room for loose interpretation. The facts are real and quantitative data remains constant. The numbers don’t lie and the severity of the issue is reflected. The “organized” drug dealing issue is being overlooked with licensed physicians not being prosecuted and held accountable. In addition to the pharmaceuticals being able to produce these highly addictive medicines. If there is a manufacturing of a product which has proven over a period of time to be detrimental why are we continuing the behavior?
The media isn’t portraying accurate accountability for the drug overdoses which it appears that it’s the user abusing the drug. In Flint also nobody wants to be held accountable because it’s easier to scapegoat an easier target rather than solving the real problem which is harder. The Flint problem probably points back to government accountability. Part of delivering real news to citizens is the willingness to expose wrong actions even if you think there may be a backlash. With traditional journalism, I feel there was a sentiment that people thought they were “keeping it real.” Today we have this feeling as if the realness is being distorted tokeep the illusion of realness alive.
Good content and post. I agree it is rare to see coverage of issue without the reporters/ news station bias involved. Its as if it is inherent. To comment on the Vice network, they are a good example of unbiased coverage for the most part. It is more than what we as citizens have been getting on a regular basis. They too exercise that part of our human nature and bring their experiences with them in the coverage but at a significantly lower occurrence. Vice brings the raw world for the other part of the world to see.
I agree with you to a certain extent as far as the Mordern day media being traditional journalism. When I hear or read about traditional journalism I think about the news papers traditional magazines like the Times. Mordern day media is just like it states it’s Mordern. This is how information is transmitted to new day and age platforms and forums.
Some examples of traditional journalism would be the “straight news” sections and segments of print and digital and broadcast news outlets. In these sections, journalists typically report the facts as they are and include interviews and quotes from people on multiple sides of an issue. I do think it’s increasingly difficult to find journalism that is completely objective — stories on Fox News or in the Wall Street Journal are told through a more conservative lens, while stories in the New York Times and on MSNBC have a more liberal slant. But almost all of these journalistic staples (perhaps with the exception of Fox News) do work to include multiple viewpoints in their reporting.
An example of public journalism would be “7 On Your Side,” ABC’s segment that effectively sends journalists to advocate on behalf of regular people. If someone has a problem that local officials have not or will not solve, “7 On Your Side” will investigate the situation and actively advocate for the problem to be solved.
I think many op-eds and articles that are written from a first-person viewpoint, such as those on Medium, are not easily classified as either. Well-written op-eds usually center their arguments around facts and truth that have emerged from objective reporting or analysis, and then advocate for a particular stance or viewpoint that the writer has concluded is best. I think many of these include elements of both traditional and public journalism and don’t neatly fall into either category.
Traditional journalism is crucial for the survival of democracy. People need to be able to access unbiased facts. Traditional journalism serves a purpose similar to that of the Congressional Budget Office: It is, or can be, an independent body that analyzes situations to determine what the outcome of a particular policy will be. Legislators can then take CBO reports and decide whether they want to support the outcomes in light of projected savings or costs. Traditional journalism should be an avenue for people to learn the facts of a situation and then draw their own conclusions.
One of the biggest drawbacks, of course, is that it is hard to remain completely objective all the time. Few news outlets are known for being completely objective, and most news outlets have sections, like opinion pages, where more biased views are allowed and encouraged. When those other sections lean a particular way, it can give readers or viewers the impression that the entire outlet is slanted.
Public journalism is also an important tool that I don’t think enough people appreciate. There are many situations in which vulnerable populations, like the elderly, the poor, the disabled, and children, are essentially completely at the mercy of the government (a child in foster care, for example, or a person living in government-subsidized housing, or a low-income family who would not have enough to eat without SNAP benefits). If a government official is corrupt, or abusive, or lazy, or there is a simple administrative mistake or oversight, people’s entire lives could be disrupted. Vulnerable populations, and even middle-class people, often do not have the power or influence to navigate a bureaucracy. Public journalism can provide the resources and influence necessary to get the bureaucracy’s attention and enact change.
A problem with public journalism is that it’s very costly. Public journalism takes time and money, and news organizations need to have the resources to execute it effectively. But in my view it’s an essential service that should be preserved at all costs.
That’s a really good point you’re making on traditional journalism. Facts are presented without any bias or agenda to the public who can then generate their own views and opinions. The disadvantage I find with traditional journalism is the lack of human or emotional connection to a topic or an issue being reported which public journalism may achieve. When public journalism is able to establish a connection to a topic at an emotional level, it can elevate civic interest and engagement. It may also, as you mentioned, influence and get the attention of public officials who can act on the issue.
I agree with you Elora because the elite in society have hijacked the media and are using it as propaganda tool to prosecute their agenda. All in all they have broken the several criminal libel law to doing a lot of advocacy work our community.
I think a Prezi presentation I found online shows an alarming divergence between traditional vs. public journalism–often via social media platform:
https://prezi.com/qsvsujullynf/social-media-vs-traditional-journalism/
The bottom line is that traditional journalists are responsible for following all local and state laws. They avoid contempt of court, breaking court injunctions, and revealing the names of young victims accused of crimes. This is the advantage of traditional journalism.
In contrast, public journalists or social media users, break many of these laws knowingly or not. However, public journalism takes advantage of the rapid changes in technology. Technology is altering the medium for traditional journalism and gives rise to a more public journalism approach, deliberately or not. It is reported that “60% of people use Facebook as a recurring news source”. People are reaching out to their cell phones instead of their mailbox for that newspaper. I would say Facebook, more specifically as Business Insider, is one of the many examples of public journalism.
I found it difficult to find traditional journalism in existence anymore. But in my opinion, NPR Politics Podcast is more neutral and objective than many people think in the way they deliver the facts. There are opinionated comments about certain political figures or phenomena, but the atmosphere is light where these conversations take place. Listeners are more than capable of taking news with a grain of sand, while a sense of humor doesn’t hurt.
While I think making the distinction between traditional and public journalism is necessary, it is not as prevailing as the need for distinguishing the political ground of any news media. In the contemporary media landscape, people often seek first to recognize whether a certain journalism is leaning left or right—whether Fox News can reach more conservative audience and whether CNN News is more for liberal viewers. The design of our two-party system often comes with the dilemma of where a trustworthy source of journalism lies for libertarians or independents.
I’m also a subscriber of NPR Politics podcast. I agree that they aim to deliver facts in a neutral and objective stance but when it comes to opinions, I think they’re unequivocally liberal. Indeed, their light hearted approach to discussing serious political issues sure makes it more entertaining to listen to.
I’m led to believe that, regardless of the type of journalism we consume, it all boils down to the way our views shape how we interpret the information, which often reflects our tendencies to lean toward our partisan views.
when you take out the execute, the legislature and the Judiciary, the fourth most important body is the media as the fourth estate. Journalism crucial role is to help democracy to function which sometimes is forgotten in the midst of partisan politics. Traditional journalists look at conventional means of mass communication such as the use of story telling and the use of influential people to read news. There can be little doubt that many problems in society today might be forgotten were it not for some smart, persistent and courageous news professionals journalists. Although the internet can help us as an investigative tool and platform for engaging the public, it takes professional reporters to initiate and follow through on everything. Since the traditional journalism is regarded as uncensored and raw that is portray to the public. some of the advantages would include the fact that it help in addressing the gaps in mainstream media where most of the journalists are not professional trained but still able to use modern technology to reach out to the masses such as anyone with a blog can get unto the net and put the information. It also empowers local communities and enables individuals, who are not part of the public journalist to participate in disseminating information to advance their well-being. on the flip side it poses difficulties to the audience as we say any one today can record and write anything and then present it as facts, so its important to remember that we dealing with humans here,
I think in an ideal world, a person would decide they want to know about a certain issue, then read several different perspectives on it (Fox, CNBC, NPR, local news). In reality I think most people are too busy and just look at one or two sources to get the gist of it. An astute person might look at Fox and make a mental note to account for Fox’s biases, and do the same for CNBC.
I would also assume since half the country did not vote, than it’s fair to assume that roughly half the voting-age population doesn’t care enough about most issues (excepting those who were prevented from voting by gerrymandering, not being able to get off work, other reasons). So keeping a vibrant fourth estate in business is essential, even if it’s just for the chance that one of these undecided voters will hear news in the background.
There does appear to be a certain level of civil disengagement on issues in the news. The detached environment contributed to the election outcome and citizens not trusting the status quo. Voter turnout is a direct result of citizen dissatisfaction. On the other hand, the trust issues regarding journalism should be re-established where citizens believe they are valued, taken seriously and aren’t being given propaganda instead of facts. There is such an overload of information available to the public that it’s difficult to know what is real, what needs to be filtered and what are reliable sources. Decisions have to be made quickly now. There is a rush for one media outlet to get the information to the masses in competition before the competitor does. This is a matter of quantity verses quality.
Fox news is a media outlet that has a reputation of reporting biased information. Behind the atmosphere of mistrust of media is that the outlets are motivated by personal financial gain and are lacking in promoting the well being of citizens and the ideology of democracy.
I agree. As much as the media get denigrated these days, some really important legislative progress has been made because of journalists’ persistence (not to mention uncovering corruption, bribery, and so much other scandalous behavior by public figures). By serving as a watchdog, government officials know they are limited in what they can get away with it, and that is a crucial check on power that we can’t let slip away.
A good example of public journalism is this article about “Mama’s Bail Out Day”
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/mama-s-bail-out-day-brings-black-moms-home-jail-n759061
The article gives some background about how jail hurts black moms disproportionately, and quotes moms who were bailed out. If this event were covered in a traditional journalism style perhaps the author would have to cite people who opposed this event, or simply relay figures and official reactions. Perhaps a disadvantage to this public journalism is not being able to know what the opponents would say; you don’t have a politician on record saying he opposes this so you can’t take that into consideration when he’s up for reelection.
An example of traditional journalism might be this article about Sacramento City Council meetings now having public comment times earlier instead of later:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article150161137.html
The article cites both supporters and opponents of the proposed time change, and doesn’t appear to take either side. It’s just facts. A disadvantage might be if there is a more sinister reason for limiting public comment to the beginning of the meetings, the journalist could not dig into backgrounds and motivations.
The Intercept ran a story about James Comey’s firing. I’m having difficulty seeing how it would solidly fall into either traditional or public journalism:
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/12/trump-threatens-comey-secretly-recorded-tapes-conversations/
A traditional, neutral journalist just reporting facts (or, at least, one believing he/she is as neutral as it’s possible to be) wouldn’t be able to say, “Trump did this, another guy said that, then this thing happened, then that thing happened, and Trump tweeted something…” because none of this makes sense unless there’s a viewpoint to it all.
That’s a good point about public journalism almost being a necessity to make sense of the news. I hadn’t considered it that way, but that’s probably a major reason public journalism has proliferated while traditional journalism (if it ever really existed at all) is all but dead. In such a complicated, interconnected world, it is understandably difficult for people to comprehend and have an opinion on such a wide variety of topics and policies. Ascribing to news that is transparent about their viewpoint gives the reader some analysis on what current events mean in a larger ideological context.
The landscape of information and media outlets has already changed drastically. If society doesn’t make a decision to adjust our inactivity to change will be societies deciding factor to conform involuntarily. Good examples of traditional journalism which closely reflects Lippmann’s ideology are the forms of communication or means of getting information to the masses. The first and original traditional journalist piece of material was actually from the Bible which many people relied on when they were still citizens under British rule. Roots in print media then connect to the invention of the printing press and mobile type print with Guttenberg in the 15th century. Other forms include newspapers, brochures, letters, journals, radio, television, the Federalists papers and political documents such as the Constitution.
Public journalism is associated with John Dewey’s ideology which allows for all forms of opinions and debate. It is also known as civic journalism and gives more respect to the public as an active participant in the democratic process. It is considered a fundamental right and is critical to the democratic process. Some examples are town meetings, blogs and public hearings in addition to scholarly articles which go under peer review and the internet. Government report contrast to either form of journalism it’s not open to discussion the facts are the facts and doesn’t ask back for civil engagement.
All forms of media are relevant to develop future forms of journalism and to preserve forms of journalism that helped to create our systems of communication.
Hi
Interesting examples that you mentioned. I do think that we do not have as much traditional journalism as might have had in the past. I do think that the Bible is an example of it, but still it was written by different apostles and with our opinions and maybe bias we do not known. In my opinion most of our media nowadays is public journalism. I agree that we have to preserve journalism as you mentioned since our way to know about the world and its issues.
For me it is important to understand the difference between traditional Journalism and public. Traditional journalism remains objective and detached, it practices include conventional source selection, and a “just the facts” style of reporting. Traditional journalism stands by its dominant role of getting the information to the public without departing from objectivity. It tends to be unbiased to the news reported. That for me is and advantage to actually read or see the facts not the journalist opinion. Nowadays I do not think we have traditional journalism as clean as it used to be, so finding an example it is difficult. If a say a newspaper still is a combination of the opinion of different journalist. Maybe a broadcast might be more to the facts and the true.
On the other hand hand we have public journalism or civic it takes an approach that abandons the detachment role of traditional journalism to immerse itself in the public sphere and in a sense, become part of the community and its problemsOne primary perspective of civic journalism is to take a role that promotes the participation of the public in the deliberative and political arenas.
Civic journalism also seeks to produce solution-based content while traditional journalism is mainly providing content to inform, not to suggest ways in which to fix the public’s problems. An example of public journalism for me is Facebook, blogs, twitter, the New York times and most of the news channel. A major example is the news of Osama bin Laden’s killing which was first reported on Twitter by a Pakistani blogger Sohaib Athar when he unknowingly live tweeted the entire episode as US helicopters raided bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad (Pakistan). After a number a number of tweets that served as a live report for the entire raid, Athar tweeted “Uh oh, now I’m the guy who live-blogged the Osama raid without knowing it”.
Overall nowadays it is difficult to find unbiased traditional journalism and the public relies more on the social media for their news. I think that the public needs to be educated and try to find the best sources of information that meet their needs.
One of the reasons why the public relies on the social media is because of convenience. From personal experience you are already viewing it on the phone or computer so checking it in your feed requires minimal effort. Overall I believe people know to fall back on reputable sites for the most accuracy. I’m sure with time social media news sources will become reputable since no one likes (shouldn’t like) a bad reputation for faulty news.
To me the only difference between traditional and public journalism are the assumptions made about citizens intelligence. Lippmann’s assumption that citizens are generally passive consumers of information asserts that people only care about what they are told to care about. I believe that we now can confidently say that this is not true. People make decisions about what to pay attention to and what information to consume based off of what is going on in our lives on both a personal and social level. An example of this is the rise of online newspapers like Buzzfeed. I would call Buzz feed an online news paper and an example of public journalism because there does exist a readership that demands daily updates the same way printed newspaper readers do. However, Buzzfeed aims to fill gaps left by traditional media by sheading light on issues and posting stories with content that traditional media neglects. The NYT represents a traditional media source that disseminate information and abides by the traditional journalism frames that have existed for centuries. The NYT tries to balance their traditional journalistic culture with online components but they do not balance public journalism the way that a source like Buzzfeed does.
The advantage to public journalism is that economic insensitives are minimized because there is ultimately no limit to what can be printed. And there is a direct link between content and consumer review and readers can comment their opinions on each story. The disadvantage is that we as a society have trouble trusting things we read online. Traditional media is still regarded with a a higher level of trust and sophistication. This thought process is slowly changing but still an issue.
Both traditional and public journalism have their place in certain circumstances. In the case of corruption, public journalism has a duty in exposing the truth, such as the Watergate Scandal and exposing President Richard Nixon. Traditional journalism, however, should be the type of journalism we receive on a daily basis, where options are presented with pros and cons and the public makes their own decision. An example of this would be during campaign season, where voters have to choose the best candidate for their community/country. I personally feel no media outlet should ever endorse any candidate for any position because this compromises their ability to have an even, unbiased discourse with the public. And then you have other types of “journalism” that do not exist for the purpose of educating the public or inspiring action, but rather damaging a particular company or individual because of personally held beliefs. This is when journalism borders on sensationalism and libel.
Pedro, I agree up to a point. Traditional news sources should provide the facts, but shouldn’t there be room for some measure of analysis as well? The journalists need not take a position. Scandals of the magnitude of Watergate, or the character of a political candidate, may be better understood with balanced explanations of the circumstances and the consequences of any actions that might be taken.
When I was researching about the use of drone policy, I came across both journalistic frames. Drone topic was an excellent example on why we need both frames to share the information. The government insists that drones are necessary force to combat terrorism. Traditional journalism provided the public the pros and cons of drones from effectiveness of drones to its limitations. However, traditional journalism lacked the point of view from those who are affected by the drones. The public investigative journalism provided the on-the ground impact of drones and it was necessary because of the lack of government transparency. In this instance, public journalism role is to become the voice of those affected. These voices are not heard, thus, they are not often considered when it comes to solving the problems.
Differences in journalistic frames between those traditional journalists and public journalists remain very critical in the media landscape because it offers consumers an insight into the complete spectrum of views in the communities, especially those who are underserved. They both provide healthy diet of news and information. Traditional journalists are objective and maintain neutrality on issues to appeal and elicit feelings to a broader audience. I prefer to seek traditional sources such as CQ researcher because it provides full spectrum of views in news. Both frames are important on major dividing issues where there needs to be further deliberation.
Examples of traditional journalism include The Wall Street Journal, USAtoday, and the Newsroom. Examples of public journalism include Vicenews and the Columbia Journalism Review. Some examples of the “not easily defined” are Facebook and Reddit.
Vicenews aims to provide news as it is without bias but occasional opinion. They provide possible solutions to the issue at hand but also gives the audience their chance to decide objectively. One of the questions from Gastil, that comes to mind “is the coverage balanced and fair minded?” one of the aspects that defines traditional journalism is their responsibility for following local and state law when reporting. I believe USAtoday is “centered” when it comes to presenting news. With minimal bias, their reporting is factual and usually sourced. In addition the categorization of these types of news are still useful. There may be a shift to lump to all news into a single category but the separation helps those who are particular about their news and accustomed to known trusted sources
Some good examples of traditional journalism are PBS NewsHour, the big network morning/evening news delivered via over-the-air broadcast channels like CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox. I also think the BBC is a good example of traditional journalism. Interestingly, though, some examples of public journalism are programs that are owned and operated by some of the same companies that also provide traditional journalism. Shows like Fox & Friends, and the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC are examples of public journalism. An example of journalism that is not classified as either traditional or public, would be tabloid celebrity news shows like Access Hollywood on NBC. I’m not even sure if they are considered real journalism, but they present themselves as such.
An advantage of traditional journalism is that it serves to just report the news and give the facts. Some people don’t necessarily want to hear the opinion of broadcasters and/or pundits. In some instances, a news story is just a news story and no side or opinion needs to be stated or chosen. An advantage of public journalism is that it sheds light on various political and public opinions. It allows for a critical exchange of ideas and provides a space for people to honestly express their views. A disadvantage of public journalism is that if you’re expressing an unpopular opinion, you’re making yourself vulnerable to criticism from the public.
While I do think the traditional and public categories are still present, the line between the two have been severely blurred, due in part, to the absurdity of last year’s election. Much of the traditional news that is being reported seems tabloid worthy and public journalists are frequently being called upon to discuss whichever ridiculous political headline is being broadcast that day.
Thank you for including the mainstream TV news broadcasts in your comments. In addition to any journalistic frames, whether traditional or public, I think the ability to supplement news with a moving image helps to establish the credibility of the source. The choice of images may still reveal a bias, but the camera usually does not lie about the facts of a story. The additional information will keep the journalist “honest,” regardless of the story they tell. This is important because both frames of journalists have in their ranks those who are dishonest beyond what might be an expected liberal or conservative bias.
I am a great believer in being informed by a variety of reporting sources. Between the traditional and public journalists, our society provides enough reliable information that everyone can be educated as to the events of the day. Traditional journalists include the oft-maligned “mainstream” media outlets, like the big three network news broadcasts, and the remaining broadsheet or tabloid newspapers from major American cities. These outlets were established at a time when access to information was more limited than it is today. Consequently, those news providers knew the power of the work they undertook and their responsibility to inform the public. Because they were the only option, that work was uniquely important and remains so today. These elite journalists also take pride in the standards of their work as gatekeepers of information. They may also be biased in their reporting and narrow in their scope however honest and accurate their story telling. The New York Times and the Daily News are two such excellent papers.
The Times provides a wide berth of detailed information including local, national and international news, and features arts, finance and contemporary living information. It has been suggested that if one has the time to read The New York Times in its entirety, one is a member of society’s elite. The Daily News provides much less information in less detail but does cover the most immediately newsworthy items. The audience for this paper is more working class, so there is less business and international news, but the reader learns the current events and other issues most likely to affect them. Ironically, despite their great differences, both the News and the Times are reputed to have liberal leanings.
The news-consuming public should trust its news sources to deliver complete and accurate content. This trust is earned. Cable news telecasts tend to be less staid than their broadcast counterparts, with a stylistic tenor provided by the program host. This makes them more accessible and less imposing. If the two types of productions share a parent broadcast company or news bureau, they will likely hold to similar journalistic standards for accuracy. Cable news telecasts, and there are many of them, allow for variety in the presentation of accurate information.
Soft news programs and even the late-night talk programs, essentially hosted by public journalists, are also successful in providing news information because the monologues reach consumers who are not news readers but who nonetheless need to understand noteworthy events. Comedy can be a catalyst for some of this understanding. Talk programs like The View also serve this need. The ladies of The View supposedly come into viewers’ homes like a gaggle of gossipy girlfriends, but the panels have always been stocked with members holding significant news credentials who discuss the day’s news items in the guise of “Hot Topics;” a highly effective strategy for news dissemination.
Good examples of traditional journalism are Print Journalism – newspapers, magazines, posters, books and newsletters; Photo Journalism – environmental and sports; Broadcast Journalism – Televisions and radio
Public Journalism, also known as Civic Journalism is journalism by non-professional. A great example of this is citizen using their phone to upload what he or she thinks is news on social media such as twitter. Also the opinion section of the paper is public journalism, based on town meetings or education programs.
A great example of journalism that is not considered to be traditional or public journalism is Blog post. A blog post is more like someone writing about a product or a particular topic that is of interest to some readers.
The advantage of public and traditional journalism is providing information that is of interest to the public; helping people to become aware. Also with current technology it enable the public to receive news instantly, or at the moment the The disadvantage of this is not all news is true news known as fake news. With current technologies information can be manipulated making it out to be something that is not.
Traditional journalism is now being taken over by what is known as New Media Journalism. New Media Journalism allows its audience to receive information faster and in less time. Great example is social media such as Twitter and Facebook. Public journalism is useful to new media journalism.
I believe the New York Times is a perfect example of traditional journalism. The New York Times has pride itself and its future on being a destination for readers like myself this paper is an authoritative, clarifying and vital destination. These qualities have long prompted people to subscribe or purchase daily. The Tines’s focus on subscribers sets them apart in crucial ways from many other media organizations. They focus on giving the news to its subscribers as if we are having a prolonged face to face conversation. The Times is unrivaled in its investment in original, quality journalism and that’s what makes this exceptional traditional journilsm. The Times is by far the most cited news publisher by other media organizations, the most discussed on Twitter and the most searched on by google by consumers.