And yet “the sense that, if you have a belief that you publicly espouse, you can no longer be fair about reporting a subject is problematic,” Froomkin continued. “Reporters have beliefs, they have values—the key is for them not to let those beliefs affect their reporting. Downie wanted people to disenfranchise themselves.” Besides, Froomkin continued, there are principles that journalists do, and more to the point should, stand for—accountability, transparency, fair play, human rights—and “there’s nothing wrong with journalists wearing those values on their sleeves.”
“There’s a lot of professional pride wrapped up in this idea” of impartiality, Rosen noted—noting as well that the flip side of that pride is a “fear of giving up what you’ve known and dominated for so long.”
Froomkin shared a story that David Corn—the White House correspondent for Mother Jones magazine, who also happened to be sitting in the front row of the audience during the Froomkin/Rosen talk—had told him during yesterday’s PDF proceedings. During the 2004 Republican National Convention, Corn found himself in a bar with several WaPo reporters and editors, who were talking in strong terms about what a poor acceptance speech the president had just delivered. The next day, Corn read those same journalists’ coverage of the Bush speech in the Post—very little of which reflected the feelings they’d expressed the night before. Which is to say, their true feelings.
“My explanation for this—or my language for it—is that there’s an innocence agenda in the press,” Rosen said, describing the externalized profession of “Hey, I don’t judge” that the press uses, ultimately, to seduce sources. That agenda, Rosen said, “comes from the inability to justify modern professional journalism in any other way than objectivity. And the demand for something stronger, better, more truthful just has never been met.”
Take, for example, journalists’ tortured relationship with the word “lie.” “The traditional media is so incredibly averse to that word—and especially when applied to President Bush—it isn’t even funny,” Froomkin said. But “it’s inappropriate squeamishness.” The rule for most mainstream news organizations, he noted, is that you can’t come out and call someone a liar unless you have proof that the person’s intention was to deceive—which rather absurdly puts the burden of proof on a confession, rather than an external judgment based on fact. “My wife, who is a federal prosecutor, just thinks this is the funniest thing,” Froomkin said, as the crowd laughed along with him.
The caution that has come to define so much of journalism’s culture and products is “really the antithesis of what I think journalism should be,” Froomkin said. “Which is: you call it as you see it.” Or, as Rosen put it: “‘Safety First’ is a terrible principle for journalists.”
In accountability journalism at its best—and, really, journalism more generally at its best—“you’re truth-telling,” Froomkin said. “You’re shouting it from the rooftops, and if that means people are constantly getting mad at you, so be it.”
Instead, much of the mainstream reporting we have today is diluted, triangulated, watered down, and weak. “It’s kind of a self-inflicted lobotomy for journalists,” Froomkin said. “You’re cutting off the most important parts of the journalistic brain”—the ability to make determinations based on accumulated knowledge.
“You have to try to imagine overlapping fears,” Rosen interjected. “A newsroom is an apparatus of social control. It is organized in part to de-voice the individual journalist.” And news organizations, he continued, are “in a situation in which, the way the world is going, that’s not what’s valuable.” We’re in a culture, instead, that creates and promotes journalistic celebrities whose fame is largely independent of the news organization they represent. And “it’s scary,” Froomkin said, “for them to think that the individuals might walk away from the brand.”

Awesome, awesome. Thanks for going and reporting.
One question about this quote:
"And news organizations, he continued, are 'in a situation in which, the way the world is going, that’s not what’s valuable.' We’re in a culture, instead, that creates and promotes journalistic celebrities whose fame is largely independent of the news organization they represent."
Did Rosen mean "journalistic celebrities" are the way the world is going? Or did he also or instead mean that individual journalists will have straightforward human connections to their audiences even if they're maybe not famous icons?
#1 Posted by Josh Young, CJR on Wed 1 Jul 2009 at 10:00 AM
NBD
Think of all the great NYC papers, now gone. Money was the issue.
If his writing has merit -- he and someone else will make $$$ with it.
If not -- his writing can go on the Web. No one is stopping him. And he'll make all the money involved.
Life will go on.
#2 Posted by Art, CJR on Wed 1 Jul 2009 at 10:47 AM
The same unwillingness to call a lie a lie goes for local coverage.
For example, in discussing the controversial Atlantic Yards Project (arena + 16 towers in Brooklyn), the head of a state agency testified May 29 at a NY Senate hearing that the project was unchanged, including ten-year timetable.
The problem: less than two months earlier, she'd said publicly that it would take "decades."
So I called it a lie--the "biggest deception" of the hearing. No one else did.
http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2009/05/senate-hearing-no-tough-questions-for.html
http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2009/06/recapping-senate-hearing-what-was.html
A month later, her agency, the Empire State Development Corporation, produced a new plan claiming that the project would take a decade but acknowledging it could take much, much longer.
http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2009/06/ay-project-cost-rises-to-49-billion.html
Norman Oder
AtlanticYardsReport.com
#3 Posted by Norman Oder, CJR on Wed 1 Jul 2009 at 02:12 PM
Megan Garber should be unceremoniously fired for an error of judgement in choosing to use an appropriate word to describe how journalists avoid using the word “lie.”
Megan writes:
Take, for example "journalists’ tortured relationship with the word “lie.”
Megan can correct this error by rewriting the sentence to read:
Take, for example, journalists’ enhanced relationship with the word “lie.”
#4 Posted by BetterBadNews, CJR on Wed 1 Jul 2009 at 03:46 PM
@Josh Young: Thanks very much--I was happy to go (and report). As for your q, I'm not entirely sure what Rosen would say to that. I'd think he'd say that both are broadly true. My sense of his general meaning, from the context of the talk, was that journalism is moving away from the de-individuation of the past--and not just in terms of circumstantial reality, but also in terms of normative value. Reporters are, more and more, embracing their individuality...and, as both a cause and effect of that trajectory, readers are placing increasing value on singularity itself.
But, again: that's just me, extrapolating.
@Art: Froomkin mentioned, at the end of yesterday's talk, that he'll very soon be making the announcement of where he and his blog/column will be landing--as in, within a week or two. So.
@BetterBadNews: Ha! Good one.
#5 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Wed 1 Jul 2009 at 04:12 PM
From time to time students have tasks to accomplish the non-plagiarized essay about this good topic. But lots of them are not good research paper writers. Thence, what should they do in this situation? Some specialists instantly advice to purchase essays at the papers writing service.
#6 Posted by dgHannah, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 03:34 PM