The opportunities here seem limited only by our imagination. Michel, who now works at ProPublica, said that, while OffTheBus didn’t specifically track the demographics of its volunteers, her sense is that they skewed toward middle-class professionals. But she also said that it would be possible, over time, to “really target your demographic.” Think of how difficult it is for the press to cover the poor or the working class in sustained and meaningful ways—ways that get beyond single dimensions and the middle-class assumptions that dominate our newsrooms. Imagine how different the coverage of the economy in this country could have been over the last thirty years if more of the press narratives had been coming from the ground up, rather than the top down.
The promise of the OTB experiment is not only that it could help extend the reach of the emaciated American newsroom, but that it could create an alliance between the public and the press. So that when a news outlet concludes that some important mass-transit ideas are not being addressed by the leadership in Congress or the White House, for instance, it would have twelve thousand—or one hundred thousand—engaged citizens (née consumers) adding to its crusade with e-mails and Tweets and phone calls and Facebook pages of their own. Such a scenario has the potential to radically change the decision-making dynamic at the federal, state, or local level.
The vast majority of Americans, of course, won’t want to participate in such an alliance. But let’s say instead of twelve thousand, The Washington Post or The New York Times got twelve hundred volunteers around the country from a broad range of backgrounds. They could be organized into reporting teams around issues, or specific stories. There could be journalistic boot camps akin to Camp Obama, or an expansion of programs like the Savannah Morning News’s now dormant Neighborhood Newsroom program, which identified citizens from underserved communities and trained them to be neighborhood correspondents.
Such pro-am collaboration is under way in other professions, notably scientific research. Galaxy Zoo, for instance, used unpaid volunteers to classify images of galaxies into various types, in an effort to help astronomers understand how galaxies evolve.
It would be crucial that the professionals not simply view their citizen partners as free labor—twelve thousand interns there to do what they’re told. They would need to embrace the entire public as potential colleagues and fellow citizens.
In other words, journalism would need to begin to change the narrative about itself. It is a narrative that has been created by the press’s own failures, its arrogance and shortsightedness, but also by a forty-year campaign by segments of the political right to vilify the press as a “liberal” cabal, and a more recent and less coordinated effort by elements on the left to portray it as a corporate stooge. Changing this narrative will not be easy. There is considerable hostility and distrust toward the mainstream news media, but some of it is the result of ignorance about what the press does and why. The partisan press-haters will always be with us, but the nascent News Literacy movement is attempting to rectify the pervasive ignorance about the values and methods of journalism—to instill in young citizens the importance of the best kinds of journalism, and how to distinguish it from the less-reliable, less-intellectually honest stuff that floods our information environment each day. Early News Literacy efforts are centered on the classroom, but, as Megan Garber suggested in our July/August issue, an obvious next step is to invest in a broader public-education campaign on how good journalism affects our individual and collective lives, and what our communities would be like without that journalism. It’s baffling that the press has never really attempted to make its case to the public. Now it can’t afford not to.
Toward a New Critical Culture

I said it before, and I'll say it again:
Here some advice to have papers make money again:
1) We live in a two party system, have reporters and editors know their local activists and elected offials. If you don't understand their philosihy, motivations or internal conflicts, people will not buy someone who disparages their neighbors for being involved.
2) If you are going to hold one portion of the community to a Higher standard (i.e. WSJ at CJR), it helps that the paper does not commit the same error (Victor Navasky on the 2009 Nation Cruise).
3) Always Be Skeptical of authority, no matter what party is in power. Why has there been no studies down of the press laying down for the first 6 months of the current administration? It was bad laying down for the last one. But it seemed to be fine by CJR standards.
------------------------------------------
When will CJR hold Navsky to account for using their name to further the Nation magazine's interests?
#1 Posted by JSF, CJR on Tue 29 Sep 2009 at 12:35 PM
Along with millions of other Americans and reporters, I heard Mr. Obama on at least three separate occasions say, "...I want you to have the same health plan I have as a Congessman"...to have the same benefits, etc. The words are very close. He did not equivocate.They were clear. Not once have I heard the national media call him on that statement. I am amazed that Mr. Obama got a free pass on that comment. It was as though the reporters let it go because they figured it was an off-the-cuff remark, and he "didn't really mean it". Whatever the reason, the credibility of the important national media is at stake. No wonder you are asking the questions above. Many reporters don't even know the right questions to ask! Some others don't listen well. This issue is not rocket science, folks.
#2 Posted by Doug Matthews, CJR on Tue 29 Sep 2009 at 05:31 PM
A lot of wishful thinking I'm afraid. We have too many well-educated writers that want a lot for not doing a hell of a lot in return. Times got rid of one of their major reporters for lack of reference and recounting just what Bush and Cheney put on their public papers. She's now writing for The Guardian--at least one article this week.Keller gets notes from me time and again for not covering items that I find in BBCnews or Al Jazeera when I have time to check. I find more information from The Palestine Chronicle, the news papers from Pakistan and Afghanistan and IRAN in English than I find in the Times. Boomers and those two generations after them (I came 3 years before them) have had things too easy at home, in schools and so it goes in work and esp. journalism and literature. The schools bemoaned the fact that only 30% of the graduates went to college in the 50's and 60's and they find the same today in %ile. The numbers are larger since we have added 1 million people since then.Anti-intellectualism is still strong outside the East Coast and maybe San Francisco here. Otherwise how could we have such foolish politicians in the "red states" which are mostly between the two major sets of mountains and the South in total. Our Congress is very poorly up-to-date in facts outside their own state. Even then a few are questionable in that. Even the Iran situation today most know little about nor seem to care. Just fire some rockets at them and maybe they will go away. After all that's what Israel wants. Iran has been here over 2500 years and has every right by the treaties they signed since Eisenhower's time till now. If Obama listened to Newshour Tueday this week he would have found that experts from the liberal side and the conservative military side both found everyone's reaction to the legal rockets shot over the weekend to be WAY OVERBLOWN. They may be provocative but they aren't illegal. We test ours time and again with no remarks. They have neighbors all around that have nuclear weapons yet they don't. They might but if they do it's more to say--I told you we could than to fire even at Israel--one of the nastiest countries politically I hear about other than some African dictators that most Americans can't find on a map.We spend all our time thinking the worst of others and then get all upset when we are wrong. But much of that whether it's Iran or Guinea or Samoa, very few know much and don't care. We do need more journalists that will do more and go other places and stop using other people's information which the Times does too often even though it does credit it either at the top in in the middle of the article. It's been very late regarding weather actions in the Pacific and Asia both this year and last in particular. Yet I must credit them with CA news. I do get more all-state news from It than I do on TV or other sources. Keep pushing both NY Times and Washington Post to upgrade and expand their coverage on paper and internet. It has improved for the former paper but seldom the latter. Some features on Bush's torture in and out of US were much better in Post than the Times. But that must happen more often. Push your kids, grandkids and neighbors to expand their knowledge but we still have a long way to go in education to equal the high school information taught EU in contrast to ours. Home is still the best source for Intellectual advancement. Keep up the criticism.. May be some will'll listen--some time.
#3 Posted by Patricia Wilson, CJR on Wed 30 Sep 2009 at 12:28 AM
Dear colleagues,
This is indeed an outstanding essay, but however, I was confused
while reading about public service journalism. In Europe tradition, the coinage
itself - public service - strictly relates to the broadcasting sector only, and
not to the print media. Does it imply that print media should also play an
important role of social cohesion? I'm not against it, but simply, so far it
didn't work in Europe.
Any comments by the author?
Sincerely,
Dusan Babic, media researcher and analyst,
Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina
#4 Posted by Dusan Babic, CJR on Wed 30 Sep 2009 at 05:17 PM
How can journalism regain its relevance? Certainly not by ignoring the story of the year: the right-wing media's campaign of hate-mongering and its effects. The major TV news shows are more or less ignoring it, even though the deliberate crusade to destroy Obama is obvious. It should be CJR's mandate to cover this story, but this article http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_prophet_motive.php?page=1
about Glenn Beck in CJR typically AVOIDS TAKING A STAND against Beck's evil machinations and outrageously hypocritical claims that he is "worried" about America. If CJR can't take a stand against millionaire hypocrites using the news media to stoke the flames of hatred, then what use are they?
#5 Posted by paul rogers, CJR on Wed 30 Sep 2009 at 11:58 PM
How can journalism regain its relevance? Certainly not by ignoring the story of the year: the right-wing media's campaign of hate-mongering and its effects. The major TV news shows are more or less ignoring it, even though the deliberate crusade to destroy Obama is obvious. It should be CJR's mandate to cover this story, but this article http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_prophet_motive.php?page=1
about Glenn Beck in CJR typically AVOIDS TAKING A STAND against Beck's evil machinations and outrageously hypocritical claims that he is "worried" about America. If CJR can't take a stand against millionaire hypocrites using the news media to stoke the flames of hatred, then what use are they?
#6 Posted by pr, CJR on Thu 1 Oct 2009 at 12:41 AM
Much of what you advocate - groups of citizen volunteers assisting with reporting and advocacy - is already taking place online. They're called blogs.
I think the existing model of individually motivated blogs is much preferable to having volunteers be directed by existing news outlets. Why should the Times and the Post be given the right to direct public discussion? They are private, for profit institutions with a political agenda.
You've got a political agenda too. And it doesn't sound like you want to hear a dissenting voice in your brave new world.
#7 Posted by JLD, CJR on Thu 1 Oct 2009 at 02:49 AM
So a left-wing journalist who appears in that paragon of ideological objectivity, The Nation, advocates goals for journalism that just happen to further his leftist ideology, (attacking capitalism, criticizing Obama for not being left-wing enough, etc.). And he says that's going to help reconnect journalists with a public skeptical of journalists with hidden agendas.
I think I'll pass.
#8 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Thu 1 Oct 2009 at 12:04 PM
So the failing left-wing media will be saved by becoming even more left-wing?
By all means, try that. You'll lose even more of your audience to FOX and the blogs, who produce real news.
#9 Posted by EP, CJR on Thu 1 Oct 2009 at 03:26 PM
Actually, follow what this guy said:
"...where journalism is subordinate to the state, the news gets distorted for political reasons..."
Victor Navasky said that. So why have all the major newspapers and media networks (i.e. CBS, NBC, The Coastal Times', Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, CJR, etc. et. al) during a Democratic Administration.
What is the profit motive behind that?
And where is the accountability on Navasky using CJR's name to promote Nation magazine events?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
#10 Posted by JSF, CJR on Fri 2 Oct 2009 at 01:47 AM
“Journalism’s business problems provide an opportunity for journalism education to remake itself, which should start with a declaration of independence from the mainstream media and a renunciation of the corporate media’s allegiances to the existing power structure," write Robert Jensen, professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, in the new issue of Last Exit (http://lastexitmag.com/article/journalism-for-justice) "Our only hope is in getting radical, going to the root of the problems.”
#11 Posted by Keach Hagey, CJR on Sat 3 Oct 2009 at 09:22 AM
And the likes of Professor Jensen get to be zampolits, keeping the journalists ideologically pure.
#12 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Sat 3 Oct 2009 at 10:10 PM
In a small town in OR, a new kind of journalism has been born. My husband and I are publishing a bi-monthly newsletter and companion website that prints the facts behind what happens at City Hall. The facts in the newsletter are substantiated by documentation that can be found on the website. Only logical conclusions are drawn from these facts, and there is no extemporaneous editorializing.
We are taking our lumps from the political machine that controls our town right now. Scathing letters to the editor in the weekly paper, expensive ads denouncing what it is we are doing as divisive, mean-spirited gossip aimed at annihilating our character, baseless accusations of legal misconduct and the like.
If this model, that marries cyberspace with print media, could be duplicated throughout the country on a local level, it could represent a new grass roots movement to make journalism more relevant in the 21st century. We invite others to engage in this innovative call to accountability for our elected officials. No one can escape the truthforchange.com.
#13 Posted by Jane Hagan, CJR on Thu 22 Oct 2009 at 11:58 AM