Great is Journalism. Is not every Able Editor a Ruler of the World, being a persuader of it?
— Thomas Carlyle, 1837
Journalism is just ditchwater.
— Thomas Carlyle, 1881
In its inaugural State of the News Media report in 2004, the Project for Excellence in Journalism put its finger on a core paradox in contemporary American journalism: “Journalists believe they are working in the public interest and are trying to be fair and independent in that cause,” the report went. “This is their sense of professionalism.” The next line? “The public thinks these journalists are either lying or deluding themselves.” It continued: “Americans think journalists are sloppier, less professional, less moral, less caring, more biased, less honest about their mistakes, and generally more harmful to democracy than they did in the 1980s.”
It concluded: “After watching these numbers closely for years, we at the Project suggest that all of these matters—the questions about journalists’ morality, caring about people, professionalism, accuracy, honesty about errors—distill into something larger. The problem is a disconnection between the public and the news media over motive.”
A disconnection between the public and the news media over motive. In other words, the profound mistrust Americans apparently feel toward their media isn’t rooted simply in the products of journalism—the news reports put out every day in text and image and sound—but rather in the producers themselves. Mistrust in our media is as much a matter of the who as the what.
Which is worrisome. Not only because it suggests that every joke told at the expense of lawyers, IRS agents, and similar scourges also applies to journalists (“How many reporters does it take to screw in a light bulb? None: reporters only screw us”)—and not only because it leads to journalists’ dismissal by their own audiences as ‘sloppy’ (ouch) and ‘biased’ (ouch again) and ‘immoral’ (okay, uncle)—but also because, more broadly, it foments a strain of skepticism that simply has no rhetorical recourse. If news narrative is not to be trusted because it is produced by people who are not to be trusted, then there’s little to be done to improve the apparently wretched state of our journalism—save, of course, for ridding it of journalists entirely. Per this framing, journalism is flawed at its foundations. Its whole ontology is off.
The mistrust has myriad causes, of course, many of which do indeed resolve in the behavior of journalists. But the larger matter is one of classic cognitive disconnect. News reporting, in general, has structured itself as an arbiter not merely of human events in particular, but also of—sorry, postmodern sensibilities!—Truth in general. That presumptive capital-T and all. But news narrative, as a body, is as restrictive as it is descriptive; it constrains the world as much as it expands it. It marries moral and narrative authority; and it does so, of course, for the eminently practical reason that it requires moral authority to have any value in the first place. News’s worth as a commodity is predicated, almost completely, on the trust it commands from its consumers.
But consumers, for our part—and, of course, from the journalism-as-commodity perspective, our part is paramount—appreciate almost instinctively the narrative tension between the world as we experience it and the world as journalism packages it. Text—the narrative product itself, be it realized in print or pixel, image or sound—requires, implicitly, a conjuring of the metaphysical, and thus a disconnect from the reality it signifies. The Egyptian god Thoth, Neil Postman points out, was the god of writing. He was also the god of magic.
This is a fantastic analysis. I'm a recent J-school graduate (B.A. from Ithaca College in May '09), and I feel like you've cut to the heart of an issue I've been grappling with since I decided I wanted to be a journalist (or, at least, participate in the production of journalism).
You've said what I've been trying to say (in classes, on my blog, to anyone who will listen) for years, in much better words than I've come up with. Well done!
#1 Posted by Ian, CJR on Thu 4 Mar 2010 at 06:21 PM
Cogent and compelling analysis. Thank you!
#2 Posted by Guy S., CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 12:05 PM
This is an interesting analysis but I think in the end a flawed analysis. In mass media news organizations, the authorial voice is not and never has been individual--it is institutional. Generations of content analyses have shown the basic homogeneity of news writing. So if people increasingly mistrust news it is not because they mistrust individual by-lines it is because they mistrust the institution. They increasingly believe that the institutional voice of news reporting is there to satisfy the needs of these institutions, and perhaps of reporters' routine sources, more than their own. From this perspective, your proposed solution--to embrace the institutional voice of news writing--is actually the problem, no?
#3 Posted by david ryfe, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 01:39 PM
You may enjoy reading this collection about Culture War: Institutions vs. Media.
#4 Posted by Tim, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 05:48 PM
There is no such thing as objective reporting. Every journalist and institution has a position. Also, who owns the institution and controls the editing? Why trust the news when it doesn't report the facts or try to get at the truth? To assume that everyone can determine the validity between two positions on everything does not make sense. By presenting every issue with different views as reporting the news, we do a disservice to the public. In Europe, the American public is not seen to get unbiased news and Americans are not trained to evaluate news sources effectively.
#5 Posted by Jacques Nicole, CJR on Sun 7 Mar 2010 at 06:48 PM
Very nice article and there is truth within it. Evidence can be found in NBC News where the network exhibits kit glove handling regarding the Cheney's and Republicans in general (especially David Gregory and Pete Williams due to their personal friendships) and they do not appear to be impartial players. So called independent analysts and experts are usually found to have business or political entanglements in the issues they are invited to discuss. However, I believe the larger issue is that journalists act as stenographers and do not exhibit any cogent or really critical questioning of people and issues. The Sunday morning shows are a perfect example of this after morphing into "hi-brow" People Magazine gatherings years ago. Statements of obvious falsehood are made and accepted without challenge. Spin gets spun and that's okay. The informed viewer is left to wonder - is falsehood accepted because of hidden relationships and common attempts to spread a particular point of view? Or, is it accepted because it is just too hard for the journalist to do his job? In any case, American society suffers and it doesn't look like there are any real efforts underway to resolve the issue.
#6 Posted by bob keskula, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 05:29 PM