More and more, as a result, audiences are aware not only of the journalism reporters produce, but also of the lives they lead: who their friends are, what music and movies and books they like, how they interact with acquaintances, etc., etc. And more and more, we journalists are selling ourselves by selling our selves—which is to say, our full identities. Not as incidental aspects to our journalism, but as central ones.
This isn’t a pervasive phenomenon, to be sure—the vast majority of the journalists that remain to toil in their craft do so under the traditional veil of effective anonymity—but it is increasingly common. To the extent that we can identify a trajectory. Increasingly, the ethos of celebrity—which entails a fixation on the personhood of the celebrity as well as the cultural products that won her fame in the first place—trickles down from the echelons of our opinion pages (‘Win a trip with Nick Kristof!’) and anchor chairs (Half an hour with Brian Williams!) and into journalism’s rank-and-file. Reporters, as producers of news, are increasingly branded not only in the macro sense—top-down, vertical, ephemeral—but also in the micro: personal likes and dislikes, political leanings, friends and associates, educational background. Increasingly, we are aware of reporters not merely as purveyors of narrative, but as people who purvey narrative.
To an extent, of course, that shift is very much to the good: Sourcing matters, in the critical interpretation of journalism as well as journalism itself. Awareness of journalism’s authorship creates crucial context for news consumption. Readers, inundated as they are with deluges of information, need now more than ever to be savvy in their interpretation of the news—and that savviness extends to their awareness of the news’s authors. Because the author of journalism—her cultural upbringing, her socioeconomic status, her political proclivities, her education, her friends and associates—affects the product of journalism.
And yet, and yet, and yet. Author awareness can lead consumers astray because that awareness is, at its core, a flawed concept. Journalism—the news reporting I’m concerned with here, at any rate—does not, in fact, have an author. It has authors, plural. Or, more specifically, to borrow Foucault’s phrase, it has an author function. Journalism is the product not of a single person, but of a community, working in concert to produce a narrative. (Journalistic text is, in that sense, the opposite of literary text: It derives its authority not from the authenticity of idiosyncrasy, but rather from the codification of conversation—from the consent, as it were, of the governed.) At its most basic, news represents a kind of dialectic between the reporter and his sources, between the reporter and the information he unearths in his reporting. Usually, though, it represents more: a conversation in which reporter and sources and information—and editors and more editors and still more editors—engage with each other, discursively: refining the details, expanding the context, excising the extremities, tightening and tempering the text.
The mitigating effect of news’s institutional discursiveness can operate both for the better (‘edited by committee’ as a boast) and for the worse (‘edited by committee’ as an affront). But the point is the mitigating effect in the first place. Bylines are misleading: When it comes to straight news reporting, no narratives are singular in their sources. Narrative construction is a communal endeavor. This is a fact that audiences—and critics—of journalism too often forget.
And it’s one that we forget at our peril. There’s a fine line, after all, between author function and author fixation—a fixation that, in questioning journalists’ capabilities as mechanical producers of news, misconstrues them as emotional filterers of it. It’s this fixation that has let journalism’s reputation erode under a barrage of bias charges from both the right and the left—and has allowed journalism as an institution to fall prey to the intentional fallacy. It’s a fixation, in other words, whose logical conclusion reduces the qualitative analysis of our news to the who it’s from rather than the what it is.

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