As journalism accumulates more and more voices, though—and as the din of those voices becomes louder and more cacophonous—we increasingly need narrative agents that rise above simple subjectivity as much as they do simple objectivity, agents that transcend the authorship of the individual: agents to sort fact from fiction, the quality information from the dreck, the news that forms the basis of democratic action from the news that forms the basis of the everything-else. We need, in other words, the collective authority of the institution. If news organizations can reclaim institutionalism, they’ll be taking a small but significant step toward reclaiming their narrative authority. And our trust along with it.
For a list of suggestions for further reading, click here. For Justin Peters’s companion piece on authority and credibility in online communications, click here. For an overview of the Press Forward series and links to older content, click here.
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