Over on the listserv for the Canadian Association of Journalists, we're yakking about some ethical issues. Part of that discussion has wheeled on an observation that journalism is a business. Many on that list, it seems, believe that the very problem with journalism today is that it is treated as a business.
John Miller, a former Toronto Star editor and now a professor of journalism at Ryerson University in Toronto, wrote:
Joseph Pulitzer made a distinction between those on either side of the traditional “wall” that used to separate the commercial and the journalistic sides of newspapers.
A journalist, he said, was “the lookout on the bridge of the ship of state;” they are there to watch over the welfare of the people who trust them, not to fret over the profits of owners. Pulitzer believed there was a fundamental difference between “real journalists and men (sic) who do a kind of newspaper work that requires neither culture or conviction, but merely business training.”
Such people in the counting rooms were in the “newspaper business.” Reporters and editors were not. They have a higher calling.
I tend to agree with the general point that Miller and Pulitzer are making: That there ought to be something special about the way we go about our job. We must have real and perceived independence from the commercial aspects of our business in order to be effective and, if we have that, that would indeed make journalists special or unique. That would be our “higher calling”.
But by describing our craft in these words I worry that we reinforce perceptions by our viewers and readers that journalists are an elite group out of touch with the concerns and problems of real working men and women, many of whom are on the other side of that wall in the newsroom.
If we want to connect with our readers and viewers we ought not to describe that idea as “a higher calling”, to romanticize it as if what we do is some mysterious rite-filled priestood. Instead, we ought to talk about how we can approach our jobs with a little more humility; with the frank recognition that we have our own ideological and socio-political biases and that we will work to overcome those biases in our reportage; and with a commitment to the idea that we will constantly seek out ways to test our assumptions about the way the world works and, when assumptions fail us, we will report just as aggressively on those changes.
Journalists are not special, what we ask of them may be more special than what we ask of others; that is to be as informed as possible and then transmit that information to the great unwashed as fairly as possible.
The problem is that because of the news business there is an elite of 'journos' based on the ability to connect with their opinions not necessarily the strength of their copy. Perhaps these prima donnas suffer from “pulitzerism” I certainly think so
Interesting point David – ideally all journalist produced material that is not maked as editorials or opinions or viewpoints etc. should be fact-based and un-biased. This would also include free from political slant, loaded statements, excessive editorial control etc. In essence to me the perfect “newspaper” would be a bunch of fact-based unbiased content then expanded editorial and opinion and viewpoint pages talking about various subjects as well as giving biased views on the fact-based unbiased coverage. This would be done in a 360 fashion covering as much news as reasonably possible.
David, the public should ask for “higher” thinking on our journalists part – after all they hold what is in essence a public pen
Regarding the view of journalists as elites – my thought on that is as follows – assuming that the journlist group generally mirrors the audience/general population there is no danger of being elite. Once the population diverges there is a substantial risk of elitism developing
By the way, I am not a journalist
Cheers
Jason Koulouras
when CTV stops promoting Canadian Idol …… then things might go
back to normal
Journalists, as I wrote on CAJ-list, feel especially threatened because the worlds are changing and the readership's interest along with it. Blogs, community reporting and a sense of being a part of a global village were not so strong when Mr.Pulitzer was around.
Things are changing. Reporting is changing. The demand is also changing for a more personalised/opiniated reporting style. If the media is truly a business then it should adapt… we never criticise the Economist for leaning towards the right or le Monde Diplomatique for being as far left as they go… because we know where they stand, and that's why we buy their publications in the first place.
Should this affect the quality of reporting? Absolutely not!! There will always be a demand for more serious magazines like the Economist or the Financial Times, but it would seem the more general readership is asking for changes… why should it be the readership that's wrong? Why do reporters tend to ask 'what's wrong with the readership?' before asking 'do we really know what our readership wants, or are we thinking for them?'
Philiipe Roy
http://www.photojournaliste.ca/blog.php