|
Home
About
Contents
Guidelines
Glossary
Contacts
Discussion
Recent Discussion
Create New Topic
Membership
Join Now
Login
|
Interpreting the problems of journalism
Note: Unsatisfied with the critique of journalism by Kenneth Minogue, I prepared my own summary and critique of his essay. That led me to conclude that if you summarize Minogue's core arguments and analyze what is left, only conjecture and surprisingly little cohesive substance remains. He unloads a litany of concerns, some functional and some sweeping (Such as that journalism is pathological distortion of our civilization, and, that there is a class distinction between scholarship and news -- where the former seeks understanding.) What Minogue presents is not news, insofar as it does not help us understand the world the better to decide what to do.
For news, people want from journalists what they are interested in -- whether the objects of interest are either entertainment or intelligence. News is compelling to people because it presents what people are interested in, or what they feel they need to know to plan their better future. The ratio of entertainment to intelligence constantly changes, weighing differently according to the preferences of the consumer, the planning of the journalist, and the instant in time.
Journalists give people up to four kinds of information that passes as news: - What they feel the reader needs to know,
- What they believe the reader is interested in,
- What they feel will sell,
- What they pass for news even if it isn't.
If consumers can select poorly and editors can also select poorly, it make sense to look for a plausible common reason -- Occam's Razor advises us to seek the simple answer. Of the four kinds of information, the range of what consumers identify and value depends upon the consumer's vision and insight -- which are profoundly affected by background and training. Similarly, of the four kinds of information, the range of what journalists choose to provide also seems integrally tied to background and training. For both consumer and provider, what varies are skills that help differentiate information, that help manage the kinds of information, that broaden awareness, and that sharpen logic. Quite plausibly, then, the fault, as Shakespeare understood "is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
To see if, perhaps something can be done to help consumers and journalists improve, let's look at the four kinds of information that pass as news: - 1. What journalists feel the reader needs to know.
- Selection is ephemeral. Journalists are surrogates for the senses and the judgment of the readers they serve, charged with filtering a torrent of onrushing events. People choose one filter over another because they trust the editor's judgment and they trust the journalist's tone.
- 2. What journalists believe the reader is interested in.
- Luxury is that which consumers show interest in, but do not need. It ranges from the high-minded to low, from the sublime to the base, from celebration of life to venal curiosity -- or even an inseparable meld of both. Gossip feeds curiosity about things that are none of our business. Columnist Liz Smith reminded journalists that, at least temporarily after 9/11, "Gossip is a luxury we can no longer afford."
- 3. What journalists feel will sell.
- In pursuit of profit and in abdication of their responsibility, some journalists will pander. They believe it cheaper to mimic the decorative plumage of real news hoping to pass the muster of an untutored mind. While one cannot insist on integrity, one can defend against its absence.
- 4. What journalists pass for news even if it isn't.
- A popularity poll may be interesting, but it is not news. Identifying who is perceived to have "won" a debate may be interesting, but it is not news. Whether or not a press secretary chose to respond to a reporter's question may be interesting, but it is not news. How the champ feels after winning a match may be interesting, but it is not news. On the other hand, a chart that more clearly represents the relationship between historical levels of national debt and compares it to similar debt around the world is news because it summarizes detail into a precise, concise, informative, and easily useful form the better to make necessary decisions.
What is evident is that the respectable and necessary trade of informing people has lost integrity on both sides of the service. The consumer's ability to differentiate the four kinds of information is not as sharp as it ought to be. And, on the other side, some journalists' willingness to pass noise instead of news shows either an inability to discern the difference, or the willingness to transmit the noise anyway, confident that most readers won't know the difference.
So, what is important and why? Where along the continuum between the serious and the frivolous should various elements of a news report be? At a given time, what is the trade-off between the "now" and the "future"? What balances the celebration of life represented by curiosity and the planning for a better one? Honestly, it changes, as Liz Smith observed. So all we can do is hone the tools of identification and process which -- surprise, surprise -- are the basic tools for thought: Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric -- The Trivium of the Seven Liberal Arts. The common tools necessary to save journalism are the same tools we use to save ourselves. Of course they are. Journalism is nothing more than an extension of ourselves.
Discuss
[Macro error: Can't find a sub-table named "commentIt".]
|
