Re-thinking objectivity

.... is just way too much to handle. That was my first thought when going over the report on objectivity and the changing media in the CJR. But when I thought about the reasons I wasn't prepared to redefine the way I think about journalism, I realized it's probably because they are right.

Objectivity is easier than bias.

We've all been taught the ropes of journalism, so at this point, I think it's harder to find ways to make things work by breaking the mold than to just go with it.

I think the most interesting point they made in the report was that objectivity originally made its way into journalism for economic reasons - since it was expensive to produce journalism back in the day, the media had to appeal to as many readers as possible. Today, that is clearly not the case. With the MSM moving to the Internet, there' s a lot less worry about readership and money via subscriptions and news stand sales - instead, journalists can be as bias as they want and appeal to as few people as they want.

hmm .... it's so crazy, it just might work.

Agenda-shifting

Yes, all journalists are agenda-setters. I find it hard to argue that and simutaneously find it the weakest argument critics have against journalism.

By nature that's what journalism is and that's what an editor's job is. They just can't cover everything so they pick what they think has the most relevance in society. There's no 100% fair way to do that and I think it's something that every good editor struggles with. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they make mistakes.

But the chasm that has existed between readers and editors (and that has fueled an editors' power to decide the news solely) is shrinking. We're talking digital age again (see a pattern in this blog - coupled with the fact that I'm blogging at all). This isn't a revelation anymore - digitalization is changing the way the media work and that includes how they choose and report on stories.

I think the burden of agenda-setting is falling into the hands of the public but honestly, I'm not sure how to feel about that. Think about it: the field of journalism was created because the public needed an educated, unbiased body to do this work for them, and now the roles are reversing back? Why don't we just go ahead and eliminate the electoral college too?

A Year [I'm glad I wasn't responsible for] the News

If I was a professional journalist in 2007 and the Annual Report on American Journalism (a study conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism) was my report card - I'd be afraid to show my mom.  Not because I would have failed utterly and completely, but because I was barely trying and I just didn't get it. 

The study was extensive and the report covered a wide array of issues in the news media but what I really took from it was the fact that there is a serious disconnect between the media and their audience. There is a definite disconnect between what the public wants to see and what the media are providing, but there is also a disconnect between the way the media cover their stories and the way it would be most beneficial to the masses. I find it disappointing that this even exists, but can't begin to defend my medium of choice or deny that it's there. 

One of the most fundamental explanations I've ever heard about being a journalist: Tell the public everything it didn't know it wanted to know. 

In 2007, journalists just did not do that. I agree completely with the report that it was a "drive by" media - they focused on one big, front-page worthy story from basically the same angle until it was completely dead and moved onto the next without ever developing something the audience could use. 

BUT I'm optimistic. Maybe because I still live by the New York Times (and The Ithacan), but also because journalists have never had more resources to reach out to people. The public is our tutor and it's telling us exactly what we have to do to improve in the form of blogs, vlogs, user comments and more. I think journalism is listening and I think the 2008 report card will see some improvement.