Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal

Continuing commentary on the new survey of American journalists conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: Today’s topic: Section 3, Today’s Changing Newsroom.

One could make an excellent argument for this proposition: The biggest change in journalism in the past ten years has been the use of the internet as a news outlet and research tool.

Is this a good thing? I can hear Neal Postman reminding us all to question very closely what problem it is that a new technology solves (plus: who wins? who loses? what changes?). And he’d remind us that once introduced it can’t be taken back.

Because I consider the internet to be primarily a text-based medium (i.e. you have to read it), I’m inclined to suppose it is on balance a positive addition to our culture and the practice of journalism. But let’s not suppose everyone wins. To use the internet requires enough income to afford the equipment and an ISP. It requires a certain amount of time and technical skill. That public sphere created by this technology is still rather small. How many people on your block have internet access at home? How many know what a blog is?

From the survey results:

Another widely noted positive impact of the Internet is its ability to deliver information to the public more quickly and to promote greater competition among news organizations. This view is much more prevalent among print journalists than among those working in TV and radio. A frequent comment within this theme is that print journalism now has the ability to compete with television and radio for breaking news. Also, the speed of the Internet in delivering information was the single most cited benefit among journalists who work primarily on their organization’s websites.

I believe competition in print journalism is a good thing. The loss of 2-paper towns in America is, to my way of thinking, a civic catastrophe. Whether the internet can provide a similar dynamism remains to be seen. I am disturbed, however, that journalists see the internet as a way to compete with television. Print journalists should not allow their eyes to be sparkled by any medium that promises the impossible. I believe the more print tries to compete with television the more it loses. The road to salvation is good local journalism and strong second-day coverage of important national events. I believe the era of print as a medium of consistent breaking news has long passed.

More from the results:

Those who think the Internet has been bad for journalism most often cite the fact that it promotes the spread of unvetted and unfiltered information to the public; nearly half (53% national, 45% local) cite this concern. Others express a related concern about the speed and pressure of the Internet leading to too many factual errors in news coverage (17% national, 29% local).

Another concern raised by some is that the Internet has promoted the rise of pseudo-journalism, “junk” sites, and low-brow news. One negative consequence cited by several respondents is that “news” reported on these sites force mainstream journalists to waste time chasing down baseless rumors and innuendo. In a similar vein, a smaller group refers specifically to the Internet having damaged the credibility of journalism in the mind of the public.

Surely only consumers may judge the political or social utility of information for themselves. Journalism works on an editorial ethos necessary to the smooth operation of a limited system of information delivery. And, just as surely, journalists develop an expertise in judging the newsworthiness of events based on the structural biases of the profession. But journalists should never suppose that they are keepers of a deeper understanding civic information, knowledge, or wisdom. The political and social utility of “junk” or “unvetted and unfiltered information” has nothing to do with the professional journalist’s opinion of it. Journalists should be learning from the internet that information, knowledge, and wisdom are being freed from editorial control, and many citizens–news consumers–see this as a good thing.

Previous entries:

Complex system
To be good