I’ll give it a shot…
Jay Rosen, from the comments to yesterday’s entry:
Yes, except that, Andrew, you should do a post on this idea that a persistent failure of journalists is to “provide context.” There is no such thing as Context with a capital C. Which context to add is a debatable decision that cannot be governed by any existing rule set in journalism.
Instead of developing new and necessary rule sets, what journalists usually do in that situation is ignore the fact that they’re making an (arguable) decision. Of course it only leads to more arguments.
If I want to add historical context right to Katrina coverage (”come on, provide some context”) is it the history of Gulf Coast Hurricanes? Of other public disasters? Or cities that died? Of Levee funding? Of race and class in New Orleans? It sounds good, “provide context.” But it’s actually just a name for a big black box with unsolved journalistic problems in it. Thus the need for your post.
Maybe you can figure out what people mean when they say it.
Thanks, Jay! I was looking for a good idea for a book 
But seriously folks, I accept the challenge. Look for it on Monday.
UPDATE (1:40 p.m.): The idea of “analytical scoops” may play a role in my consideration of “context” in journalism. From an interview with Michael Oreskes, executive editor of the International Herald Tribune:
“People are picking up the Herald Tribune to understand the news,” he said. “That’s what the newspaper has to bring, much greater detail and a sharper focus.”
No doubt Jay is right about the ambiguity in the term “context.” But I still think that disaster coverage has to be about more than just showing dead bodies. And it has to be about more than just moaning about how bad things are? Compared to what? Do we really know if FEMA screwed up? Maybe this was the best we could expect. My point was the pressing emotional hot buttons doesn’t enlighten anyone. Undoubtedly, we need and want some of this, but not to the exclusion of everything else. I recognize that this involves journalistic decisions that will themselves be controversial, but I would prefer that to an interview with Harry Connick.
Marc… Again, no argument from me. From what you’ve written so far, “context” is a big part of what you’re looking for (as I understand (a part of the meaning of) context). But what does that mean? You have some specific (and cogent) complaints about the coverage. I suspect that such is not the case every time someone shouts for context.
Do we really know _______? (fill in the blank)
My stock answer to that is nearly always: “Probably not.” Because knowledge takes time and critical thinking and rhetoric (i.e. we have to gather the facts, contexts, connotations and then “make” the knowledge).
Journalists have to do the best they can…now. So it might be best to think of journalism as a product that unfolds over time rather than as a series of discreet articles or newscasts.
Hmmmmmm…I’m getting a jump on my “assignment”
Speaking of context, I found this post by former D.C. reporter Bill Montague particularly interesting in light of what you’ve been saying about pathos:
Sven… Powerful statement. I wonder how it might correspond to thoughts by reporters covering war?
Marc Schneider: Greetings from hurricane country. You ask, “Do we really know if FEMA screwed up?” Take it from someone who’s been journamalisming around hurricanes for 20 years and living with them for more than twice that: Yes. We know. We know what an effective response looks like. We know what an INeffective response looks like. And we know what a screw-the-pooch response looks like. And with Katrina, the pooch was so screwed my dead cat needs a cigarette.
This is so true: “knowledge takes time and critical thinking”. At the beginning, there were the powerful images (pure pathos), then the rush to judgment, now real reporting is being done. Reporting that requires intellect and not emotion. Although those of us who read blogs already know this, the MSM is now discovering that (1 GWB allocated more money to LA for levees than Clinton, and LA was the top recipient of federal dollars,but LA politicians chose to spend the money on other things a/k/a “pork” (2 there is a chain of responsibility for disasters like this, to-wit: Mayor, NO Director of Homeland Security, Governor, Head of Homeland Security, POTUS (the press went right to the top; are they dishonest, or just dumb?); (3 there are legal and Constitutional reasons the feds can’t just barge into a state and take charge—does the press understand how our government operates?
There has been much back slapping and high fiving about how the press got it’s “spine” back, but Jay is right, they need to get their “brain” back.
My personal opinion is that all “journalists” should be required to have a law degree—this will help them overcome the lack of critical thinking and it will educate them on how our government works—I don’t think the MSM has a clue.
Hmmm.
Much, much more where that came from.
Lex,
I’m certainly not going to argue with you about FEMA. You obviously know more about it. And I wasn’t trying to defend FEMA; it’s response certainly seemed to me to be feeble. My point was that I would have liked to have had more information than just the horrifying pictures. I assume that no matter how prompt FEMA’s response had been, there would have been horrifying pictures–it seemed to me that we needed to know more about what a realistic response would have entailed.
There is a place for emotion in journalism. And I think much of what the reporters on the ground conveyed was appropriate. But, at some point, analysis has to replace emotion.
Marc said: “There is a place for emotion in journalism.” So true, Marc, and that place is called “Oprah”.
Marc: Fair enough. Without arguing that TV coverage was unflawed, I will take the position that the pictures were especially important in that they showed facts on the ground that clearly were at odds with what the government officials were saying and doing. Whether the pictures were excessive is a question I’ll leave to those who watched more coverage than I.
Was the emotion excessive? Probably. But I guess that just goes to show that TV news people, contrary to what I have argued in the past, are human. And I would argue that at least some of the emotion was appropriate. When Sean Hannity, for example, said, “Let’s put things in perspective,” and Geraldo interrupted to say, “THIS is the perspective” and started talking about the appalling conditions where he was, I couldn’t complain, inasmuch as I’ve watched and listened to enough Hannity to know that he wouldn’t know perspective if it bit off his left buttock and spit the pieces down his throat.