Rosen answers objections to NewAssignment.net
Jay Rosen has published part 2 of his Q & A about NewAssignment.net in which he begins to answer some serious objections. I have a problem with this part:
If “Donors balk at an inconvenient truth” is the first warning, what’s the second?
The site will only fund projects that bring in the donor clicks. So the perceived availability of funding, not the intrinsic newsworthiness of a story, will come to rule the editorial roost.
To which your answer is?
Good editors. With reserve funds. That’s exactly why the reserve funds are there. To un-enslave the editors. Still, I think this is something to watch out for.
Rosen pulls out the “good editors” retort a few times. And, for the most part, I’m willing to play wait-and-see because I think he’s on to something important here. Journalism is practiced by people, not commercial institutions. If you take away the institution–or, as he says, the media–I think there’s a real chance that good editors will be the ones who smooth those early bumps.
But… Let’s consider the purpose of journalism as stated by Kovach & Rosenstiel and edited by Cline, McGill, and Iggers: The purpose of journalism is to give people the information they need to make public life work. I’ll bet Rosen buys into some reasonable articulation of this. In fact, he’s offered a reasonable articulation of this in his book What Are Journalists For?.
Here’s my problem: If this is the purpose of journalism, then any practice that interrupts it is unethical.
Before you get your shorts in a twist–I’m not calling Rosen unethical. I’m merely reinforcing something that Rosen himself has already claimed: that the model he’s proposing leaves journalists, including those good editors, somewhat at the mercy of the very thing that challenges them ethically when they practice journalism for commercial institutions–money. To choose money over “the information that people need to make public life work,” for any reason, will give a good journalist a dose of heartache. And that’s why I like the “good editors” retort.
[Editor's Note: You may have noticed that the definition of "good" plays a crucial persuasive role here. I'm thinking that it might not include many of the inchoate ethical practices listed in the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists. I'm thinking it identifies a quality of professional practice something like Kovach & Rosenstiel's list in The Elements of Journalism (linked above). In other words, by unyoking from the commercial institution, NewAssignment.net also has the opportunity to assert a new ethics for journalism--one that articulates and defends the virtues of journalism rather than provides cover for the collective rump of the commercial institution.]
BTW, Rosen mentions one of the best examples of pro-am journalism: Doug McGill’s coverage of the Anuak genocide. Click here for the first article. And here to read the entire series.
> … inchoate ethical practices listed in the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists
The SPJ’s FAQ states that its code of ethics is voluntary.
Here’s hoping that NewAssignment.Net’s isn’t.
(at least in that participants should be required to swear to abide by it)
Hey, as I recall (possibly wrongly) Haloscan would quietly trash all comments more than a couple of months old. Is that still the case?
Anna… I don’t know. I’ll check into it.
Free Haloscan does archive comments.
Citizen journalism doesn’t need an editor, but pro/pro-am does?
re: good
Dan Conover as NewAssignment’s editor makes me want to contribute.
I could name others that I would consider a disincentive to contributing/participating.
Tim… My thinking on “editors” is changing by the minute. What that means is: I really haven’t done the hard thinking necessary to forming a consistent theory. I realize that I’ve made contradictory statements regarding editors. I’ll try to resolve them as discussion of this project moves forward.
Perhaps this makes sense: This comes down to establishing legitimacy with the audience. How is that accomplished?
Legitimacy, credibility, trust …
Did you get to read Dan’s comment?
re Tim’s Q
> Citizen journalism doesn’t need an editor, but pro/pro-am does?
Blogging journos likely don’t want an editor, since they get or have had enough of that.
Conversely, blogging cit-js would love an editor, but we don’t have one.
(while some are generous with their time and help, it does feel like an imposition to ask.)