- a while back I ran across an essay (from Columbia? somehow related to, or quoting, Halberstam?) making this point; but haven’t been able to find it again. Do you recall it by any chance?

That’s what I think. And I would answer “yes” to the second and third questions you pose in the penultimate paragraph.

Journalism is a remarkably un-self-reflective practice. It’s true that journalists fuss over craft and, to a certain extent, ethics. But, for the most part, they accept this romantic vision of their purpose that is, to a great extent, mythology.

We need better media criticism.

An interesting (if flawed) book I’m reading now — The Big Picture: Why Democracies Need Journalistic excellence — makes the argument that university schools (and programs) of journalism must become centers of media criticism.

Consider the following analysis of recent events in Mumbai, in an article at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7753603.stm

The article concludes:

It is tempting to label the attackers as “crazies”. But such a dismissive appellation may be misplaced.

It is more than likely that the masterminds are seasoned operatives and that the foot-soldiers, young as they may have been, had undergone rigorous training for months, perhaps years.

The attacks also show every sign of having been designed to maximise media attention on a global scale.

In other words, there is a method to the madness.”

The author of the article is not a journalist, but the allusion to use of world media as an indication of terrorists’ sophistication
reminds me of similar statements made, bizarrely enough, by journalists themselves. eg during the first gulf war both CNN and BBC live feeds would mention Sadam’s ’sophisticated’ use of staged media events as a propaganda device.

What is the news media doing in such cases? Are they admitting they are pawns? Are they NOT admitting that the media has in many instances become an integral component of the events they claim to be reporting on as objective, uninvolved outside observers?

An important question here concerns whether allusions to a romanticized image of reporters is in fact a rhetorical device to justify (i.e., hide) the role that reporters and the media are in fact enacting in the events they report.

… the economics of journalistic interaction are becoming vastly different to those of the past 100 years — sources no longer need journalists in the same way. The balance of power has shifted. Journalists have no idea where best to invest their time: in blogging? Social networking? Video? Good old fashioned talking? Press releases? Twitter?

What was also interesting was some of the rhetoric and what was missing.

For example, the principle of storytelling in journalism. “Good reporters are committed to telling the story.” I always like to ask journalists what they mean by “the” “story” and how they construct a narrative:

The problem with journalism is that journalists too often create only one narrative per news event, thus they alienate those who do not see themselves in the story or, as is the case now, see themselves as empowered to construct their own narratives.

What is missing is a desire/ability to transform data/information into knowledge/understanding, unless that’s implied by storytelling. Usually, reporting is described as data/information and knowledge/understanding is left to the reader.

What is also missing is the role of journalistic ethics and peer responsibility for their craft.