Journalism E-Book

Michael Schudson

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Serie: Why It Matters
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 136

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020

Beschreibung

Despite the criticisms that have been leveled at news organizations in recent years and the many difficulties they face, journalism matters. It matters, argues Schudson, because it orients people daily in the complex and changing worlds in which they live. It matters because it offers a fact-centered, documented approach to pertinent public issues. It matters because it keeps watch on the powerful, especially those in government, and can press upon them unpleasant truths to which they must respond. Corruption is stemmed, unwise initiatives stopped, public danger averted because of what journalists do. This book challenges journalists to think hard about what they really do. It challenges skeptical news audiences to be mindful not only of media bias but also of their own biases and how these can distort their perception. And it holds out hope that journalism will be for years to come a path for ambitious, curious young people who love words or pictures or numbers and want to use them to improve the public conversation in familiar ways or in ways yet to be imagined.

Leseprobe

CONTENTS

Cover

Front Matter

1 Introduction

Notes

2 What Kind of Journalism Matters Most?

Notes

3 Reported, Compelling, and Assertive

Reported

Compelling

Assertive

Notes

4 The Problem of Media Bias

Notes

5 Evidence That Journalism Matters (or Doesn’t)

Knowing Where We Are – Flagging and Naming Contemporary Currents

Making Relevant New Information Available

Holding Power Accountable

Notes

6 Why Technology is Not the Whole Story

Notes

7 Journalism’s Four Non-Revolutions

From Professional Journalism to Citizen Journalism

From Print Journalism to Digital Journalism

From Stories to Databases

From Top-Down (Vertical) to Shareable (Horizontal) Communication

Notes

8 Is There a Future for Journalism?

Notes

Further Reading

End User License Agreement

Guide

Cover

Table of Contents

Begin Reading

Pages

ii

iii

iv

v

viii

ix

x

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

129

130

131

132

133

Polity’s Why It Matters series

In these short and lively books, world-leading thinkers make the case for the importance of their subjects and aim to inspire a new generation of students.

Helen Beebee & Michael Rush, Philosophy

Nick Couldry, Media

Robert Eaglestone, Literature

Andrew Gamble, Politics

Lynn Hunt, History

Tim Ingold, Anthropology

Neville Morley, Classics

Alexander B. Murphy, Geography

Geoffrey K. Pullum, Linguistics

Michael Schudson, Journalism

Graham Ward, Theology and Religion

Journalism

Why It Matters

Michael Schudson

polity

Copyright © Michael Schudson 2020

The right of Michael Schudson to be identified as Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

First published in 2020 by Polity Press

Polity Press65 Bridge StreetCambridge CB2 1UR, UK

Polity Press101 Station LandingSuite 300Medford, MA 02155, USA

All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

ISBN-13: 978-1-5095-3856-0

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataNames: Schudson, Michael, author.Title: Journalism / Michael Schudson.Description: Cambridge, UK ; Medford, MA : Polity, 2020. | Series: Why it matters series | Summary: “Why, in the age of Trump and fake news, journalism matters more than ever”-- Provided by publisher.Identifiers: LCCN 2019042874 (print) | LCCN 2019042875 (ebook) | ISBN 9781509538546 (hardback) | ISBN 9781509538553 (paperback) | ISBN 9781509538560 (epub)Subjects: LCSH: Journalism--Philosophy.Classification: LCC PN4731 .S2485 2020 (print) | LCC PN4731 (ebook) | DDC 070.401--dc23LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019042874LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019042875

The publisher has used its best endeavours to ensure that the URLs for external websites referred to in this book are correct and active at the time of going to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility for the websites and can make no guarantee that a site will remain live or that the content is or will remain appropriate.

Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.

For further information on Polity, visit our website: politybooks.com

Dedication

For Noah

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to John Thompson of Polity Press for inviting me to do this book. Since the 1970s I have been studying and writing about aspects of the news media, especially the history and sociology of American journalism. Putting what I know or what I think I know about journalism into a form suitable for young men and women seeking a quick tour of the field, and in a way that might also interest journalists and scholars, was a challenge I was interested to take on. It would force me to articulate in a more complete way than I had yet done what I think about journalism and why I think journalism, at its best, is so important. I am grateful also to John for honestly telling me a couple of drafts ago when he thought I did not have journalism’s story quite right.

Other trusted critics of earlier drafts include Julia Sonnevend, my wife and a media scholar in her own right. Julia was the first brave soul to make her way through the manuscript. I am grateful to her for pretty much everything in my life but, in this case, for her intellectual acuity and honesty.

Polity’s three anonymous reviewers were excellent – appreciative of the draft they saw but critical, too. Justin Dyer, Polity’s outstanding copyeditor, cleaned up so many sentences I had judged perfect and clarified so many passages I knew were crystalline – well, dear reader, thank heaven you do not have to read what he did! Adelina Yankova, a current Columbia Ph.D. student, helped with some eleventh-hour research and offered astute comments on the whole manuscript. My former doctoral student and now director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, read the manuscript and steered me clear of some pitfalls. I have benefited again from his informed and realistic assessment of journalism, as of democracy itself, and about what these two institutions can – and cannot – achieve. My Columbia Journalism School colleagues and students are visible in the text and the endnotes and I am grateful to Nicholas Lemann for having persuaded me to join the Columbia faculty in the midst of journalism’s digital transformations and the School’s attendant curricular changes. The very corridors of Pulitzer Hall reverberate with the ideals of journalism that this book tries to honor.

1Introduction

It is hard to imagine a human community anywhere in the world, and at any point in human history, where people did not bring news to one another. Hard to imagine a setting in which people did not anticipate – with hope or foreboding or simple curiosity – news from travelers or others who had been away from the village during the day, or news from others close by with gossip to share.

But all human communities through most of the history of the species have managed without a specialized occupation for gathering and disseminating information and commentary on contemporary affairs directed to general audiences: that is, they have been communities without journalism. Indeed, historians typically trace back the origins of journalism only about 400 years, while journalism as a full-time occupation for a contingent of news-gatherers goes back only about 200 years.

For most of the human past, people raised families, worked the soil, gathered nuts and seeds and berries, established governments, conducted diplomacy, raised armies, went to war, developed religious beliefs and practices, built bridges and canals and cathedrals without headlines or tweets, reporters or editors. People wrote songs and poems, love letters and contracts, long before they wrote news stories.

Journalism has not mattered eternally but journalism matters. Many things matter enormously that are as new as or even newer than journalism. Consider electricity. Yes, people can live without it, as they did until about 100 years ago, and as many people in poorer communities still do. In the electrified world, some people intentionally live without electricity on camping trips or religious retreats. Still, most people most of the time in electricity-dependent societies would feel bereft without it. Power outages make normal life impossible even for brief periods. When there is an extended power failure from massive weather events like hurricanes or floods, or through extreme political dysfunction, it is an emergency. It puts lives in danger. There may be disruption of communications, destruction of ongoing experiments in scientific labs or of patient treatment in hospitals, looting in commercial areas, and accidents, crimes, and deaths in darkened homes and streets.

In the modern, urban world, electricity has become a necessity. But what use is journalism? Who really needs it? This is not immediately obvious, at least it is not obvious what journalism uniquely brings. Certainly it brings entertainment, but so do many other things, from video games to a deck of cards to watching or participating in sports to playing with our kids. It brings information, but so do teachers and coaches and physical therapists and books and many other sources. What does journalism do more than or better than or more uniquely than all these others in the information or entertainment it provides?

Some industries or occupational pursuits are selfevidently vital to a good society. Good societies need good doctors, teachers, bus drivers, supermarket cashiers, computer tech support staff, accountants, people with the skills to repair tractors or to prune trees. We depend on many people doing many different jobs every day, from the people who maintain a purified water system to the government officials who inspect the hygiene in restaurants or the safety of bridges and tunnels. The one part of journalism people regularly consult to organize their lives is the weather report. Weather forecasting in most places is undertaken by government agencies, but it gets relayed to the public by news organizations. It is a small element of what professionally gathered and distributed news workers pass on to the public, but people depend on it.

As for the rest of what journalism offers – who needs it?

And, with today’s economically imperiled news organizations, who needs it enough or wants it enough to be willing to pay for it? If people are not willing to pay for it, could it disappear? And if it could disappear, why should any young person looking at the array of vocations in the world be foolish enough to pursue it? Is choosing a career in journalism today likely to be as ill-fated as deciding to manufacture carriages for the horse-and-buggy business a century ago?

These questions are not easy to answer. And journalists have not effectively explained the value of their work to the general public. Scholars who study journalism have not provided much help, either. They have generally been focused on or obsessed by the endless search for evidence, ideally quantified, of how a particular story (say, the Washington Post’s coverage of Watergate) or a particular journalistic cast of mind they disapprove of (for example, news that covers an election by focusing on the “horse race” among candidates rather than on the policy differences among them) influences public opinion and thereby the course of history.

If you can convincingly identify some bit of certainty or high probability that exposure to news media has altered people’s minds and actions, that may be a noteworthy achievement. But I do not think these findings, here and there, from this study and from that, will ever tell us what we would really like to know about the power of the media because (see Chapter 5) they omit the most important, although most subtle, ways the news media make a difference in helping people come to a cognitive reckoning with a complex and changing world.

The world will survive without a lot of the journalism we have today, but the absence of some kinds of journalism would be devastating to the prospects for building a good society, notably a good democratic political system, or so I contend here. I want to champion in particular the production of original reporting that in both general and specific ways holds governments accountable when it is undertaken by reporters and, equally, photographers, documentary film-makers, bloggers, makers of podcasts, and others who operate according to the norms and practices of professional journalism. I will discuss what these norms and practices are and why we should care about them. In the past half-century, professional journalism, organized to tell true stories of contemporary affairs to, for, and sometimes with general audiences, has been particularly concerned to tell these true stories in a way that holds power accountable. In fact, this kind of journalism is now sometimes referred to as “accountability journalism.” It is an apt term. I will give special attention to what this means.

I am not a journalist myself, but in my professional life as a sociologist and historian I have spent more of my time studying journalism than any other part of society. I remain an outsider, but I am persuaded by the authentic self-understanding of professional journalists (and, yes, it is a selfpromoting position too) that journalism is not just a job but a vocation – that it has a public mission, with accuracy of reporting a chief measure of competence, truthfulness an overriding ethic, and a faithful portrait of the contemporary world as its objective. News should be compellingly presented to reach a broad audience even if it offers technical details that will mean more to insiders than outsiders. And unlike most journalism of the past up until the late 1960s, it should be, whenever possible, assertive journalism – assertive in investigating, assertive in analyzing, assertive in challenging people in seats of power.

All of this is easier said than done. Journalism in much of the world is in a long-simmering crisis – its central institutions are floundering economically, its popular appeal is under challenge from both new and old rivals, its self-confidence stumbles. The independence of journalism from state power is under attack in the global wave of populism where “strongmen,” as they are known, vie for power or attain it and then seek to weaken or destroy any media outlets that dare criticize them. Under these circumstances, we need well-reported, compelling, and assertive journalism more than ever. This is the journalism that matters most – reported, compelling, and assertive, and I will elaborate on this model (Chapters 2 and 3).

A journalist’s job is to make news, as a carpenter’s job is to build houses. Both crafts have rules. The primary rule for journalists: put reality first. Responsible journalists learn to not produce fake news, hyped news, or corrupt news. They do not subordinate reality to ideological consistency or political advocacy. They do not curry favor with advertisers or with the publisher’s business interests, or even with the tastes of the audience. Nor should they bow to their own colleagues if the consensus in the newsroom clashes with what they see in the world around them. This – the bias of the inner circle – is especially difficult to resist. What remains true about ethical journalism is just what reporter (and novelist) John Hersey said about it in 1980: “There is one sacred rule of journalism: the writer must not invent. The legend on the license must read: NONE OF THIS WAS MADE UP.”1

“None of this was made up” means that all of it is accurate and that, if called upon, the reporter can defend everything he or she has written as true, as accurate. This is the most boring thing we can say about a news story – “it is accurate.” But this is also quite possibly the most important thing that can be said. When Robert Pear, New York Times Washington, DC-based health care reporter, died in 2019, the Times