Bringing the media gods down to earth, page 2
In an effort to point politicians in the proper direction, the Charlotte Observer organized citizen panels and commissioned a poll of more than a thousand residents in l992. The panels were concerned about the environment; candidates weren't planning to talk much about it. The Observer and its citizen panels decided that they should. The paper ran stories on environmental issues and prepared a grid to show candidate's positions on each of the questions the panel had raised.Another public journalism initiative was launched by the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, which assembled reporters and editors who had been
covering schools, city hall, the police and politics into a "public life team." The "mission statement" for the team was, "We will revitalize a democracy that has grown sick with disenchantment. We will lead the community to discover itself and act on what it has learned."
In some ways, this vision of journalism's proper role represents an advance from the cigar-chomping veteran reporter who used to wait at the nearest tavern for the mayor's latest handout, or the preening White House correspondent bellowing questions at the President. But it's troubling in some ways, too. It suggests that journalism, not government, is responsible for maintaining the nation's civic health and that journalists -- not elected officials -- working with the public, should lead. And it eerily echoes all those boosterish old newspaper-Chamber of Commerce partnerships kicked off to spruce up the downtown or lure in a new shopping mall.
While the public journalism advocated by Fallows forces the press to interact more with the public, always a healthy idea, it doesn't radically reform the institution of journalism itself, which is what the institution most needs. Fallows fails to confront a major structural reason for journalism's current decline: the relentless corporatization of media by major companies for whom marketing plans
and profit margins are the only ideologies. The continuing homogenization of print and broadcast media by these enormous conglomerates has leeched away individual voices, investigative reporting, courageous commentary or any sense of moral purpose.
If public journalism fails to address fundamental problems, it also gives short shrift to the obvious changes journalism could make to reconnect with the public -- steps it has so far been too lazy or arrogant to take. Like putting reporters' e-mail addresses at the end of stories. Or withdrawing from noxious character policing. Or approaching such political encounters as press conferences with more civility and thoughtfulness and less hostility and pomposity. Or giving more reporters the time and training to do what Fallows does. Or broadening op-ed pages to include more than the usual staple of politicians, academics and lobbyists. Or covering culture well. Or hiring young reporters again. Or relying less on spokespeople and Rolodexes.
The public journalism advocated by Fallows asks journalists to listen more carefully to readers, but without relinquishing any of their own power, the truest measure of real reform. The main idea seems to be getting politicians to relinquish their power.
Fallows is too quick to dismiss concerns about the movement as the rantings of the "old guard." Occasionally, however, even the journalistic establishment is worth listening to.
Among its members is Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie, who worries that public journalism has noble intentions but constitutes an abuse of power waiting to happen. "Where I am most bothered is when a newspaper uses its news columns -- not its
So it is. Anybody troubled by journalistic intrusions into public figures' privacy should brace for a real nightmare if reporters include in their widening mandate the overruling of politicians who want to talk about different issues than those that show up in newspaper polls. Are politicians always wrong to take individualistic stands on issues, even when polls or citizen panels don't support them? In other contexts, that could be seen as courageous.
Fallows makes a compelling case for the notion that journalism is in serious trouble, and may be helping to degrade our common sense of civic life. But what do we do about that? We'll have to keep looking for the answer.
Does the public really want more substantive reporting and less of the cheese and sleaze dished up by the Washington press corps? How should journalists be nudged in this direction? Go to Table Talk and click on the Media category to join the discussion. Remember to register if you haven't already done so.
