Is journalism dead?

[Kyriakos]

It often seems that nowdays it is very difficult to find actual journalism, in the ever-expanding ocean of opinion-pieces which are passed as supposedly a means of getting information. The phenomenon became far more prevalent with the rise of the internet as a main source of news-reading.

Newspapers appear to be full of that too, though. I always thought that the local ones (Greek) were just filled with trash and idiots (they are), but reading some english-speaking ones it does not seem to be that different there either. I wonder just how those people passing as journalists can even allow their own selves to be of the view they are producing anything more than a nasty scream put into poor vocabulary and rounded up with printed letters.

I am not aware of how journalism is in non-western countries, but i do hope it is of a better level.

Poll will be up soon.

 

[Tahuti]

It wasn't really alive to begin with. Journalism is supposed to be infotainment, and not to be taken too seriously. Unfortunately, an incredible amount of journalists do not realise this, and think of themselves as philosophers and scientists, which could not be further from the truth, save for a few exceptions. Journalism is at its best when it journalists actually take risks to bust common notions and rationales for common opinions, but that almost never happens.

In far eastern cultures like Japan and China, journalism is regarded as a fairly low profession, which I think is a healthy notion. We Westerners tend to give far too much weight and prestige to the opinions of some busybody know-it-all who bemoans everything from "neoliberalism" to "multiculturalism" and everything in between, who in the end is just dead-wrong on everything yet convinces almost every reader that he or she is right. And all this without actually taking responsibility for his or her actions.

 

[sophie]

No.

5char

 

[Kyriakos]

It wasn't really alive to begin with. Journalism is supposed to be infotainment, and not to be taken too seriously. Unfortunately, an incredible amount of journalists do not realise this, and think of themselves as philosophers and scientists, which could not be further from the truth, save for a few exceptions. Journalism is at its best when it journalists actually take risks to bust common notions and rationales for common opinions, but that almost never happens.

In far eastern cultures like Japan and China, journalism is regarded as a fairly low profession, which I think is a healthy notion. We Westerners tend to give far too much weight and prestige to the opinions of some busybody know-it-all who bemoans everything from "neoliberalism" to "multiculturalism" and everything in between, who in the end is just dead-wrong on everything yet convinces almost every reader that he or she is right. And all this without actually taking responsibility for his or her actions.

Thanks for that post The part i bolded seems quite interesting to me, and i was not aware of that. I tend to agree with such a stance towards journalism, though.

 

[Yoda Power]

There's actually plenty of good journalism in the world, but there are two factors who make it seem otherwise/threaten the journalistic tradition:

1) Rise in information. While new technology allowing for new media platforms and spread of information is mostly good it is giving a rise to polemic opinions. The relative weight of journalism in the junlge of information is diminishing.

2) The fall of the newspaper. There is currently a huge newspaper crisis in many countries. The newspaper business is under extreme preassure in many countries (especially the USA), resulting in fever journalists to cover the same subjects. Many newspapers are closing and this is hurting the media business in many ways.

Historically the newspaper has been more important in digging up the new stuff than for example TV News, who always had a tendency to copy the stories from the paper.

 

[downtown]

Nah, it's not dead. There is still lots of important work being done, including the yeoman's work of hyperlocal journalism. The problem, like what Yoda mentioned, is that it increasingly doesn't pay. Good reporting and good writing costs money, and as the newspapers crumble, and advertisers discover they can simple worth with content farms instead of more expensive enterprise reporting, the number of outlets that can support strong writing will diminish.

It's just harder to find, that's all. Some beats are probably better than others. US political journalism is nearly uniformly terrible. I think there are some very thoughtful say, education reporters though.

 

[Leoreth]

Part of the problem is that the increased access to different sources of information has had the paradoxical effect that it is now a lot easier to produce and consume biased media.

 

[Wastl]

It wasn't really alive to begin with. Journalism is supposed to be infotainment, and not to be taken too seriously. Unfortunately, an incredible amount of journalists do not realise this, and think of themselves as philosophers and scientists, which could not be further from the truth, save for a few exceptions. Journalism is at its best when it journalists actually take risks to bust common notions and rationales for common opinions, but that almost never happens.

In far eastern cultures like Japan and China, journalism is regarded as a fairly low profession, which I think is a healthy notion. We Westerners tend to give far too much weight and prestige to the opinions of some busybody know-it-all who bemoans everything from "neoliberalism" to "multiculturalism" and everything in between, who in the end is just dead-wrong on everything yet convinces almost every reader that he or she is right. And all this without actually taking responsibility for his or her actions.

I agree with a lot of this, but not with journalism supposed to be 'infotainment'. Infotainment is the very opposite of journalism, it reduces news to a whole lot of nothing and keeps people from actually being informed. There is way too much focus on being flashy, just look at CNN, which turned from broadcasting news to showing off fancy technology or has a whole group of reporters spending hours talking about the newest developments when absolutely nothing has happened in that timeframe. Fox News is even worse, they are so bad that people who don't search for news are actually better informed than their viewers.

Journalism is about finding a story that is worthy of reporting, checking the facts and giving well researched news to the people who read/watch/hear it. Instead you get the one side that pukes a bunch of stuff at you without verifying anything, which makes it worthless, and the other side which is so self-absorbed and arrogant that they think their personal opinion is the golden standard and sole truth. In between you have a few good journalists who stick with what they are supposed to do.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Regarding the OP, you are conflating tabloids and yellow journalism with a field which should be highly respected for its regard for journalistic integrity and ethics.

Journalism ethics and standards comprise principles of ethics and of good practice as applicable to the specific challenges faced by journalists. Historically and currently, this subset of media ethics is widely known to journalists as their professional "code of ethics" or the "canons of journalism".[1] The basic codes and canons commonly appear in statements drafted by both professional journalism associations and individual print, broadcast, and online news organizations.

While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of — truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability — as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.[2][3][4][5]

Like many broader ethical systems, journalism ethics include the principle of "limitation of harm." This often involves the withholding of certain details from reports such as the names of minor children, crime victims' names or information not materially related to particular news reports release of which might, for example, harm someone's reputation.[6][7]

Some journalistic Codes of Ethics, notably the European ones,[8] also include a concern with discriminatory references in news based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and physical or mental disabilities.[9][10][11][12] The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe approved in 1993 Resolution 1003 on the Ethics of Journalism which recommends journalists to respect the presumption of innocence, in particular in cases that are still sub judice.[13]

One of the leading voices in the U.S. on the subject of Journalistic Standards and Ethics is the Society of Professional Journalists. The Preamble to its Code of Ethics states:

...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.

The primary themes common to most codes of journalistic standards and ethics are the following.

Accuracy and standards for factual reporting

Reporters are expected to be as accurate as possible given the time allotted to story preparation and the space available, and to seek reliable sources.

Events with a single eyewitness are reported with attribution. Events with two or more independent eyewitnesses may be reported as fact. Controversial facts are reported with attribution.

Independent fact-checking by another employee of the publisher is desirable

Corrections are published when errors are discovered

Defendants at trial are treated only as having "allegedly" committed crimes, until conviction, when their crimes are generally reported as fact (unless, that is, there is serious controversy about wrongful conviction).

Opinion surveys and statistical information deserve special treatment to communicate in precise terms any conclusions, to contextualize the results, and to specify accuracy, including estimated error and methodological criticism or flaws.

Slander and libel considerations

Reporting the truth is almost never libel,[16] which makes accuracy very important.

Private persons have privacy rights that must be balanced against the public interest in reporting information about them. Public figures have fewer privacy rights in U.S. law, where reporters are immune from a civil case if they have reported without malice. In Canada, there is no such immunity; reports on public figures must be backed by facts.

Publishers vigorously defend libel lawsuits filed against their reporters, usually covered by libel insurance.

Harm limitation principle

During the normal course of an assignment a reporter might go about—gathering facts and details, conducting interviews, doing research, background checks, taking photos, video taping, recording sound—harm limitation deals with the questions of whether everything learned should be reported and, if so, how. This principle of limitation means that some weight needs to be given to the negative consequences of full disclosure, creating a practical and ethical dilemma. The Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics offers the following advice, which is representative of the practical ideals of most professional journalists. Quoting directly:[17]

Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.

Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.

Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.

Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.

Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.

Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.

Balance a criminal suspect's fair trial rights with the public's right to be informed.

 

[downtown]

Yeah, I wouldn't say that journalism, uniformly, isn't supposed to be serious either. Some beats and stories are obviously more *serious* than others, but local reporting, investigative journalism, hell, even some sportswriting, isn't supposed to be a joke or a game.

 

[sophie]

Yeah, I wouldn't say that journalism, uniformly, isn't supposed to be serious either. Some beats and stories are obviously more *serious* than others, but local reporting, investigative journalism, hell, even some sportswriting, isn't supposed to be a joke or a game.

Some of it is supposed to be both, like most articles written for the various SBNation.com affiliates.

 

[downtown]

Some of it is supposed to be both, like most articles written for the various SBNation.com affiliates.

Absolutely. I have no illusions about the kind of work that I do. I need to be honest, fair and accurate, but I'm not going to pretend I'm an investigative journalist, or that 90% of what I write is SRS BZ

 

[Antilogic]

Well, Bela Lugosi is definitely dead, and the question is arguable, so there's my vote.

In the US, the newspapers used to be straight-up printed by the political parties as propaganda, and yellow journalism has been around since before I was born. I could be snarky and ask whether it was alive to begin with, but that doesn't really cover how the quality of journalism has fluctuated over the years.

 

[Kyriakos]

I am not sure which reasonably popular (ie not obscure) journalistic entity is as prominently about journalism as what currently passes as political commentary or other news-based narrative.

The worst sign is when people turn to comedians for getting the news. Then you can sense that Sparta will soon be the highest city in Hellas *

* From the epigram i so much love still, written in memory of the disaster of Athens in the Aigospotamoi

Spoiler :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aegospotami

These men, sailing with Lysander in the swift ships, humbled the might of the city of Cecrops
And made Lacedaemon of the beautiful choruses the high city of Hellas.

 

[sophie]

I am not sure which reasonably popular (ie not obscure) journalistic entity is as prominent as what currently passes as political commentary or other news-based narrative.

The New York Times is a very prominent newspaper and one of the most highly respected sources of journalism in the world. Likewise BBC and Al-Jazeera.

Moreover, while I wouldn't deign to call National Geographic groundshaking or revelatory, the articles are still high-quality and enlightening. Also the photographs are just droolingly gorgeous.

 

[Kyriakos]

^BBC? Is that the same that famously covered in a most unbiased way the Serbia bombing by BlairTo?

Also the same that has/had this guy as one of its main newsjesters:

:/

 

[Formaldehyde]

In the US, the newspapers used to be straight-up printed by the political parties as propaganda, and yellow journalism has been around since before I was born. I could be snarky and ask whether it was alive to begin with, but that doesn't really cover how the quality of journalism has fluctuated over the years.

Granted, it isn't all that difficult to become exposed to yellow journalism in this country. And it has become even easier in the past 15 years or so. But it is also not all that difficult to find media that does have journalistic integrity, despite network TV news selling out to corporate America.


Link to video.

I am not sure which reasonably popular (ie not obscure) journalistic entity is as prominently about journalism as what currently passes as political commentary or other news-based narrative.

You mean like the NY Times (as Owen already pointed out), the Washington Post, and countless other similar newspapers in the US?

The worst sign is when people turn to comedians for getting the news. Then you can sense that Sparta will soon be the highest city in Hellas *

I assume you are referring to comedy shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. While people may humorously claim that they watch them to get their news, they wouldn't even be able to understand the material if they weren't already reasonably up to date on major current events and the current battle being waged between the sources with journalistic integrity and the propaganda purveyors.

No, what you actually need to worry about are people like Rupert Murdoch trying to replace entities which do have journalistic integrity with those which clearly do not. That he has now done so in three different countries on a massive scale, and he continues to increase his empire with every passing day. That he has spawned numerous copycats, especially on the internet where essentially anybody can now become a media source.

 

[downtown]

The Christian Science Monitor has enjoyed renown in the United States for being a serious, in-depth news outlet, although I believe it's just a print edition now, in addition to the Times. The Post is probably not an elite paper in every department anymore, but it's still a very good one.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Right...

The newspaper has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever given to a single newspaper in one year.[11] The Post has also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards, among others.

While Donald E. Graham may not have been as good a steward as his mother or grandfather were, it still enjoys a status of being renowned like the Christian Science Monitor and the NY Times. But who knows where the sale to Jeff Bezos will eventually lead...

 

[BvBPL]

You mean like the NY Times (as Owen already pointed out), the Washington Post, and countless other similar newspapers in the US?

Noticeably fewer such newspapers exist now then ten or twenty years ago. Print journalism might not be on its deathbed, but it is certainly a sight less healthy than just a few years ago.

Traditional newspaper print journalism is certainly the epitome of journalism as a concept. Other journalism channels certainly exist, but they aren't as purely journalistic as newspapers. While Rachel Maddow, the National Enquirer, Fox and Friends, and the Daily Show do provide news and can provide journalism (provided we distinguish those concepts), they aren't as distinctly journalistic as newspapers. Nor is your local nightly news necessarily journalistic.

Of course, formal channels aren't the only source for news these days. Today, a plethora of informal channels exist to get your news. While blogs and tweets aren't a horrible source for news and opinion, they rarely amount to journalism.

This massive means from which one can draw information about the news becomes a problem. With the multiplicity of sources available for news and opinion also comes a time crunch. No longer is there a paper of record as people can now draw their information from a vast array of sources.

Ultimately this becomes a problem because many of these sources present themselves as journalistic or news outlets, but are in fact opinion pieces. There's little objectivity in many of these outlets. By itself, this isn't a problem, but when people seek out only those news outlets that provide information that complies with their pre-existing worldviews. Ultimately, this is anti-journalism, even if it is news because such sources put their carts before the horse by presenting only those stories that conform to their pre-existing views.

Journalism isn't dead. But it is hardly healthy.