Journalism: Self-service or Public-service?

Aditya (AD) Sahasrabudhe
asp.aditya259@gmail.com | as086919@ohio.edu

A broad yet unarguable definition of journalism would be that it is one of the verticals of mass communications that involves production and dissemination of news to a generally large audience. Whether its purpose is self-serving or public-serving is undeniably questionable.

In The Elements of Journalism, Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel assert, “journalism has always been more of a service- a means for providing social connection and knowledge- than a fixed product- an outlet’s stories or advertising.” They go on to write that restaurant reviews, entertainment updates, and other forms of communication with the public not only create no journalism but also provide little or no connection to the civic good. Although based on our preconceived notions of what we have been inadvertently taught, the above blanket statement seems defendable at face value. However, after giving it a deeper thought, it can be seen that not enough evidence is given to support the proposition.

Isn't providing citizens with information too narrow a purpose of Journalism? 

Although I completely agree with the notion that journalism is a means to providing citizens with information they need to be free and self-governing, the argument that a non-news company’s mass communication is self-serving and a news organization’s mass communication via news dissemination is public-serving doesn’t seem valid.

My first counterexample targets the first half of the authors’ argument. If a local school district puts out a press release about its latest change in learning instructions, does that mean the non-news company’s (local school district) communication to its students and their families is not public-serving? On the flip side, does the local news station’s news reporting serve only the public and not the firm? Do they not capture the eyeballs that allow the firm to generate profits?  

My next counterexample focuses on forms of communication with the public that fall under journalism and the ones that do not. In spring ’20, I was working as a reporter for WOUB. One of the stories I covered was that Athens City School District provided over a thousand Chromebooks to students as they transitioned into online learning. Does that coverage (TV story and online article) fall under journalism? Absolutely. I was working for a professional news organization and I followed all tenets of journalism.

What if a student or a working professional with neither any news reporting experience nor any ties with any news organization ‘provides citizens with information’ about the school district’s transition into online learning? Should this form of communication be called journalism, irrespective of its future categorization into amateur or independent or professional? Is that communication (if not journalism) self-serving or public-serving?

Counterargument

I believe enterprises (for or non-profit) running any kind of business are self-serving. However, what those services provide governs the degree to which they serve the public. News organizations do make profits but their services provide substantial civic good as opposed to a burger joint which makes millions (self-service) by providing services that fill people’s stomachs (public-service). Although the degree to which the burger joint’s services serve the public might be lesser than that of the news organization, both types of enterprises serve themselves and the public to varying degrees.  

As far as the burgeoning technological affordances are concerned, these digital advances are blurring the lines between communication (mass or otherwise) and journalism. Although I don’t think anyone and everyone’s tweeting falls under journalism, it does seem to serve the purpose of journalism: to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing. Consequently, the purpose of journalism stated in The Elements of Journalism seems too narrow.