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.

Ethical Entertainment

Julia Brown
jb863113@ohio.edu

Why do ethics matter today?

In the time of the 24 hour news cycle, why are ethics important?  Isn't it more important to get a story out to your readers before anyone else instead of stopping to think about the ethical implications a story may have?

But ethics are still important. They create a sense of credibility and authenticity for the publication, building a deep-rooted bond between author and reader.

According to “Moral Reasoning for Journalists,” the press wields a lot of power and has many constitutional rights, and “abuse of that power can have disastrous consequences for their governments, their societies, and their major institutions.”

But what happens as it gets more and more difficult to maintain a reader’s attention? What happens when the lines between journalism and entertainment become blurred?

Entertainment Journalism

In order to keep readers’ attention in this world of ever-changing media, news outlets have had to adapt to the constant transformation of broadcast, print, and web-based journalism, which is dictated by what people are interested in right now.

An easy and obvious way to adapt is to look at what types of media people consume outside of the typical journalism outlets of, say, a newspaper.

As MP3 players and smart phones have reason to popularity, so have podcasts. According to the Associated Press Style Guide, a podcast is a  “digital media program, in audio or video form, that can be downloaded or streamed to a computer, smartphone or portable media device.”

One of the more popular podcasts, “Serial,” is blurring the line between news and entertainment. The podcast examines the 1999 murder of high school senior Hae Min Lee, and the later conviction of her ex-boyfriend Adnan Syed.

An article from The New Yorker claimed the podcast combined “the drama of prestige-television-style episodic storytelling [with the] the portability of podcasts…”

Photo from: http://dudeslovethis.com/serial-podcast-returns-season-two/

But is that what we want?  Do we want our news presented to us as an episode of reality television, no different from the new episode of “Keeping Up With the Kardashians”?  Or is there a way to maintain listener interest while still adhering to basic journalistic ethics?

The Ethical Issues Within “Serial”

“Think Progress” examinedthe ethical dilemmas that are posed by a podcast like “Serial”. For example, the podcast uses several storytelling tactics that are rarely seen in typical journalism, like cliffhangers and personal asides.

The podcast has become as much about the way it's being told as it is about the actual story that's taking place. 

“Serial” is also a story that has yet to have a true conclusion. Throughout the first season of the podcast, reporter Sarah Koenig would release information to the listeners sporadically as she uncovered it, without putting the whole puzzle together first.

From left, Dana Chivvis, Emily Condon, Sarah Koenig, Ira Glass and Julie Snyder of "Serial." Photo from: http://www.wsj.com/articles/serial-podcast-catches-fire-1415921853

This has the potential to create ideas or doubts that turn out to be baseless and false. “You don’t want to be giving voice to things because they’re plausible, or they’re possible, if they turn out to be false,” said Edward Wasserman, dean of the University of California Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.

Wasserman also cited the problem of reverb: “the problem of the reporting she’s doing now interacting with the reporting she’s going to do tomorrow.”

What Now?

So why do so many people cry out that journalism has lost its way, yet they continue to lap up this story with many obvious ethical oversights?

Perhaps that’s because it addresses the other issues people have with the media: “it’s shallow; it’s boring; it panders.” 

The future of journalism lies in finding a way to promote the story that needs to be told in an entertaining way while preserving the ethical values that have given journalists the important reputation of being the watchdog for the average person.

Social Media: Helpful Aid for Journalists or Hindrance Towards Credibility?

Meredith McNelis

mm132010@ohio.edu

Social media has shaped and changed the way news is received in the past decade. It is not only a platform that fosters personal creativity and promotion but has become a tool for journalists as well. However, if not used properly, journalists can fall victim to false Facebook posts and tweets. Lines can be blurred when they decide to use content found online.

User-Generated Content

Most social media sites allow their users to post freely without prescreening content. It has created a platform for people to voice their opinions and feelings while practicing their freedom of speech. Because of this freedom people often post exaggerated or false information to just to get attention or a rise out of their friends and followers. False reports are generated every day, and one must have a critical eye of whether to trust a story.

Twitter gives users instant gratification. Eager tweeters get a hold of a breaking story before news stations can, thus, coining the term “citizen journalists.” Its timeline has become many people’s main source of news.  It is real-time news that can be obtained anytime, anywhere.

This has become a helpful tool for journalists and news stations to get breaking information. It can provide them with useful facts and quotes to use in both print stories and broadcast news segments. But because such content is not prescreened for validity or credibility, journalists have to be careful what they use. Separating fact from fiction is necessary and essential to producing a credible news story. They have to wade through the false stories and information to find the hidden gems of real news.

Groundswell wordpress

Websites have even been created to help people knowingly generate false social media content. For example, LemmeTweetThatForYou provides a template that looks just like a tweet but you can enter in whatever screen name and tweet what you want. Average Joe could go on and create a tweet stating he is Rihanna.  

Journalists must go through important steps before deciding to publish content generated on social media sites.

Contact the Source

Calling the person who generated the content on Facebook, Twitter or any other social media site is important to establish credibility. A simple phone call can clear up any confusion the journalist may have on the post and will help erase any confusion. Discovering one's true identity is key to finding out if the content was deceitfully made or not. Figuring out the “who, what, when, where and whys” of the story creates a solid foundation for a usable story.      

Fact Check

Just because something is online does not make it true. People post false information all of the time just to get a response. Comparing posts to credible sources and fact checking will help validate information.

Journalists must present the public with factual information. Collecting as much information possible to make comparisons between social media content and other facts is key to making sure the post is accurate. Publishing news that is not 100 percent true will create skepticism towards the media.