On “bad journalism”
The other day’s post on following the news started up a meaty little discussion. I considered posting this in that thread, but my thoughts were coalescing into a post of their own, so here it is.
I think it’s worth quoting Bill Dunphy’s reply at length:
What you’re describing is, plain and simply, bad journalism. A failure to test critical assertions in an important ongoing public issue is simply a failure to do your job as a journalist. … The failure you’re pointing to, while common, has nothing to do with the medium really, or the concept of daily (or weekly) journalism. The failure is one of quality of work.
You don’t need a damn new taxonomy or community wiki. You just need a journalist who gives a damn, and editor who cares and a paper that earns enough money that they can employ otherwise non-revenue producing people like that.
Sadly we have been failing on the first two conditions for years – and decades – and now we’re failing on the third.
I hear a contradiction here, worth highlighting because I think it’s a common contradiction in our industry’s conversation with itself. On the one hand, Bill argues that these problems in coverage are particular to the situation, not systemic — a failure of individual journalists to do their jobs. On the other hand, Bill implies that the problems are, in fact, systemic — “we” are all agents of a decades-long, system-wide failure.
Part of the reason I don’t find the individual failure argument compelling is that I just don’t think it’s true. I’m working with these editors. One of the reporters involved in the coverage showed up in the earlier thread. They are as talented and dedicated a set of professionals as any I’ve seen.
Convene a jury of decorated editors and ask them to evaluate any of the coverage I read, and I think they’d say the stories were well-written on the whole, perspectives were typically well-balanced, and the reporting was tenacious. They’d be asking themselves, “How well did the newspapers cover that sewer issue?” And they’d be answering, as would I, “Pretty well.” By the standards of the system, it was good journalism.
What I’m saying is that I think those standards — the benchmarks of success systemic to journalism — are misguided. I’m asking broader questions, such as, “How well are we advancing the debate this community is having with itself?” And by those standards, the journalism fell far short.
Look at the current debate over the financial press’ coverage leading up to the economic meltdown, and you’ll find the exact same dynamic.1 In this casting, the American Journalism Review plays the role of my hypothetical jury of editors. The magazine examined the work of the financial press and issued a resounding thumbs-up. Numerous stories warned of the dangers of subprime lending and collateralized debt obligations. Business journalists widely acknowledged the existence of a housing bubble. By these standards, the business press should be commended for having done excellent journalism.
I’ll leave the rebuttal to CJR:
But assembling a list of good stories strikes me as a little too simple. This isn’t about individuals, after all, but news organizations and the business press as an institution. Any fair measure of press performance will have to take some measure of the record in its entirety. What was the business-press narrative about, generally speaking? What else was written about Wall Street and the financial-services industry? Who was on the covers?
Were the good stories the rule or the exception that proves it?
Like me, CJR has broadened the questions, and like me, so far they seem to find the journalism wanting. On the individual level, reporters and editors were performing splendidly. The failure is in the system.
The sunny side to systemic failures is that they pave the way for systemic solutions. I actually believe the forms that have contained journalism — the article, the general-interest news product, the “24-hour news cycle” — have made it easier for these failures to occur. I believe our attention to scoops rather than synthesis and our preference for immediacy over importance weakens our journalism. I believe our unwillingness to facilitate our communities’ conversations beyond the occasional article weakens the impact of our journalism.
But I’m hopeful some of the forms that are emerging, such as wikis and blogs, begin to introduce a sort of purpose and flexibility that might make journalism fundamentally better. Of course you don’t need a wiki to provide context. But it presents a greater bias towards context than that 9-inch news hole that’s gotta get filled this afternoon.
- A special hat tip here to Jay Rosen, who’s been calling my attention to this phenomenon a lot over the past few months. [↩]
No related posts.
Matt – There's no contradiction in my points – I was arguing about individual failures that are ENDEMIC, not systemic. The systemic problems are the business model ones (information cost dropping to free, advertising supply approaching the infinite). The individual ones are believing that that kind of coverage – coverage robbed of true context, relying on "fairness" and quotes and accurately reporting what was said – is good journalism. It's not.
I think in many ways we are, to quote Tony Antonellis, 'disagreeing violently'.
This point of yours captures our common views, I think:
"What I’m saying is that I think those standards — the benchmarks of success systemic to journalism — are misguided. I’m asking broader questions, such as, “How well are we advancing the debate this community is having with itself?” And by those standards, the journalism fell far short."
I've always felt that. Probably because I was lucky enough to get into the profession without being subjected to the prevailing standards taught by journalism schools of the day.
Bill
Bill Dunphy
27 Jan 09 at 3:43 am
This subject demands a lot of thinking and reflection – which I'll do – but I want to introduce one amplification, or extension, of one of Matt's points here, to get it into the fray.
CJR and Matt broadened the criteria for judging to ask for the quality of the journalism as a whole. I think wqe have to go much farther than that. The real test, perhaps the only worthy test, is whether it served the public well.
For years I've warned newsrooms against the kind of thinking that led an educator to pronounce, "I was teaching, but they weren't learning." Impossible. And I think we need to embrace a similar responsibility: if 50% of the public still thinks Saddam was involved in 9-11, or that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, journalism has failed. Even if we did everything right, perfectly, by established standards, we have to be judged by the outcomes, not the inputs.
Ours is a sacred charge, but the formats weren't handed down by God through Moses to the ASNE.
Society changes. Journalism must change.
Howard Weaver
27 Jan 09 at 3:58 am
Hi Matt — just followed a link to this blog — love the topics you're addressing. I'm not in media but I'm a huge consumer of a wide range of written media (online and paper), so I'm very interested in where the industry is going.
IMO you're absolutely on to something. The entire media universe/system is changing, but the various pieces, parts and players are all evolving at different speeds and directions, so it's not clear what the end game looks like. And some parts of the media universe are more out of sync than others.
I agree with you that it's not helpful to blame individuals for being "bad journalists." Yes, of course there are bad journalists out there — but that's not what's causing the crisis in the industry. So scapegoating individuals is a red herring that keeps you from seeing and addressing the systemic issues that are allowing these multiple failures/lapses to happen (as Edwards Deming would say).
In terms of media professionals as a group: the sad thing is that it might be one of those generational paradigm issues. It's often difficult for people to change their thinking when their world undergoes a paradigm shift. People spend the bulk of their career in a certain industry model, absorbing unconsciously the skills and mental tools of that industry model….like fish don't notice water, people don't even see how their deepest assumptions are no longer applicable. Thomas Kuhn would have said that big paradigm shifts are often generational; you literally have to wait for many of the old guard to retire / die, before the new model/paradigm can fully be adopted and flourish. Which is a bit grim but does often seem to be true (Detroit, anyone?).
My experience is that, of all the traditional media forms, the daily local newspaper is the one that's in failure mode, because its primary purposes are all under attack from new forms/approaches (disseminating "breaking" news; distribution channel for local ads; editorial opinions; local news). Out of all of these — the "breaking" news is now covered by online services. Ad distribution is increasingly online or done by "free" local papers. etc etc.
Local news and needs are being most poorly served at present IMO — so there's a gap there to fill, for deeper stories and deeper editorial content, that won't be filled by the "free" local ad papers. So where will it come from? (given that the current business model for local papers is failing)
I think you're correct that the best mechanism visible to us today, is a local wiki / discussion board (with some strict Slashdot-type screening and ranking tools to help the cream rise to the top).
As an example: I'm reminded of the rumored "National Security Wikipedia" which members of our multiple national security agencies use to pool their expertise and data in real time. It's the place where the breaking news is consolidated as it unfolds — as one example, apparently there was a new wiki page on the Empire-building-airplane strike within minutes of the event, and over the following hour or so, the multiple contributors did real-time research and quickly determined that this was a genuine small plane accident and not a terrorist incident. And of course the NSWiki is also the place for discussion and research consolidation on longer-term security issues, not just breaking incidents. (This is all hearsay on my side, since of course this wiki is off limits to the public.)
I would love to see something like that for local news — like a Yelp for local news, or perhaps done as a Facebook app / attachment or something. But, it's true that a lot of people don't use those types of online services yet (again a generational issue). So we're dealing with very disparate demographic use patterns for consumers of news/info.
Another thought: as the traditional daily newspaper dies — the specialty news magazine / expertise magazines still seem to have success/demand. A few of the big daily metro papers seem to be evolving themselves into the "magazine" format — ie the New York Times with its national Sunday edition, and increasingly the Wall Street Journal daily (as it challenges the Times). NYT Sunday edition basically seem to be in competition with The Economist for providing me with substantive insights into the news. This means those papers have to provide deeper, more substantive content — less emphasis on breaking news and "names-dates" simple facts — more on in-depth research, analysis and well-written summary findings.
marycw
27 Jan 09 at 7:08 am
On “bad” journalism, An Anthology of Journalism’s Decline.
Tim
27 Jan 09 at 5:50 am
@ Marycw,
I think there are two separable issues, both difficult to solve. The creation of a culture and practice of appropriate journalism. This blog is the best discussion about that I've found on the web. But the other issue is how to make money. I've been trying to focus on that at my blog. I did a post this morning, that I think is helpful. I would be very interested if anyone takes a look and gives the benefit of your perspective. Please comment here or there, whichever is easier. I'm looking at the problem from the point of view of a Print Evangelist not a journalist or publisher or a internet person.
http://sellingprint.blogspot.com/2009/01/iphones-...
Michael Josefowicz
27 Jan 09 at 12:30 pm
Howard, thank you for ""I was teaching, but they weren't learning." It's just one more version of "blame the customer." We've all heard about how educating poor folks were the problems of the poor folks. Search replace for any business or non profit in trouble. No need to limit it to newspapers.
An alternative is what I've learned from the geeks I love. "There are no bad users, only bad software." Google got it. Microsoft no so much.
Michael Josefowicz
27 Jan 09 at 1:41 pm
[...] other day, Howard Weaver left a comment that seems appropriate to mention here: For years I’ve warned newsrooms against the kind of [...]
News as a hook for context at Newsless.org
19 Feb 09 at 9:17 pm