Customer Reviews

What Are Journalists For?

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

For almost a decade, the diverse journalistic experiments collectively known as "public journalism" or "civic journalism" have elicited hysterical overreactions from established pundits such as David Remnick, Michael Gartner, and Michael Kelly. They have raised fears that if journalists at all levels ask the simple question "what is my role in my community?" they are likely to tumble down a slippery slope of self-importance and compromised ethics.

In his book, _What are Journalists For?,_ Jay Rosen summarizes the various attempts journalists have made to connect with their readers in a meaningful way. Rosen is anything but boastful about the success of public journalism. He is frank about the shortcomings of some experiments. He generously credits the practictioners over the theorists -- a rare stance for an academic in our age.

Most importantly, Rosen grants his critics ample space to air their concerns. Then he gently answers his critics. Again, this is a rare move for an academic. It's an even rarer move within the cacaphony of voices that attempt to pass for public deliberation in this culture.

What becomes painfully clear from the accounts of the enemies of public journalism is that they all deeply believe their role in the culture is to be as cynical as possible, so that through their work, "we won't get fooled again." However, the roles of New York- and Washington-based political journalists are very different than the roles of those who cover school boards in Round Rock, Texas or Augusta, Maine.

The answer to Rosen's titular question is that journalists are for many things. There is no single way to be an effective and responsible journalist. If we learn anything from the experiments that make up public journalism, it that we need experimentation. We should not be afraid to fail, not be afraid to err. Our political culture is so poor and malnourished that surely something must change. Rosen and the public journalists he counsels and describes are the first to concede that they do not have all the answers to the question, "what are journalists for?" But 10 years ago, no one dared ask that question.

Many professors probably dream of launching intellectual movements that change things for the better. Jay Rosen of New York University, author of "What Are Journalists For?" has actually done it. His superb, serious and constructive book tells the story of public journalism, a movement aimed at questioning the conventional wisdom of journalists and at re-centering their efforts. Public journalism encouraged journalists to be "for" richer democratic discourse, for example, and to reflect the real concerns of citizens in their stories, rather than each election year's set of "issues" as devised by politicians. Controversial from the start, the movement has had real impact: Sneered at by haughty power-journalists in some major metropolitan media, public journalism was embraced in more open-minded places like Kansas, Florida and North Carolina, and the results have been both interesting and encouraging. In its diagnosis of what's wrong with today's media and its search for constructive alternatives, Rosen's book is fascinating. (With James Fallows' earlier "Breaking the News," this highly readable book is essential information for citizens who care about the way the media work.) And in its careful, fair, thoughtful and modest account of the public-journalism movement, author Rosen actually creates a model of the kind of journalism he advocates--- and teaches.

The title of Jay Rosen's excellent new book is deceptively complex, especially in the absence of the colon embedded in most academic titles. "What are Journalists For?" asks two questions: What is the utility of journalists and what do they stand for. What are journalists for? Rosen argues, among other things, that journalists should be _for_ democracy.

In the face of a declining civic life and a growing public distrust of journalists, a number of reporters have realized that they could (or perhaps should) try to change this. This idea is called public journalism, a notion that has been debated in academia and in the press for a decade.

Rosen, the intellectual leader of public journalism, could have used the publication of his book as an opportunity to fight with the more rabid of his critics. The views of the critics are discussed and evaluated with more thoughtfulness than their tenor might merit. But Rosen has done far more here: he has written an engaging and provocative book that is at once history, analysis and a prescription for change. Anyone who has taken even a passing interest in Rosen's enterprise has been waiting for the publication of this book with anticipation. Readers will find that it was well worth the wait. It is one of the most important books about journalism of our time.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in topics like UGC, social media, participatory journalism, web 2.0, and so forth. This book provides interesting insights into the origins of the afore-mentioned phenomena, by focusing very directly on the "audience" of journalistic organizations. What's most impressive about this volume is that although it was published in 2001, many of the insights are largely confirmed by the latest trends in today's communication/journalism environment. I wouldn't say I agree with everything Jay says. But, this book is thoughtful, enjoyable to read, and has largely been validated by what happened to journalism recently. I describe more of my thoughts on this book on my blog.

I came across this book while doing some research on the efficacy of peer-reviewed and published science research. It's estimated that 35% of it has serious methodological errors. The idea of an 'objective press' is only taken seriously by those who never took epistemology 101. With this in mind, Rosen basically sets up a straw man, i.e., the concept that the press strives for objectivity if not always reaching it. This is by most philosophers a fallacy. Considering the non-scientific nature of newsgathering and interpretation, the premise is wrong to begin with. Thus, the idea that one should strive for a 'public journalism' is a false conclusion as ALL reporting is public journalism with an embedded ideology. Another major problem with Rosen's analysis, and this is an unfortunate artifact of American education in general, is that the 'Press' is seen as the American press. This is most likely the case because most Americans are monolingual and do not read the press of non-English speaking countries (which have quite an audience, I'd say) No mention of the 'feuilleton: that traditional European newspaper column that examines current events in terms of philosophical issues. Another fault of American media criticism: the lack of a background steeped in philosophy, theology, and the history of ideas. I daresay a novel about a journalist would be a more revelatory read than this predicatable expository analysis. And then, of course, we have the ultimate naivete of the American Scholar: the failure to include the economic dimension of the media. When all is said and done, the answer to 'What do journalists do?' is quite simple. Earn a living. At a workshop with Alain Resnais, the director of Last Year At Marienbad'--not your usual Hollywood flick. In response to the question "Why do you do what you do?', he looked at the inquisitor with a bit of disbelief, and answered, "To earn a living, of course."

Liked this book when I skimmed it shortly after a rave review in NYTimes. Then re-read it recently in preparation for a class I was teaching. What was it I so didn't like? The tone: arrogant or self-enclosed? The vision: self-referential or too zealous. The writing itself: convoluted not clear. So, read it once for pleasure and do not pick it up again.