Amazon.com Review
New York University communications professor Jay Rosen asks a question in his title
What Are Journalists For? and devotes the book to arguing that the answer ought to be different from what it is today. Journalism, he says, should not simply report the news and move on to another story; rather, it should become "democracy's cultivator, as well as its chronicler." Rosen advocates "public journalism," a disorganized movement among newspaper editors and reporters around the United States striving to connect with their readers in new and untried ways (see, for example,
Breaking the News, by former
U.S. News & World Report editor James Fallows). He describes, for instance, how the
Virginian-Pilot, a newspaper in Norfolk, Virginia, based its election reporting one fall on issues raised by ordinary residents in a series of focus groups, and then published a voting guide. Rosen provides plenty of examples of other newspapers doing similar things, and these case studies are one of the book's strengths. Although several powerful news organizations such as
The New York Times have criticized public journalism for abandoning the traditional goal of objectivity, Rosen believes his movement may help newspapers during a time of decreasing readership--and also advance the common good. Print journalists wondering whether their profession will survive long into the 21st century--as well as anybody interested in the future of the media--will want to grapple with Rosen's ideas, whether they ultimately accept or reject them.
--John J. Miller
--This text refers to the
Hardcover
edition.
From Publishers Weekly
Are journalists eyewitnesses who describe to a passive audience the actions of political insiders? Or are they catalysts to a public conversation and civic action? This debate is at the center of the development of "public journalism," a movement that Rosen, former director of the Kettering Foundation's Project on Public Life and the Press, helped found. This partisan but fair-minded history examines both theory and practice, as Rosen recounts the movement's intellectual roots, its adoption by some newspapers and reaction within the profession, including criticism from heavyweights like the New Yorker's David Remnick and the New York Times's Max Frankel. Some examples of public journalism are clearly salutary: a newspaper refuses to accept political candidates' framing of a campaign and instead queries the candidates on vital issues; another supplements local crime coverage with regular charts, so trends are not distorted by the sensationalist focus on particular crimes. But many journalists remain skeptical of a theory that may lead newspapers to start recommending civic solutions in their news pages. Rosen distinguishes between advocating projects (e.g., building a new stadium) and engaging citizens without recommending specific goals, offering responses to critics that are mostly thoughtful but don't resolve, for example, how public journalism ought to approach subjects readers should care about but don't, like foreign news. It's disappointing that Rosen does not muse on journalism as practiced by the European press, the American alternative press or even opinion magazines like the Nation or the New Republic. While none play the civic role of a dominating daily newspaper, they certainly resist framing issues according to newspaper conventions of objectivity. (Nov.)
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.
--This text refers to the
Hardcover
edition.