The Future of Journalism

Via Newspaper Death Watch (I think), a post on why the future of journalism is bright. Given that I'm normally a pessimist when it comes to the future of journalism, especially newspapers, I was pleasantly surprised to find that I agreed with a lot of what this Mark Glaser guy has to say.

Also, I really like the fact that he's writing at pbs.org. Given the insanity surrounding PBS in the last few years, I'm glad to see a sane voice there at the moment. Anyway, the post is basically a ten-point list; I'll excerpt and comment on whatever points strike my fancy.

Without further ado:

4. There are more fact-checkers than ever in the history of journalism. Maybe it’s true that professional fact-checking has taken a big hit in the layoffs at mainstream media outlets, but it’s also true that bloggers and free-thinkers online have provided an important check and balance to reporting. They might have an axe to grind or a political bias, but if they uncover shoddy reporting, plagiarism or false sourcing, it’s a good thing for journalists and the public.

See what I mean? I think the guy actually gets it. For me, the point of journalism is to inform people of what's going on in the world. It's necessary because individuals don't all have the time to personally check out each and every event or incident or happening - so some people have as a profession doing just that (and then telling others). This isn't new; some form of this has been going on for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

A second reason to have journalism is that it allows, when done well, for people to become relative experts on a topic and present it to others in an accessible format (think Marcy Wheeler on the Scooter Libby stuff) or Nick Kristof and his coverage of Darfur.

Of course, the journalism business relies on being able to tell the truth accurately, which is a pretty complex task that takes a lot of brainpower and fact-checking. The more complex and larger a story is, the more likely it is to make a mistake. Ergo, having more people to fact-check - people that are often well-versed on the topic at hand, even if they're not employees of a news organization - the more accurate to reality, and therefore better, a story will be.

This is controversial, believe it or not, in some ways. The reason it's controversial is that it takes the 'expert' label away from journalists, editors, and other media types and gives it - potentially - to a whole lot of people. Some journalists don't like this, because it's a removal of their gatekeeper function (Yes, I am thinking of Hasso Hering), and with that comes a drop in status and/or power.

Too fucking bad. If the point of journalism is to report on the world in the most accurate way possible, then an individual's - or a profession's - ego should have no part in it. I was taught way back in high school that an essential part of being a journalist is the ability to take criticism and critique honestly and openly, and to use that criticism to make the story better. To me, that is the desired effect of having, as Glaser notes, "...more fact-checkers than ever in the history of journalism."

Also, it makes journalism more democratic and promotes skill-sharing, two things that I think make for a better, more interesting, and more just world. Plus they have the added bonus of removing power from the corporate media.

Glaser also says:

6. More voices are part of the news conversation. In the past, if you wanted to voice your opinion, correct a fact or do your own reporting, you had to work at a mainstream news organization. Now, thanks to the rising influence of independent bloggers and online journalists, there are more outsiders and experts exerting influence over the news agenda. Not only does that mean we have a more diverse constellation of views, but it also takes the concentrated agenda-setting power out of a few hallowed editorial boardrooms.

See my above comments - more democratic, etc., etc. Heck, I'd love to see most of the profession of journalism wither away as more and more people take over the production and distribution of news content. Added benefit: More people become engaged in the community they live in as they are more aware of what's going on. Result: more democracy!

I should be more explicit about the above point: Lots of news stories still misrepresent people (often marginalized groups) precisely because as professionals, journalists are only familiar with people like them. Lowering the barriers to entry would hopefully allow more points of view to be heard, which would result in a more accurate portrayal of everyone, not just the people that are most like journalists. I'm thinking of people of color and homeless folks specifically.

...yeah yeah yeah, democracy is messy, and who says the people that get involved won't be asshats? No one, but I'll take an engaged, locally controlled community over a bunch of yuppie suburbanites who might as well be zombies just about every time.

Given the length of this post already, I'm going to stop here, but you should go and read the whole thing. It's pretty good.