What is a Journalist? (one semester older and wiser, too)

Humphrey Bogart was not a journalist, but his character in Deadline USA said that journalism is “not the oldest profession, but it’s the best.” As technological changes send—not ripples, but waves into the media world, statements like that become much more important. In the face of media consolidation, readership declines, and public mistrust, questions arise as to how journalism could ever be the best profession. Yet a journalist is an important person whose job meets a basic human need that is mandated by the Constitution and requires a skillful artist.

The press itself is a controversial issue, and everyone seems to have an opinion about how the media is ruining or saving (usually the former) America. It can be helpful to look at the facts of the case. First, humans need news. Anthropologists believe that people of all cultures “need news to . . . protect [them]selves, bond with each other, identify friends and enemies” (Kovach 2). These historians of human nature say that “journalism is simply the system societies generate to supply this news” (2).

A journalist has one of the few vocations in the private sector with a Constitutional stamp. The First Amendment is more than a way to catch up on the local gossip. The American press is expected to preserve democracy by being independent, truthful, and relevant. A journalist is not a common newsmonger, but a pencil-laden defender of liberty. A journalist’s first loyalty must be to the citizens, for they must have accurate, truthful information about the state of the union in order to make good decisions about government.

Truth, however, is a double-edged sword. It is a very difficult thing for mere mortal journalists to obtain. Therefore, two tools aid the journalist in the quest for truth. Objectivity is one of them. Although often misunderstood, objectivity is a practical method that can be used by journalists to accurately report the news. A journalist must aggressively pursue the facts as they are, not the facts that appeal to certain groups. This is one reason for the journalist’s Constitutionally-protected independence. An objective journalist finds golden nuggets of truth through the careful sifting of facts. Although truth often develops over time, objectivity is not an impossible ideal. It not the horizon pursued, but is the road upon which journalists run.

With our increasingly complex world, Journalists need a second tool for truthful reporting. Transparency is about trusting the public with one’s sources, ideas, and reasons for including certain news. The public will respect journalism far more if reporters are honest about what they know and why they believe it is important.

A journalist has a second responsibility to truth. Journalists do not enter the business with a desire to become cogs in an information machine; they hope to provide useful knowledge. A journalist must provide context for the news and clearly explain its importance. A journalist sometimes uses “spin” in order to make a story interesting and engage the public. However, the “spin” is actually unswerving loyalty to the citizens, not some other special-interest group.

Perhaps the reason so few democracies flourished before the U.S. is that, in the pre-print era, they had no one to act as a government “watchdog.” The watchdog role of the journalist has many names: investigative reporting, fourth estate, independent monitor of power, giving voice to the voiceless. One of my personal favorites is “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comforted.” Journalists have a responsibility to bring the plight of the downtrodden, the plots of the powerful, and the deceptions of the self-serving to the light of day. Journalists do not have to be world-weary cynics, but pragmatism and a healthy curiosity bordering on obsession are essential. A journalist, though necessarily independent, cares about the community’s welfare and wants to be a part of bringing public issues to the public.

A journalist’s first loyalty should be to the citizens, but the second is to the story. A love of writing, a passion for stories, an addiction to news—they all point to journalism’s role as a practical art form. A journalist’s love affair with the craft has more to do with who he or she is than what they are doing. A journalist couples the drive to figure out what is going on with an equally strong drive to share it. A journalist loves to listen to the stories of individuals, to be in the know. Problem-solving skills are essential during long battles with facts that must be fit together with gut feeling, common sense, and additional, carefully-verified facts.

Journalists love a challenge. They are independent, free-spirited beings who bring up odd topics and questions in social situations. They are always looking for reason why and the cause and effect relationship. Journalists have a certain ego, to be sure. They love being the ones to walk past the ring of light and see what is going on in the darkness. Long traipses through the woodlands of happenstance are worthwhile to the journalist in pursuit of a “eureka” moment. Barring the thrill of discovery, a journalist’s love of reading and writing brings joy to the effective communication of a story. A journalist’s love affair with words will motivate him or her to tell a story in a new and clearer way.

A journalist might be a little in love with the idea of being a journalist, might love the excitement of using tools like written communication, objectivity, and transparency to share a story. A journalist’s independence lets him or her love the community, too. A journalist is a fierce enemy to both injustice and deception and cannot shake the feeling that if the truth could just be exposed properly, things might get better. And although journalism may not be the “best profession,” it is the conscience of democracy.

Right On

Dr. Scanlon's lecture on "Rights of Passage" had several interesting elements. He explained that "rites of passage" occur at certain events in human stories. The obvious ones, of course, are birth, death, and marriage. However, Dr. Scanlon was talking about two other transitions, the ones on either side of the college experience. He talked about the mingled excitement and fear of both the college freshman and his or her parents. He also mentioned the all-important college-to-workplace transition. He referenced Arnold Van Gannep, who believed that "rites of passage" were characterized by three phases: separation, transition, and reincorporation.

Since he was using a play on words as a starting point (“rights” verse “rites”), Dr. Scanlon gave some of the etymology of the word, “right.” He explained that in times of war, leaders surrendered by shaking right hands so that neither could reach for a weapon. He also explained the hitherto mysterious practice of putting the buttons of women's blouses on the left side—apparently this was to show that a woman was wealthy enough to have other people dress her. Even biology has examples of right-hand dominance. The right brain is know for music, creativity, and putting its left-side counterpart down. This technical information was interesting, but it also made me think. As a natural right-hander, I have never really considered the implications of right versus left. There are many things, though, that are so thoroughly ingrained in our culture that we do not even think to question them. Right-handedness happens to be one of them, and I wonder whether there is any real significance behind the practice (think about which hand we take the sacrament with) or whether it is a philosophy of men that has been around so long that we just assume there is some “right” behind it.

Upon reflection, I am very glad that I chose to take this lecture class during my second, and not my first, semester of college. I think that I am far enough away from that initial “cutting away” to be able to look at it a little more objectively. I can look back on the initial “separation” now, and the emotions surrounding it make a little more sense. My parents' mixed and occasionally confusing responses, my own almost paralyzing excitement, apprehension, and assurance, as well as the satisfied well-wishing of family friends seem appropriate in the context of a “rite of passage.” Going to college is both a literal separation and a symbolic farewell to childhood. I always like to think of the line from “Little Women,” where Jo says that she “stepped over the divide between childhood and all that lies beyond.” This divide is significant, but it does not change the things that matter the most, or “the reason we are all here.”

Anxiously "Engaged"

     I liked the definition of journalism that was brought up in class: storytelling with a purpose. This, to me, says that journalism should give people what they need and what they want. It is a tall order, to be sure, but a good writer must fill the desire for news and try to be entertaining. This goal has not always been met, as evidenced by the rise of infotainment, which we can safely call a failure.
      The trouble with trying to give people what they want instead of what they need, is that, all too often, they end up changing their minds. Here is an article from Thursday's NYT about one strange phenomenon: type-writers are coming back in fashion. Just as the first "digital generation" comes of age, the permanence of paper, ink, and manual keys becomes chic. Not that there is any particular moral imperative in typewriters versus I-pads, but it demonstrates that the consumer is quirkier than is sometimes assumed.
      Another issue is that, surprise! Different people like different things in their news. I have noticed this with Dr. Cressman's infamous NY Times quizzes. As far as I can tell, he prefers national news (business and political), anything to do with Apple, and the fascinating lives of political figures past...very little arts, international, scientific studies, or Metropolitan Diary. In short, the exact opposite of what I go to first when I pick up a newspaper. Doubtless this is healthy, but the take-home message is that the media must cover a lot topics.
     I just have to include this SNL example of what not to do. I think that if journalists keep in mind another journalistic principle "Be loyal to the citizens first." If journalists are honestly looking out for their readers' needs and interests, they will not seek to crowd-please with the sensational or bore them with reports that no one likes.

On Harry Potter and Comprehensive News

     One thing I have noticed is that people often seem to know when you are being honest. When a person talks or writes without sincerity, people often have an indefinable suspicion about them. On the other hand, people respond to emotion. Now the exact nature of that response varies, but people tend to like honesty in a writer. I liked the quote by Kovach and Rosenstiel, "People do not expect perfection. They do expect good intentions" (213). My Honors Writing class had a discussion about this issue. One of my classmates said that, in Men's Chorus, they were always urged to "Be what you are." I think that can hardly be a bad attitude to take with regards to hype.
     I think that "proportional and comprehensive" news will take a lot of courage on the part of journalists. The news has largely build itself into the niche of only being for some people. I know this refers to British journalism, but I am reminded of Harry Potter, when Harry is afraid to interrupt Hagrid's newspaper-reading due to experiences with Uncle Vernon. Like many people, Harry felt that reading a newspaper was for the bigger (faster, stronger, better?) in society. Why is this? Because newspapers are not always comprehensive and proportional.
    I remember once mentioning to my mother that J.K. Rowling should really keep writing, as people would certainly buy and read her books. My mother replied, "Do you think she wrote Harry Potter for the money, or because she had a story to tell?" I will let J.K. Rowling answer herself, "This one thing in my life I believed. I believed I could tell a story." A writer should write because they have to tell their stories. I think that is how a journalist should be: out in the community finding stories which simply have to be told. Then the hype will make itself.

The Original Ivory Tower

First of all, I think that Dr. Gordon Mower’s Thursday lecture has given me a new literary hero: Michele d’ Montaigne. He received a whole education in Law, then returned to a tower on his estate to make wine and write essays. What admirable eccentricity! He cannot but be the toast of Greenland and Antarctica!

            I found a lot of value in Dr. Gower’s history of philosophy. I was unfamiliar with many of the terms and people that he used, but it was a good introduction to philosophy. Dr. Mower explained that skepticism begins by discounting everything one thinks that one knows and only building on certainty. I was interested, also in the concept of dispensing with reliance on logic. At first, I was shocked. If we don’t have logic, how can we think and discover? Dr. Mower later gave an interesting explanation. Montaigne, he said, believed that treating his logical and reasoning capabilities with “skepticism” complemented his faith. This reminded me of the lecture by the author of An Ambiguous Adventure, where science was represented by light, but the unknown mysteries of faith were found in the shadows. I suppose faith is an interesting mix of hope, trust, and even “skepticism” at times. The more I think about it, actually, the more sense it makes: as much as we like to talk about scientific inquiry (not that it isn’t valuable), taking any piece of information from the “thinking about it” stage to “knowledge” requires a leap of faith and trust. People have been known to hold to beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence. How do we really make our decisions?

            Dr. Mower stated that Montaigne believed in a “gentle” education. In his view, the transition from ignorance to knowledge should be as smooth as waking from sleep to light orchestral music. I don’t know that I have had that experience—my mother would occasionally rouse us with sprightly songs about getting and doing push-ups, but that is not quite the same. To be honest, his thoughts on education reminded me of Lady Brackal in “The Importance of Being Earnest.” She believed that ignorance was like a delicate flower that should not be tampered with. Despite my disagreements with him in terms of education, I enjoyed this “gentle” introduction to the study of philosophy.