October 20, 2005
PressThink media critic Jay Rosen and CBS News President Andrew Heyward participated in a Sept. 28 roundtable about Big Media and bloggers at the Museum of Television and Radio. There, Heyward talked about the "illusion of omniscience," how it's hurting the big news providers, and how it should just be abandoned. A few days later, Rosen and Heyward ran into each other again at the Oct. 5 We Media conference. Heyward said he had read Rosen's write-up of the occasion of their previous encounter. Rosen told Heyward that what he had said was "of some importance for those of us who study journalism and critique it," and invited him to rework his thoughts for PressThink.
Heyward submitted his PressThink piece a few days later. In an email to Media Center Co-Director Dale Peskin, Rosen wrote: "The We Media event figured in this happening at PressThink, so THANKS... Isn't that how it's supposed to work?" Yes, Jay, absolutely! And thanks for letting us know.
And Heyward's thoughts are worth a good look, as are the responses from the likes of Ken Sands, Terry Heaton and Tim Porter, thoughtful media commentators all. Heyward's main points are conveniently laid out in his section heads:
One: Truth is a Plural
Two: Yes to Point-of-View Journalism
Three: News Has an Authenticity Problem
The piece is clearly by a man and from an organization serious about the function of news and struggling with the dilemma of how to deliver it in today's media environment. But it also demonstrates, again (sigh), that mainstream media is still pathologically incapable of confronting the crux of its problem, namely its new place in the world--its role and how it can fit in the wild, wild west of the rapidly evolving digital, mobile society.
Heyward says,"Truth is Plural," but does not acknowledge that truth can come from outside the mainstream media - from the likes of academics, practitioners and obsessed hobbyists, each shouting out their version of the truth from their personal computers, who often are just as capable of judging the value of and delivering a news item in their particular fields of expertise.
Heyward declares that news media's "core responsibility [is] to strive for the highest standards of accuracy, fairness, and thoroughness," implying that those standards exist, again, only within mainstream media. I don't have a news background, so will somebody please explain once and for all the foundations of that assertion, which assumes that news media are the final arbiters of what constitutes accuracy, fairness and thoroughness? A minority of working journalists have gone to journalism school, where, presumably, they got the basics of journalism values. Where did the remainder get them, from just reporting to a newsroom every working day? As far as I know, there isn't a professional development program that every journalist is required to go through that guarantees completion of coursework in Plagiarism 101 and Accuracy 101. Frankly, I think most reasonably educated, curious, conscientious people with a strong sense of fair play would be be more accurate, fair and thorough than, say, Jason Blair or Jack Kelley. In fact, I suspect that most intelligent, decent people, not subject to the pressures of operating in a large, impersonal, bottom-line-oriented hierarchy, stand a better chance of maintaining and defending "journalism ethics."
Regarding Heywards second point, I, too, say "Yes to Point-of-View Journalism." But point-of-view blog posts (and is there any other kind?) can sometimes deliver some aspects of journalism just as well, and other aspects much better, such as training someone to think for himself. If a person conscientiously reads in the blogosphere a wide selection of viewpoints on a particular topic, he will have just as good a grasp of "the facts" related to that topic as another individual who carefully studies the relevant articles in a handful of print publications and faithfully watches the news. The blog reader has to work through many perspectives, along the way recieving clarification for things he doesn't understand and engaging in discussion and debate that help crystallize his own opinions. The other guy just reads and watches TV. If the whole point of journalism is to create a well-informed, thinking citizenry able to participate in democratic government, there's no doubt in my mind which information channel is more effective.
Finally, Heyward turns to news media's image, which he refers to as an "authenticity problem." He says, "We have to break down the tired formulas of television news and find a more authentic way of writing, speaking, and interacting with the people and subjects we report on." I don't disagree with this, but this final point perfectly illustrates the problem with the entire piece. "We" need to do this, "we" need to do that - so very...self-centered, like listening to someone who always manages to turn the conversation to how a topic relates to himself, which you put up with because it's a valued friend. You want to lean over and say in the nicest way possible, "Hey, relax, it's not always all about you."
It's about how we just don't have the time anymore to huddle around the TV at the same time every day for the evening news programs. It's about modern parenting, which is raising a generation of kids used to being listened to, and about games, other media and technology that condition these kids to expect to be able to react, to talk back. It's about hectic modern life, where we need to make time to inform ourselves and expect our providers of information to make that as easy as possible. It's about all these things and more, NOT about what news media can do so we'll like them again. CBS News and all the other members of mainstream news media need to pay serious attention to the Big Picture, and the little pictures - like journalism values and reputation - will work themselves out.
