Love me or hate me, just read me

Lawyers. Politicians. Dentists. Journalists.

All fall under the umbrella category of “Most Hated Professionals.” As a professional journalist, I’d like to thank the Academy.

The public hates us. Is it because of mistaken identity? Do our audiences not understand that Journalist 1 is not Journalist 2? I certainly don’t see myself as the "conspiring, lying, no-good journalist.” My job as a copy editor is to make sure all those nasty stereotypes about journalists aren’t made into (more of) a reality.

There are valid reasons for the public to distrust the media. We’ve provided that ammo. And it’s been proved, time and time again, that the public remembers when we’ve messed up, far more frequently than they remember when we’ve done well.I find myself defending journalism in my gen-ed classes. “No, we do not sit in the newsroom and conspire!” “Yes, papers are a business, but we don’t talk to the business side!” “No, I don’t think coining ‘Benifer’ was beneficial for the American public!”

A friend told me just yesterday that he doesn’t know when the news is truth or not - that he’d almost rather not get any news at all. This perspective contributes to dismantling our “culture of accountability” (Downie and Kaiser, 7); it also makes a good argument for transparency. Perhaps the public’s mistrust has a lot to do with their ignorance of journalism and its practices.

I started working for my high school paper because it was exciting. I liked talking to people. I liked writing. But that’s not why journalists should be journalists. You need a thirst for knowledge, an undying curiosity, a skeptical eye. And a belief in the principles of the craft. I think the public hates us because they don’t understand or believe that good journalists - the kind I’ve grown to be - do what they do because they believe it’s a civic duty.

Journalism got the First Amendment. Not the Sixth. Not the Twentieth. The First. Freedom of the press is essential to society, to inform people and citizens. Unfortunately, most readers and viewers choose to be one or the other. The public has a love/hate relationship with the media.

They say: Inform me, but don’t give away too much. Be there for me when I want you there. Don’t crowd me. Read my mind - tell me what I want to know, and no more. Don’t bore me. Keep it snappy.

I'm optimistic about the future of journalism because people want information now more than ever. But we need to do a better job of providing that information. Downie and Kaiser say “a good paper explains big events and puts them in context. Beyond that, a newspaper keeps watch on the powerful people in its immediate neighborhood …” (67). We need to remind people of that. Readers want context, or they feel lost. But they want context in easily digestible forms.

Too often, news content is more entertainment or sensationalized briefs than information presented to audiences as something they should be concerned about. Gans says many journalists have been “seduced by sensationalism” (30). We’ve allowed ourselves to water down the news, assuming the worst about our readers and viewers. We allow our audiences to dictate so much of what we report because of profit quotas. “Americans would rather be entertained than informed” (Downie and Kaiser, 11) and we deliver.

Our audiences have lost sight of our role as their gatekeepers. Journalists help keep the wolves out, especially in regards to politics, public safety and health. “Even so, and perhaps because of America’s faith in self-reliance, too few people realize how much they depend on government for their everyday lives” (Gant, 19). We are a “me” society, rather than a “we” society, so focused on ourselves with little or no interest in other people or events, especially ones that don’t appear to affect us. Downie and Kaiser say that in the era following WWII and the Cold War, “millions of American consumers turned their backs on civic life to focus on personal development, enrichment and pleasure” (26). I think this description of Americans’ attitudes then is apt for explaining our audiences today. They’re lazy. They’re spoiled.

My goal as a journalist is to help people learn more about the world around them. I want to ensure accuracy. I want to encourage creativity. I want to demand truthfulness. I want the public to give a damn. If this means providing them that spoonful of entertainment's sugar in order to make the medicine of life's reality go down easier, I'll do it.

So where is journalism headed? How can we cater to apathetic audiences without forsaking the ideals that we hold as journalists? I’m not sure that the Internet is the solution to all our problems. As we discussed in lecture, story placement and bringing advertisers on board present difficulties. Most of all, we don’t trust audiences to have such a free range of choice. They need guidance. But if we can find a way to lead audiences in the right direction (with a hierarchy of story placement, make information easily accessible with links, utilize interactive items or video to make information more entertaining) then the Internet as the next realm of good journalism isn’t such a bad thing. At least people would be consuming more news and less celebrity gossip, becoming more of a citizen interested in their own and others’ well being.