Print This Post
Sep
17
In this E-Media Tidbits piece, Amy Gahran writes about a Poynter seminar, “On Dialogue and Diatribe,” that was to focus on this question:
“Journalism, even the definition of journalism, is changing. That we know for sure. Our traditional role of telling people the facts is still crucial. Yet it’s becoming more important to be part of the conversation in which the community discusses and creates meaning out of the facts. What’s our responsibility as journalists (broadly defined), working in a democracy, when it comes to dialogue and debate?”
[my emphasis]
Now, first, isn’t it nice to know that serious discussions, initiated by serious folks who think like a lot of us do, not only exist but exist in part just to answer those questions?
I take heart in that. (As might some others who may be doubters from time to time.)
Gahran starts the conversation with these thoughts:
Journalists are people. However, the journalistic ethic of objectivity forces an uncomfortable bit of cognitive dissonance into every journalist’s life. We’re supposed to report the news while abstaining from personal bias and involvement. But we’re human, too. Humans always have a point of view — and they always have personal connections, assumptions and beliefs, preferences, and emotions. That’s just how humans work.
In a sense, clinging to objectivity as an achievable goal denies our humanity. That puts us in awkward situations almost daily. And don’t think our audiences and communities don’t recognize that. Often, they’re laughing at us for it.
Conversation is a fundamentally human activity — whether it’s face to face, on the phone, online, or by carrier pigeon. If you doubt that, just try having a conversation using only the third person. It’s all about “I” and “you” — that is, people. Our brains evolved to be wired for conversation. I’d wager that the first communicative grunts of our primeval ancestors were not monologues.
…
Personally, I think one key to saving news organizations (or at least professional journalism) is to strengthen community ties. When it comes to relationship-building tools, you can’t beat conversation. Our communities (stop thinking of them as “readers” or “audiences) are human, too. It’s really hard to build a relationship with someone who’s only “on send,” who doesn’t appear to listen or engage. Conversation is always more compelling than monologues.
Of course, finding people in each community to engage and share these beliefs in how engagement should proceed often seems to be the real challenge.
Do we have this going on in Cleveland, or Ohio? Will the impending experiment between bloggers, Cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer make a dent? Why or why not?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:55 pm September 17th, 2007 in Blogging, Media
Comments
9 Responses to “Talk. Talk will keep us together.”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
Shalom Jill,
I’ve alway thought that journalists have only one obligation:
To write truth in the clearest, most understandable way they know how.
B’shalom,
Jeff
[...] Talk. Talk will keep us together. digg_url=”http://havecoffeewillwrite.com/?p=4837″; digg_skin = [...]
Hi Jeff – I would think the same, however, there’s no question, even I have to admit, people don’t always even agree on how to describe “the truth.” This linguistic sophistication causes a lot of battles, even as it helps us flesh out a wide variety of perspectives. Other than continuing the conversations to the point where we can each say, “okay, well, I see what you’re saying but I see it this way…,” I’m not sure what we can do.
I wouldn’t expect it to make a dent, or any difference at all. Economically speaking, legacy media doesn’t consider the viewing public as customers; the viewing public is the media’s product. Legacy media sells advertising to its customers, making news consumers just passive sets of eyeballs that the legacy media contracts to deliver to its advertisers. Interactivity interferes with profit margins, because interactivity is expensive.
We aren’t the media’s consumers, we’re their main product. I find that helpful to keep in mind when checking the news (especially TV); it explains a great deal of the over-sensationalized but trivial coverage we get these days.
For example, the Madeline McCann story is utterly irrelevant. Not to be deliberately callous but frankly I don’t give a damn about this case. This is a British child who went missing in Portugal; why is this case big-time headline news in the United States? Because missing women and children draw ratings, which boosts ad revenue. Imagine if it were a gay teenager who had disappeared under mysterious circumstances. Would we have ever heard about it?
The media will continue to put out what it knows will draw attention, because it has to generate product for its customers.
I can honestly say that I’ve never heard the phrase “legacy media” or the interpretation that we’re their product. But, okay. Would you then say that their product for their customer is drying up? If so, wouldn’t that be exactly what we would hope for, if we’re self-respecting humans who don’t want to be used in such a way?
I didn’t know who you were talking about when you said Madeline McCann – I even just now had to scroll up to check on the name. I saw the story around a couple of blog headlines but otherwise, no knowledge at all. I get the NYT at home but don’t read it all or everyday. I watch almost no television, news or otherwise.
You are making me very proud of these habits, to be honest.
I’ve always thought of the term “Mainstream Media” as poor framing, so “Legacy Media” is my own construction. It works best with these definitions of the word “legacy:”
My assertion that we’re the media’s product is based on their business model. All legacy media programming, whether printed, broadcast or online, is ultimately just a vehicle for advertising.
As long as Americans continue to be fascinated by GBH and celebrity faux pas, the legacy media will always have product to deliver to its customers.
GBH? I’m sorry! …Hilton? Good…Housekeeping?
Boy am I naive!
Yeah, your point is understandable re: being a vehicle for selling ads. But the thing is, we ARE drying up as a product for many of the more institutional-style media providers. Now – I’ve posited that maybe they just want us to think they’re sick (my post about Munchausen by Proxy) since they’re still making a profit, it’s just smaller.
But we do know that the numbers are declining, as an absolute.
The other thing is, the history of news dissemination – wasn’t tied to ads. So don’t you think there some chicken and egg that go along with the prosperity of a capitalist society? (I am thinking through the keyboard – none of this is so much well thought out as responding to your ideas)
FYI Len – have you seen this review from an August Pew poll that talks about how much Internet users distrust the media?
[...] Journalists need conversation with communities in new media age | Writes Like She Talks “Finding people in each community to engage and share these beliefs in how engagement should proceed often seems to be the real challenge. Do we have this going on in Cleveland, or Ohio?” (tags: conversation journalism community relationship+building mycoverage AmyGahran) [...]