Journalism as a public forum

“Journalists must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 166).

Debate and argument is everywhere. Media outlets present issues and conflict everyday. However, more often than not, the issues are presented as polarized extremes that exclude the majority of citizens who reside in the middle of the spectrum. These outlets also tend to focus on their opinions rather than the news.
Journalists should provide a public forum with an emphasis on facts and verification. When journalists inform the public on issues, it encourages judgement. The public hears the issues and reacts throughout the community. Their voices are heard on the radio, talk shows, opinion editorials, and blogs.

“I’m very much inspired by this culture of people who believe that journalism should be about raising hell in an intelligent way. But I don’t mean throwing a brick at someone’s head and saying ‘Yeah, yeah, you’re a jerk.’ You should really be provoking people to think – challenging them to justify and defend their ideas, just as I have to justify and defend mine” (Jon Katz).

An example of this is when Jon Stewart appeared on an episode of Crossfire. He criticized them for not allowing actual debate and being partisan hacks.

"Unless the forum is based on a foundation of fact and context, the questions citizens ask will become simply rhetorical. The debate will cease to educate; it will only reinforce the prejudgments people arrive with. The public will be less able to participate in solutions. Public discourse will dissolve into noise, which the majority of the public will tune out. The worry is not the wondrous addition of citizen media, but the decline of full-time, professional monitoring of powerful institutions. The forum must adhere to all other journalistic principles" (Kovach & Rosenstiel 184).


I believe that journalists should provide a forum for public criticism and compromise because they are the only people who can effectively find out if assertions of arguments are actually true.  They are the only ones who can investigate the backgrounds and motives of various factions.  A forum without a regard to facts cannot inform.  Talk is cheap, and opinion has taken over the media.  Truth and verification in a public forum is more important now than ever.  

Investigative Journalism

“Investigative reporting’s roots were firmly established in the very first periodicals, in the earliest notions of the meaning of a free press and the First Amendment, and in the motivation of journalists throughout the profession’s history. These roots are so strong, they form a fundamental principle: journalists must serve as an independent monitor of power” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 140). Journalists since the very beginning have played a role as a watchdog. Their duty is to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," and to hold powerful interests accountable.  By doing this, journalists have withheld the standard of democracy and freedom.  Investigative Journalism has played an important role in my life as well as many others.

The investigative reporting of the NY Times and the Washington Post of the Pentagon Papers led to the lawsuit NY Times Co. v. United States and eventually resulted in the landmark decision that made it possible for the newspapers to publish the classified documents without government censorship. This victory has made it possible for journalists throughout the US to investigate those in power and continue to act as watchdogs.

One investigative piece that has influenced my life is entitled "Violated: 'Broken' system fails elderly abuse victims" written by investigative reporter Brad Schrade of the Star Tribune.  This story shows how federal records demonstrated that reports of abuse of elderly victims in Minnesota have fallen short.  The article and it's proof of the neglect of Minnesota nursing homes has led to the closing of the Good Samaritan home, whose workers tormented and abused the residents.

http://www.startribune.com/local/123163388.html

This report influences me because I am from Minnesota.  I have been to this nursing home and spoken to residents there in my past.  I have relatives in homes such as the one in the story and it has opened my eyes about how few regualtions there are in the treatment of the residents.  It is shocking to me the horror of their situation and I would not have known about this if it weren't for the investigation.  This report has made the abused residents situation better, and will hopefully hold those responsible accountable.

Journalism and Neutrality

          Journalists are never free of bias. Each person has different life experiences, different cultures, grew up in different places in different social classes. But they still have the responsibility to be transparent and accurate in their journalism. However, journalists should not be neutral, and neutrality does not necessarily mean a story is true or unbiased. When it is impossible to check your bias, perspective, or worldview at the door, one may question how it is even possible to accurately cover the news. However, objectivity is not to step away from your bias. Instead, it is a consistent, transparent method of testing your facts. When we realize that journalists, no matter what, will have different worldviews, we can instead focus on how to still report accurate and truthful stories despite these differences. Even though a journalist has an opinion, they can still be accurate if they stick to the facts above all else and have an unwavering dedication to the truth. This is done by following this set of concepts outlined in "The Elements of Journalism."

1. Never add anything that was not there

2. Never deceive the audience

3. Be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives

4. Rely on your own original reporting

5. Exercise humility

          By recognizing that journalists mustn't be neutral and that objectivity is a method rather than an aim, I have a higher respect for the news when it is accurate and I understand better what it takes to produce truthful stories. As Journalists, we should embrace our beliefs and perspectives without promoting them to the reader/audience

          "In the end it is good judgment, and an abiding commitment to the principle of first allegiance to citizens, that separates the journalist from the partisan. Having an opinion is not only allowable, not only natural, but it is valuable to the natural skepticism with which any good reporter approaches a story. But a journalist must be smart enough and honest enough to recognize that opinion must be based on something more substantial than personal beliefs if it is to be of journalistic use” (Kovach & Rosenstiel).

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2007/10/giving-objectivity-a-bad-name/