The notion of journalism as a "watchdog" is more-or-less a twentieth century invention. For most of the nineteenth century, small-town newspaper editors operated more like political functionaries or local civic leaders - powerful figures with a vested interest in promoting the prosperity of their communities. The notion of reporters taking an adversarial stance towards government and holding power to account really took root with the rise of large urban papers in the late 1800s - and yes, probably reached its apogee with Woodward and Bernstein. What you're suggesting feels something like a return to the communitarian spirit of the older country weeklies, which for all their many failings played a critical role in binding small towns and rural communities together. So yes, I think you may be on to something here ;)
I'm explicitly driven by the absolute need for us to rebuild communities that can see and find value in their differences because they've been exposed to each other in different ways. Unless we solve that, I don't see how we have an ability to self-govern. But it all must and should be in a non-partial fashion, only then might regain the trust and respect to be effective on the more controversial subjects.
My own view is that there are multiple sorts of journalism, and thus multiple missions. Accountability is critical, especially for what many call investigative journalism— how else to know if it is being effective? But communities, both local and national, surely need more than that, as you point out. And then there is opinion journalism, which seeks to persuade, and should also be evaluated on some sort of measure of effectiveness. All these types of journalism need also be marked, and judged, by fairness. Important not to lose sight of any of these varieties or standards.
My favorite moment in this essay is the following thesis statement: "The mission of the press should be to provide our societies with the information they need to understand their communities and the world outside of their communities, thereby enabling them to be informed citizens." I think I agree, but here's where we might see things slightly differently. The kind of heroic reporting achieved by Woodward and Bernstein fits within this definition. The American public did need the story that W&B broke about Watergate, AND it had the effect of speaking truth to power. But maybe what happened is that the industry lost sight of the broader mission into which "hold truth to power" fits. Agree?
Either way, I find this to be a really valuable argument. I see the argument structure as parallel to the argument at the heart of the mission of nonprofits like Heterodox Academy: "X institutions have lost sight of their purpose, which should be understood as Y."
Another question, perhaps for another essay from this author: If you're right, and the mission of the press ought to be broader than "speaking truth to power," what follows for national and international news outlets?
The notion of journalism as a "watchdog" is more-or-less a twentieth century invention. For most of the nineteenth century, small-town newspaper editors operated more like political functionaries or local civic leaders - powerful figures with a vested interest in promoting the prosperity of their communities. The notion of reporters taking an adversarial stance towards government and holding power to account really took root with the rise of large urban papers in the late 1800s - and yes, probably reached its apogee with Woodward and Bernstein. What you're suggesting feels something like a return to the communitarian spirit of the older country weeklies, which for all their many failings played a critical role in binding small towns and rural communities together. So yes, I think you may be on to something here ;)
I'm explicitly driven by the absolute need for us to rebuild communities that can see and find value in their differences because they've been exposed to each other in different ways. Unless we solve that, I don't see how we have an ability to self-govern. But it all must and should be in a non-partial fashion, only then might regain the trust and respect to be effective on the more controversial subjects.
My own view is that there are multiple sorts of journalism, and thus multiple missions. Accountability is critical, especially for what many call investigative journalism— how else to know if it is being effective? But communities, both local and national, surely need more than that, as you point out. And then there is opinion journalism, which seeks to persuade, and should also be evaluated on some sort of measure of effectiveness. All these types of journalism need also be marked, and judged, by fairness. Important not to lose sight of any of these varieties or standards.
My favorite moment in this essay is the following thesis statement: "The mission of the press should be to provide our societies with the information they need to understand their communities and the world outside of their communities, thereby enabling them to be informed citizens." I think I agree, but here's where we might see things slightly differently. The kind of heroic reporting achieved by Woodward and Bernstein fits within this definition. The American public did need the story that W&B broke about Watergate, AND it had the effect of speaking truth to power. But maybe what happened is that the industry lost sight of the broader mission into which "hold truth to power" fits. Agree?
Either way, I find this to be a really valuable argument. I see the argument structure as parallel to the argument at the heart of the mission of nonprofits like Heterodox Academy: "X institutions have lost sight of their purpose, which should be understood as Y."
Another question, perhaps for another essay from this author: If you're right, and the mission of the press ought to be broader than "speaking truth to power," what follows for national and international news outlets?