Differences of Opinion

Last week I had attended a lecture entitled "Ethics and Journalism: Should We Trust the Media?” at the Society for Ethical Culture. The expert panel was composed of Helen Thomas, the famed former White House Press Core Member, Adam Moss, editor of New York Magazine, Randall Pinkston, field correspondent for CBS News, Jeff Jarvis, a television critic for TV Guide and People Magazine and Richard Stengel, managing editor of TIME magazine.

The forum was organized on the premise that the media is more unethical today then it has been in the past and that journalism is not as reputable as it once was. Interestingly though, most of the panelists refuted this point. Moss said that he thinks this rumor has been promulgated by the Bush administration to attack and discredit the media. Pinkston said a similar thing, explaining that the media is not less ethical than before but that more people are saying so which is leading others to believe it.

Thomas was basically the only one who concurred with the assumptions of those who organized the lecture. Although she was mainly talking about the White House Press Core, she made a number of generalizations about reporters and the job they are doing:

“The State of Journalism has Been Lousy”
“Reporters Have Rolled Over and Played Dead” (said this 2X)
“The Press Just Absolutely Lost its Soul”
“I Think the Press has Really Let the Public Down”

While I do not necessarily think the situation is as rosy as the other participants painted it, I also think that Thomas was a little hard on the White House Press Core. I believe she placed too much blame on the journalists and not enough on the administration. As one can read in a previous post of mine on a White House Press Gaggle, the press did try to challenge White House Press Secretary Snow. Ultimately though, he was running the show and was only going to answer the questions that fit into his agenda in whatever way he saw fit. Therefore, while the press could try to be more hard hitting and challenge the government more, without a supportive administration there is little they can do to get more, both in terms of quality and quantity, information.

I had to disagree with Ms. Thomas on another point as well. She was very quick to dismiss blogging as an illegitimate form of journalism. “Everyone with a laptop thinks he’s a journalist,” she said with a bit of disdain, and concluded that the lack of professional experience these 'online journalists' have is hurting the profession.

Firstly, she failed to acknowledge the experience and high level of political knowledge many bloggers have. While some people do use the blogosphere to rant and rave about either inconsequential things or consequential things in a disrespectful and unintelligent matter, many do not. Blogging is very valuable, giving many people with important things to say a venue in which to say them. Critical issues that have been overlooked by the mainstream media for their political concentration and/or lack of sensationalism are now being discussed.

Furthermore, as many of the panelists pointed out in blatant opposition to Thomas’s insinuation about blogs, the public, and reporters dedicated to the ideals of journalsim (conveying truth and infroming the public), should welcome blogs to the news world becaue they actually elevate journalism and hold journalists accountable for their work. As Stengel said, quoting bloggers around the world, “we can now fact check your ass.” The blogosphere keeps reporters and news sources in check by picking up on even the slightest mistakes.

The blogophere also promotes democracy, a value journalism in its ideal form is supposed to uphold. Now every person with a computer can participate in the news process. People from all over the world are connected. Everyone can now have a voice. While opening up the media in this way may have some negative results, as Thomas implied, in a country claiming to be committed to freedom and equality, this inclusiveness is necessary and should be welcome.