If I may preface the mild yoke of Professor Marster's inquires, which will be addressed with due time and diligence, in order to describe what Journalism should be, it would lend to a greater understanding of what it is. I do not mean to suggest that within certain circles of the Journalistic community 'pure' Journalism has entirely ceased to exist. Journalism, in its intended form, currently exists with as much integrity and purity as it would have been ubiquitously regarded in an earlier age. However, reverence of good journalism has ebbed from public conscious, though it continuous to exist within exclusionary circles of academia -- a small but obtrusive portion in modern society.
Firstly, allow me to clarify what 'good' Journalism ought to be. From there I will show examples of my idealized, and more than slightly romanticized, idea of Journalism through it's production by great writers of the decade.
Journalism, in my mind, ought to be regarded as a documentation of ongoing history. It should be seen as third-party accountability to clarify details and events for future historical reference. Therefore, well written Journalism must be keen to an event's relevance in society. The Journalist, then, must be of a perspicacious sort.
Good Journalism can be easily identified due to the popular model of Journalistic writing known within it's field as the 'inverted pyramid'. It is a model which, in my mind, exists arbitrarily, as I could not give one damn how the information is presented as long as it is accurate and somewhat pleasant to read. But, in this respect the model is rather useful. All modern Journalism is written, as made dogmatic by the inverted pyramid, with the most general information at the top and the details following thereafter. Therefore, a piece with the correct focus, that on historical import, can be identified within the first few paragraphs.
However, where the scope of modern Journalism and I disagree is in what information should be considered most important. Whereas, in the case of standard reporting as opposed to editorial writing, it is necessary to present hard facts first, it also seems relevant to place conclusions about the event's impact on the narrative of history in the introductory paragraphs. This, in my mind, is a defining feature of 'good' journalism.
The problem here, to ambiguous for most editors, is that as events unfold on a day to day basis, it is difficult, if near impossible, to predict their ultimate resolve and import. Therefore, the journalist is often forced into conjecture; accompanied by a great deal of bias.
Bias is the bane of modern Journalism, and a lack there of is the emblem of integrity for the modern, print News source. Therefore, it makes sense that editors would do all that is in their power to avoid a bias, or else forever be lumped into limiting markets such as "liberal media" or "conservative press".
A well written introduction, with respect to historical relevancy and without a bias, though difficult, is not impossible. It does require a certain proficiency on the part of the Journalist which cannot be reasonably guaranteed. Therein lies the logic behind the editors' choice to omit such details. However, inclusion of accurate historical relevancy is far more beneficial to the reader than it's overall omission.
Of course, many instances of field reporting will not regard anything worldly or, realistically, with much effect on society. Many such articles are necessary contributions to Journalism; such as obituaries, murder reports, minor crime/felonies, news only pertinent to a local community, etc. For these stories, it is best that the general details be summarized in the first paragraph, as is normative, with any sort of big-picture analysis tacked on shortly thereafter. Smaller details, as well as reinforcement of the large-scale claims made early on, can be supplied in the body of the story.
It should be noted that it is the job of the Journalist to document. Any human ongoing is a part of history and, therefore, worthy of documentation.
So far, I've addressed my basic problem with the format of Journalism, however, what truly distinguishes 'good' journalism from the standard mess is an article's content. Good Journalism should be synonymous with insight. Good investigative Journalism ought to reveal the findings of the journalist in a well-constructed manor so as the many small details reveal larger scale truths, paradigms and patterns. Long format journalism and editorials ought to apply insight to preexisting information to the same end. The later allows more room for interpretation, as the writer's assessment of the facts are very much dependent upon his own opinions and biases. Therefore, like in academia, the conclusions of the Journalist, once published, are up for review by his peers and the general public.
For example, I shall now point to specific Journalists whom I believe to be excelling in their executions of the intended purposes of Journalism. Firstly, in the area of investigative Journalism, the late Michael Kelly brought important insight to the First Gulf War, the understanding of which has greatly benefited from his writing. As a writer of long-journalism, he was able to summarize complex foreign policy exchanges into concise language, and always with an eye to how those events effected the wold's stage. His book Martyr's Day, based on his time in Iraq during the Gulf War, is a noteworthy example.
Mark Greif, a writer for the New York Times, founded his own publication n + 1 Magazine with the intent of "creating a long print archive in the world of the soundbite". Here, he has touched upon another problem with Journalism. That problem being, where people prefer quantity over quality, we have recently seen major news outlets shift their sources from tough-investigative Journalism to twitter and youtube. This is not okay, as the information on these platforms is not vetted and often posted by people who are not professional journalists. In short, the internet is a medium that carters to rumors.*
Greif published many articles in n + 1 during the early days of the millennium which called into question American's ability to practice rational thought amidst the post - 9/11 panic. His opinions sometimes boarder on the sadistic, but his clairvoyance analyzing world issues is striking. in 2009, he published a piece in The Times entitled 'What was the Hipster?' which analyzed the most recent American subculture with regard to post-modern technology and development.
Another influential figure in Journalism, though many would rather deny him, is the late Hunter S. Thompson. Thompson's contribution to Journalism, like that of Woodward and Berstein, came from the dearest of hearts but was misinterpreted by the jaded ears of a free people. That contribution was his ability to bring the reader the 'essence' of a story. What he lacked in factual information he made up for in his uncanny ability to give the reader a feel for the characters and events, like a natural intuition. The intuitions were, of course, his own. But, his perceptions were so accurate, and his ability to transfer those perceptions to the reader equally as tuned, that many people trusted his 'gonzo' style.
Thompson became a superstar in Journalism, one of the few to have existed in the modern world. However, his contribution has been taken out of context by media such as Vice, which trades good reporting in exchange for gonzo-style. It is not enough for informed citizens to have a 'feel' for an issue and some minor details in their arsenal of facts. A truly informed citizen must be presented with all the facts first, so as to draw their own conclusion. If the job of the Journalist has been done well, the opinion of the reader will not differ from the writer's, as the information should have been presented in a manor so objective, and conclusions drawn so logically, that the actual nature of the events is indisputable. Done poorly, the writer and reader's opinions may still not differ, as the reader has been ill-informed and the writer has not properly done his research. It is a similar end to a different mean, though the later has the comfort of ignorance.
A good journalist is not a celebrity, like Woodward, Bernstein or Thompson. Their job is, by definition, the very opposite. The Journalist is a silent watcher, a fly on the wall, who's job is to observe and report. Where his individuality can reveal itself is in the form of his writing which, though it can be well-crafted, should, as a rule of thumb, reveal very little as to the Journalist's own intentions.
*And so it should be! Open Source! Free Ware! Freedom of speech to text, and so on.
No comments:
Post a Comment