fix journalism a conversation about journalism’s future

Several recent posts in the blogosphere have argued about who is to blame for the current crisis in journalism. Jeff Jarvis said it was the fault of journalists and was then sharply criticized by Ron Rosenbaum in Slate (Is Jeff Jarvis gloating too much about the death of print?) Paul Farhi, writing in the American Journalism Review, says it’s economic and technological forces (Don’t blame the journalism.)

Many commentaries frame journalists as victims of forces beyond their control. It’s impossible not to look at factors such as suburbanization, changing social structures and the development of the Internet and know that circumstances have radically changed. The growth of corporate journalism and rising (until recently) profit margins have had significant impacts on the practice of journalism. But to frame journalists as guardians of the flame of public trust in the face of uncontrollable forces may not be an accurate depiction either.

Two European scholars have an article in the recent issue of Journalism (Journalists and the information-attention markets) that use rational choice theory to explain the behavior of journalists. Their thesis is:

We argue that such a normative perspective is insufficient to explain current phenomena in the news business, such as ‘pack reporting’, ‘horse-race journalism’, and the rising influence of PR and ‘spin doctors’ on journalism. Instead, we also have to consider the self-interests of journalists as driving forces behind a ‘commercialization’ of news.

They note that media scholars have repeatedly identified the self-interest of public relations practitioners, media managers, corporate owners and media users, while simultaneously describing journalists “as guardians of the ‘fourth estate’ and servants to the ‘public interests’, implying a notion of selflessness to newsworkers” (p. 673).

we argue that journalists have a high self-interest at stake when selecting, producing, and disseminating news.  They seek to maximize attention for their work, they try to minimize costs  of investigation and research and to use their sources to their greatest professional benefit, and so forth. Under the conditions of an ever-increasing competition between media outlets, journalists increasingly employ a ‘market approach’ to their decisions. As Hamilton (2004: 6) puts it: ‘(N)ews emerges not from individuals seeking to improve the functioning of democracy but from readers seeking diversion, reporters forging careers, and owners searching for profits.’

They conclude that “economic theory enables (and forces) us to ask how problems in the field of journalism can possibly be solved by adjusting the parameters and incentives under which journalists operate” (p. 682).

I generally prefer normative over economic theory when it comes to thinking about the future of journalism. But if we want to figure out how to move journalism most gracefully from the current period to more productive stage, perhaps acknowledging and using the insights of rational choice theory will help us get there more efficiently.

Note added Nov. 25: Paul Bradshaw discusses this same article on e-Media Tidbits in Journalists are Economical noting that economic calculations are changing as power continues to shift from journalists to sources to the public.