fix journalism a conversation about journalism’s future

Author: Michael Higdon | 01.20.2010

In response to the previous post, Brian Duggan, Donica Mensing and I began an interesting disucssion via email. The question: Is advertising capable of being journalism ever?”

Brian Duggan said:

Ads provide objective information, yes, but to what degree? Does that baked potato in your Locals BBQ ad always look picturesque for every customer?

Ask yourself this: how credible are ads when compared to what most people refer to as journalism: articles, broadcasts, photos, graphics, etc..? While newspaper ads are probably the most credible out of other forms of media ads (I think there are studies that prove this), I would argue an ad for a baked potato is not as credible as an article about baked potatoes for one very good reason: the article (in theory) wasn’t purchased and therefore provides the closest thing to objectivity (a baked potato will not always look the same, etc…).

I’ve operated under the assumption that journalism works because of credibility and the same thing applies to advertising, considering we’re the same product. So let’s be clear, I’m not saying advertisers lack credibility, they obviously provide a useful and important service for readers, but is it journalism? I disagree.

I replied with:

I must whole-heartedly disagree with you here. Using the potato as a framework for this discussion, I will explain why.

The photo of the baked potato is more objective than any article about that baked potato.

Restaurants must build and rebuild food exactly the same way each time. The potato will look 99%  the same each time, save for the chives which are often put on the side. The potato’s shape might change, but that’s unimportant to the dining experience. The shape of the potato is like taking “um” out of quotes. It preserves the spirit of the potato. The description of the potato is objective, it describes it from an observational point of view without qualifying its taste. The potato presents itself and allows the reader to decide if it’s a good or bad food item. That’s very journalistic.

The lighting, which is artificial, is providing context for the food. No you won’t have lighting when you eat it, but it’ll still taste how it looks. Stories use “lighting” by using ledes, nutgrafs, transitions, active voice. You’re not changing the story but you are making the quotes and facts look delicious.

An article about that potato, on the other hand, is subject to a reporter’s interpretation of the taste how they experienced it. It is already biased. The reporter is then qualifying the food based on their previous experiences with potatoes, BBQ sauce, cheese, pork and chives. The definition of that potato changes with each diner, but the reporter has defined it once and for all in writing. The photo/ad does not do that. Therefore it is more objective in the advertisement than it is in an article.

What most people refer to as journalism, is evolving. Journalism is now pundits, Sara Palin (shutter), blogs, news sites, etc. Those are all very different and continue to qualify events from various perspectives. What we, you, me, Donica and Annie, consider journalism, is quite different than what Joe the Plumber considers journalism.

As for credibility. Credibility is earned, not christened. Companies/businesses and news organization earn credibility over time. For businesses it’s called branding and customer service. For newspapers, it’s called consistency and trust. Newspaper advertising is probably the most credible because those businesses are visited by local people and they interact personally with those folks. The Locals BBQ owner comes out to talk to his customers, therefore his credibility is high, while Coca Cola does not. Though, I’d argue Coca Cola has credibility because we trust them to provide an identical brown, carbonated, engine cleaning beverage in a red can anywhere in America.

National advertisements are impersonal, they highlight positives and often exaggerate them and do not deliver on those expectations. They also are often not objective. They qualify information from their own perspective and enhance it. Those companies lose credibility.

News organizations do the same thing. Therefore, some advertisements have credibility while others do not, just as some news orgs have credibility and some do not.

So. I believe advertisements that meet the standards of our journalism are journalism.

Donica wrote:

Mike, you sound like you’re defending photography more than advertising. In my mind, photographs and text are equally faulty as actual objective artifacts, and both equally capable of striving for an objective truth that gives us the very best journalism possible. It’s confusing to mash photography (a medium) into your advertising (an activity) argument (to continue the potato theme).

Brian Wrote:

Good point Donica. Mike, I think you’re defending photo journalism, not advertising. If a photo is being taken for an advertisement it is staged. If it’s for an act of journalism, such as a news photo, it is not staged. Let’s face it, an ad, especially a photo in an ad, is a glorified version of reality. An advertiser has every incentive in the world to put his or her best foot forward in something they are paying for.

Therefore, they are not likely telling the whole story (the potato isn’t always glossy and beautiful, even though it might be delicious). There’s context – good and bad – to life. A journalist will strive to find that context while an ad will not. It’s just the nature of the beast. Therefore, an advertisement is not journalism.

My final response: 

I was using photography as my main medium because advertising is almost always image based. Most credibility issues in advertising stem from manipulated images or inaccurate headlines. Just as words are the main medium of news, it would make sense to argue about the inaccuracy of words that are manipulated for untruth.

Photography and words make up news and advertising, so it makes sense to compare the use of them in different instances. Some advertising images are photojournalism and some photojournalism is staged. If we’re using my genre framework, the food and dining ad is equal to a story about that same food in a food and dining section. A food and dining section would use a staged photo, not a photo of someone eating (for example).

One could also argue, there’s no such thing as an unstaged photo. Once a subject (human) becomes aware of a photographer, his actions become self conscious and deliberate. He is no longer acting as he would without the photographer there.

Further, a photographer stages a candid moment. By changing your position, framing and camera settings, you are staging something, thereby eliminating some context and including other. Standard toning changes the context by providing mood. It’s selective truth. This point digresses into a metaphysical debate at a certain point, but I don’t think some photojournalism is much different than some advertising photography.

A photojournalist glorifies reality just like an advertiser does (sometimes). Amazing photos of real life are taken everyday and used in newspapers, but do you remember real life ever looking that Fing amazing?

That said, I agree with Donica’s comment on the blog about journalism being for a public good while advertising is generally not. But the fact that it’s not always one or the other, still agrees with my assumption that “some” advertising is journalism “sometimes.” I also agree that paying for the advertisement changes its nature but that doesn’t mean the message doesn’t have journalistic qualities. But I don’t think your point about context is valid. I’m not looking at journalism as an ideal, I’m looking at journalism for what it is and no journalism really accomplishes those ideal goals.

My final thoughts

I also stop to ponder Donica’s comment in the previous post that just because something acts like journalism, doesn’t make it journalism. I’m still considering the distinction here. Because advertisements and journalism can be taken as single units, one could argue that a piece of advertising is journalism while another piece is not. You could also argue that a piece of “journalism” is actually not journalism either. On a whole though, I suppose Donica is right,that  because advertising generally only acts like journalism sometimes, you cannot fairly call it journalism on a whole.