What are journalists for?
This question is asked a lot by everyone. But usually the answer is given by journalists. We don’t usually ask readers. I’ve had the fortune of being part of peripheral conversations that ask this question to non-journalists.
In my Citizen Participation class, we discussed election campaigns and candidate advertisements. Students in that class overwhelmingly agreed:
“We need someone or some third-party group who can objectively inform us about the candidates. I’m sick of getting these wild and crazy one-sided ads from the candidates. And I hate how news is so biased. Why can’t someone just tell me the facts and let me decide?
I thought that’s what journalists were for? Have we left that? But I also don’t think there’s such a thing as objectivity. It’s impossible but you can strive for fairness. But is news even fair anymore? Some, but not the kind young people regularly consume: TV.
Is news meant to help people participate or lead discussions? Or is news a hub for discussion, a starting place or a place to become informed about topics? Does news do either one? I would argue no. We don’t follow many topics long enough (often, local news sources and beats do by their nature). News doesn’t lead discussions very often. Should it? Is leading the wrong word, do journalists mean they want to be a hub when they said lead?
Who is the “mass media” for? Who is CNN broadcasting to? Who is the USA Today writing at? Do we need mass media? What is public opinion? Is there a single “public?” No, there never was. There are millions of publics constantly moving and reshaping and dying and birthing. The Public is not real except as a general term to mean “everyone else.”