Posts Tagged journalism

Date: July 22nd, 2010
Cate: Journalism Theory/Analysis, Uncategorized
6 msgs

An Ethical Argument for Transparency – Part II

In a recent post on my website I examined an ethical argument for transparency. I will continue this internal dialogue with the caveat that I am not a journalism academic. I do not prescribe my beliefs to anyone but myself. This is a disgustingly theoretical post (I promise the next one will be practical up the wahzoo). I should also note the inspiration behind these two posts was a discussion at FOO Camp: Philosophy and Technology – Tim O’Reilly and Damon Horowitz.

The First Chapter

The first post on this topic hinged on the idea that transparency is necessary for public participation in journalism.

This Wikipedia quote puts it bluntly. The argument for transparency then isn’t ethical so much as practical. It’s a second order argument. The process of journalism must be transparent if we expect people to participate in a meaningful way. This assumes, however, that we want people to participate.

If we can reason that participation in journalism is ethical and transparency is necessary for participation to occur, it follows that there is an ethical argument for transparency.

Which means the next step is to examine the base of this syllogism: There is an ethical argument for participation in journalism.

The Goal of Journalism

What is the purpose or goal of journalism? In philosophy I might pose this as, what is journalism’s Telos — its purpose, aim, end and/or design.

The reason this question (and blog post) is important is that if you look at the current understanding of ethics in journalism you can see that it is more along the lines of a professional code than an ethical debate or analysis. Public accountability is mentioned in many of the existing code of ethics. As is the rightful dissemination of information to the public. But in almost all of these cannons of journalism the public is acted upon and is rarely an actor.

When I ask what is the goal of journalism I am not interested in the journalism industry or a journalism company. The goal for both of which would be the same for any industry (protecting itself as an economic good) or company (increasing revenue).

The tagline for my blog is “journalism is a process, not a product,” and that continues to be my rallying cry. Too often our ethics, ideas of success and end goals are determined by journalism as a product, industry or company. I am more interested in the process of journalism. What is the end goal for an act of journalism?

Now here I have to posit a question: If an act of journalism is committed but never published, is it an act of journalism?

Many people don’t know this, but I used to be a musician. I’ve actually recorded at least two albums. But I never promoted my work. So if a work of art is not shared, is it art? What is the distinction between art and hobby? Related: If an act of reporting occurs but is not shared, is it journalism? What is the distinction between journalism and journaling?

I ask this question because it gives me the platform to pose a possible end goal of journalism — to inform. Journalism, which is a tricky thing to define, is the process of collecting, filtering and distributing information that has meaning. One caveat of course is that the information is non-fiction (true and accurate).

If we take away the “distributing” of information we no longer have the process of journalism. It is the final step in the process because it is the final Telos of journalism — to inform our fellow human beings. Size of the audience aside, journalism is fundamentally a process of education. But when we look at the conversation about journalism, those two words are most often coupled around journalism education (journalism schools) and rarely about how the two endeavors are intimately tied.

Informing is Participatory


So the goal of journalism is to inform people about events in the world. This is fundamentally a social act and would remain the goal of journalism if we lived in a democracy, republic or any other kind of society.

Historically speaking, the “participation” of journalism consumers was to consume. That is a form of participation, but not necessarily the kind that I wan to justify. If it were, this blog post could have been much shorter: “We can justify transparency in journalism because people need to be able to read it!”

The kind of participation that I want to argue for is more engaging. Members of the public are not participating by the sheer act of be informed, but they are self-informing. It’s the difference between roads that make public transportation possible and roads that make all forms of transportation possible.

Why Individual Participation is Ethical

And herein lies the base of this whole thought process. It comes down to the individual. It is the individual, as part of a collective, that journalism seeks to inform. The individual should be actively participating in the dissemination of information for several reasons:

1. On a utilitarian level, they will become more informed and help inform more people. If the good of journalism is to inform, then letting more people participate will inform more people. Similarly, the mission of roads is to enable travel/transportation, not to safeguard public transportation. (There could be unintended consequences, of source, such as pollution.) The mission of journalism is to inform, not to safeguard journalism companies. A network has infinity more connections and that requires active participation and self-informed informants.

2. They have a moral right as an individual to participate to the extent that they do not hinder others from participating. (See individualism).

Anti-climactic?

So, to review:

  • Transparency is required for well-informed participation to happen.
  • Participation is needed because….
  • Journalism’s end goal is to inform other people.
  • More people participating in the process of journalism means more people being informed.
  • Combine this with individual rights and …

The journalism industry has a moral obligation to make the practices and processes of journalism more transparent so that the larger citizenry can participate.

Behind the lack of climax

Perhaps I could have shortened this blog post. I made every attempt to go step-by-step and lay out my line or reasoning.

Why?

Too often our discussion of participatory journalism, citizen journalism, etc takes an industry or company view. Either citizen journalism is good or bad because of its relationship to a bottom line.

Slighter better arguments are that participatory journalism is good/bad because of its quality (or lack of).

What I’m suggesting is that participation in the media is a net positive because of its intrinsic value.

Date: July 14th, 2010
Cate: Journalism Theory/Analysis
18 msgs

The Ethical Argument for Transparency in Journalism – Part I

If one can make an ethical argument for participation in journalism and that transparency is necessary for participation to occur, then it follows that there is an ethical argument for transparency.

For a long time I’ve had a post inside of me dying to get out. A few months ago I was invited to speak at the International Symposium of Journalism with Dan Gillmor, Ethan Zuckerman and Jan Schaffer. The presentation I gave is here. I got a great chuckle from the second and third slides.

International Symposium

But there was one slide which almost made me re-do the entire presentation. Because it struck me as something worth exploring. It was slide seventeen on “Transparency” seen below.
This quote comes from Wikipedia.

“For well-informed participation to occur, it is argued that some version of transparency, e.g. radical transparency, is necessary, but not sufficient.”

Perhaps it stood out to me because of the “necessary, but not sufficient” which flashed me back to logic class when I was a philosophy undergrad. For whatever reason – I dwelled on it.

I’ve dedicated the majority of my career to two things in this order: Increasing participation in journalism and increasing transparency in the process of journalism. Something I’ve zenned out on recently is how connected the two are and how we often treat them as mutually exclusive.

I’d argue that we need transparency in order for journalism to become more participatory. How can we expect people to participate in the process of journalism if that process is opaque? Only a fool dives into muddy water.

If one can make an ethical argument for participation in journalism and that transparency is necessary for well-informed participation to occur, then it follows that there is an ethical argument for transparency.

Which means the next topic should be “An Ethical Argument for Participation in Journalism.”

Now a confession: It’s late at night and I’m tired. In fact, the only reason I started this post is because I can’t sleep. Perhaps now that I’ve started this thread, I’ll count some ZZ’s. But you, dear reader, can help me. What is the ethical argument for participation in journalism as you see it?

Date: June 3rd, 2010
Cate: Uncategorized
3 msgs

What Is Your Startups Real Added Value?

I am a big supporter of anyone trying new things in journalism. I think my actions over the last several years speak to that. If you have an earnest drive to push boundaries in journalism and serve the public interest, consider me part of your team. Publish2.com, CoPress, NewsTrust, NewsWire21, The Public Press, and more are all projects I support and advise to various degrees.

With that disclaimer out of the way – there is something that has begun turning me off from wanting to advise media startups. Which is to say – the main piece of advice I’ll give them is to check their motivation. I tweeted that advice today and received some interesting responses. As a result  I thought it merited more explanation.

The Tweet: “I love journalism, but if you’re a new media startup your value proposition is NOT “saving journalism” – that is meta and only journos care.”

Why the Tweet?

I came across a new journalism venture that launched today. I won’t name or link to it – because I have nothing flattering to say. Aside from making obnoxious distinctions between “bloggers” and “journalists” it suffered a fatal flaw which I am starting to see way too often: Journalism for the sake of journalists.

First: I love journalism, the role it plays in our democracy and more. Again, I think my actions speak loud here. I’ve dedicated my career toward it – even in shaky times.

I don’t even mind journalism for the sake of journalism – ie: because it plays an important role in our society. This does smell of “eat your vegetables” journalism and it’s not my favorite attitude – but at least it’s food. But journalism for the sake of journalists – is wholly cannibalistic.

Admitted – journalists are a diaspora now. But journalism must remain relevant to the larger public – not just a wandering cult of scribes. Too often journalists can’t see the forest for the trees in our startups. We believe that because we are journalists and all our colleagues are journalists that everyone will see the value in the great site/product we are producing.

BZZZZZZZ (that’s a buzzer in a game show to signal the wrong answer). I think there are a few exceptions to this rule – startups like Publish2.com and NewsTilt which are building tools for journalists – but overall, the value of your startup can’t just be that journalists will benefit and like it.

Okay, so who/how do we appeal to a larger audience?

Let’s start by at least asking this question.

Journalists are typically pretty bad at asking ourselves what the public would want. When I talk with A.M. McReynolds I’m reminded that figuring out what people want is a process of discovery – not assumption.

Increasingly I find that people do care about journalism – they just don’t think of it as “journalism” that they are caring about – rather it’s their communities.

Take the connection between communities and small businesses.

“Rarely would people ever use these civic institutions as landmarks to describe my location. Even in Los Angeles, where I grew up, most people would name the Westside Pavilion (a mall) over the Federal Building (where my father protested during Vietnam) or the West LA Library, just a few blocks away from me.”

What people care about are communities – but they might not define them via civic institutions or journalistic frames.

One of the best moments of this for me was around this time last year when the Northern California Society for Professional Journalists held an emergency meeting at the SF Library when the Chronicle faced a potential collapse. I can’t find the SF Guardian article now but it started something like this

“Room full of journalists bemoan the future and fate of journalism, written up by every media outlet. Nobody cared.”

Journalism often faces a bit of a public relations problem. This is fitting seeing as how we have a distaste for PR flacks, but now – it’s become a problem. Some reporters who are starting up great new projects can’t seem to think about what the value proposition is beyond serving the needs and interests of other journalists. And while I am an advocate that anyone can be a journalist – that doesn’t mean everyone identifies themselves as such – certainly not on a daily basis.

Someone who I think does a great job of this is Eve Betty at SF Appeal. She and I certainly talk about media – but if you look at The Appeal, you’ll see that it isn’t a site for journalists. It just does….. journalism. Moreover, it’s the kind of content that regular folks might find… echem… ‘appealing.’ Same with Oakland Local (which requires another disclaimer – that I help them out when/where I can).

Okay – so that’s the rant. Last disclaimers/thoughts.

Of course I want to “save journalism” – who doesn’t. I just don’t believe that a startup with that mission will attract enough of the public to do it. Rather the mission statement will be to serve the public – or even “save the public” if I’m to be so bold. That is something people can relate to and get passionate about.

Also: Saving the journalism industry is very different from saving the process of journalism. The second doesn’t really need your help – it’s doing just fine. Consider then the implication when you say you want to “save journalism.” What you really mean is “you want to save the journalism industry” – a noble mission, but one we should be clear about and think about who that attracts.

Date: June 16th, 2009
Cate: Journalism Theory/Analysis
22 msgs

Should You Go To J-School?

I make every effort to be as open and available as possible. Occasionally I receive questions about how to start a nonprofit, advice on content management systems, etc and I make an effort to answer every single one.

It just so happens that the following question was sent just before I got on a plane. So this individual will get a long and detailed response. And because it is a question I get regularly, I will point people to this blog post in the future when they ask the ever popular question: “Should I go to graduate school for journalism?”

My Background: For undergrad I did a double major in philosophy and rhetoric at U.C. Berkeley. These were both useless unless I wanted to sell thoughts on the street. To get started in journalism straight from undergrad I did a little over one year as a “professional intern.”

If One Doesn’t Go to J-school?

If you are set on journalism and straight out of undergrad be prepared to do the year of professional internships. You will not be handed a job. This has nothing to do with the current state of things. Even ten years ago when profits were high, you wouldn’t have been handed an ideal job. Journalism is a craft and has an apprenticeship model. They say a fair percentage of students don’t get past the first year of law school. Well, think about whether or not you can get past the first year of internships in journalism. If you aren’t prepared to pay some dues and start at the bottom, then don’t start at all.

Getting some experience: After about 1.5 years of professional internships at various places I had a fairly steady gig at Wired. In fact, I suspect if I didn’t leave to go to J-school, I would still be at Wired (I hired my replacement, a friend, who has moved up the ranks and is still working there).

So, I’m confident I could have made it in journalism without getting my masters at Columbia. By no means is a graduate degree required. I repeat: BY NO MEANS IS IT REQUIRED.

So Why Did I Leave?

My gig at Wired was turning steady but I still felt stagnant. This is in part because I wanted to do more than tech journalism (the irony is that once I got to Columbia, I realized I LOVED tech reporting). I needed to start somewhere fresh where I wouldn’t have started as “David the Intern” but “David the guy who came from Wired.”

There were two amazing editors at Wired who, whether they knew it or not, have had a big influence on my career.

Marty Cortinas: Never went to J-school (if memory serves) and didn’t think it necessary by any stretch of the imagination. For him, it wasn’t – he continues to be a great editor. He advised me against it. (UPDATE: See comments. THANKS MARTY!!!!)

Kourosh Karimkhany: Had gone to Columbia and filled my brain with starry eyed visions of taking over the world. He would point back to his time at Columbia as origins for the business savvy he uses today in various jobs within Conde Naste. Journalism school was very fruitful for him and he recommended it.

Both were right.

So I left because I needed to get out of the Bay Area for a bit. I got a paid internship at Columbia Journalism Review and figured that was my “in” for J-school.

My Standard Line on J-school (here’s the meat of the post)

“I don’t regret having gone to J-school.” But I say that for the same reason one should never regret anything they do in life. I met lots of great people – folks who I can earnestly call my friends. I had the opportunity to write/report about things outside of technology. I lived in New York!!!

What I do regret is the student debt that I still have on my shoulders.

The reason J-school worked out for me: I was a part-time student and continued to work while I was a student. As a result my loans aren’t that bad, I paid some tuition out of pocket.  More importantly, I was WORKING the whole time. I got practical experience while I was in New York. And in truth – I learned more on the job than I did in J-school. And while my connections from Columbia are great (and some would argue the whole point of going to J-school is to make connections) I got more practical and meaningful connections while working. I got to work for folks like Jay Rosen on NewAssignment.net. Without a doubt, that helped bolster my young career.

If you can find a journalism program that has a part-time option. Take it!!! Be prepared to slog, sleep on couches in the student lounge, etc. But if you are young, it can be a wildly awesome ride.

A practical warning: J-schools are figuring themselves out right now.

I went to school at Columbia. I worked for Jay Rosen at NYU, Jeff Jarvis at CUNY and I consider Geneva Overholser at USC’s Annenberg program a colleague. I speak with journalism professors all the time. I know a thing or two about J-schools and one important footnote that I bet they’d be willing to admit is that their programs are in flux. From my perspective CUNY and USC are drastically pushing the envelope. I just found out that even Columbia, the flagship of J-schools, has an entrepreneurship class.

Which forces me to ask the question – what is the best way to learn entrepreneurship? Is it by taking a class or just by going out and being an entrepreneur? (There is a side question here about whether or not young reporters should learn how to report or learn how to be entrepreneurs and I think the answer is both, so the conversation becomes very nuanced at this point).

There is obvious benefit from taking time and really thinking about what one wants to do in the wide open space of online journalism. J-school gives you the space and time to screw up without it reflecting negatively on one’s career. if anything J-school provides a buffer space to screw up and get positive feedback rather than getting fired and burning a bridge.

So the Answer Is??

I would never prescribe anything for anyone I didn’t know personally. Sorry – this post is and may just remain a back and forth of the positive and the negative.

In that same vein I’ll add that there is no right/wrong answer here. That is the beauty of it all. J-school works out for some folks and it doesn’t for others. Whichever you pick you have to commit to it 100 percent. If you are on the fence and decide not to go – you can’t ever look back and say “if only I had gone to J-school, I’d be handed positions left and right.” That isn’t the case – and you have to be prepared to slog through some dirty internships before you reach dry land.

And if you do decide to slog through a year of J-school, don’t worry about the student loans (which is the major practical downside). You are young, lots of folks have student loans. My sister is a social worker with student loans. Much like journalists, social workers, teachers, chefs and other schooled jobs don’t make much money, so save the sob story. And if you do decide to go – don’t think that means you get to skip the slog of working in the real world. Even recent J-school students start at the bottom. I think there is a misconception that they hand out jobs at the end of J-school. I think 10 years ago this may have been true, but it isn’t right now, perhaps never will be again. The goal for when you come out of J-school is to start at the bottom, but be so refined and qualified that they’ll recognize how good you are quickly. Whereas others straight out of undergrad will be learning on the job – you’ll be showing off on the job. And there is real practical benefit to that in one’s career.

So that’s how I see it. Go forth and journalize.

Date: May 14th, 2009
Cate: Advertising/Business, Links and People
1 msg

Mark Briggs on his J-startup Serra Media

Mark Briggs, who I know through his great work at J-lab’s Journalism 2.0,  left his job at the News Tribune in Tacoma in October to build a startup Serra Media.

But you don’t have to take my word for it….. (a Reading Rainbow).

For those keeping tract – that is interview #108

« Older Entries