Walter In Denver

Fred Brown Doesn't Get It

Semi-retired Denver Post columnist Fred Brown's latest, with my comments:

American journalism began as a means of political communication. The first newspapers had decidedly partisan points of view. There were Whig newspapers, Royalist newspapers, conservative and liberal newspapers (in the context of the times).

That changed. The news media decided that serious, responsible journalism required accuracy, fairness and independence above all. And they worked hard to achieve those ideals. But after a long 20th century romance with independence and objectivity, journalism seems to be returning to its partisan roots.

If by beginning, he means several decades ongoing, he's right. Maybe the 20th century was shorter than I thought.

The mainstream media still cling to the ideals of objective, fair and balanced reporting, even when their critics maintain their reporting is anything but.

But now, in the early days of the 21st century, the world is awash in information and media resources.

Shame about all that information and those media resources. It's getting easier all the time to judge how the media are living up to Mr. Brown's claim of media ideals.

There are mainstream newspapers, "alternative" newspapers, newsmagazines, literary magazines, network newscasts, 24-hour cable newscasts and - the latest, edgiest and often most controversial entry into the information mix - Internet sources, including a growing number of Web logs.

Many of them have definite points of view. It's easy for an information seeker to find a source that confirms his or her preconceived view of the world.

Bringing up the question, what's a better source, a blogger wearing his biases on his sleeve or a journalist desperately trying to conceal his?

This raises an issue that has been the subject of much discussion in the ranks of journalism lately.

And a major question in journalism these days is this: who is a journalist?

Web logs - "blogs" - and the people who produce them - "bloggers" - have changed journalism. They are widely credited - or blamed, depending on your politics - for exposing the shoddy reporting that cost Dan Rather his anchor job.

There are blogs on the left as well as on the right. Many of them are heavily into conspiracy theories. Mainstream media have begun to assign people to read them and report on them. Some mainstream media also are encouraging their staffers to write them.

But should they be considered serious journalism? Do bloggers deserve the same protections mainstream journalists have? There's no licensing of journalists in this country. But there are cultural standards such as a commitment to accuracy and fairness. And there are a few laws, too, such as those that protect the confidentiality of a journalist's sources. Can a blogger have those protections without that commitment? And who decides?

As an old fashioned liberal I tend to dislike dividing citizens by class. I like equal protection under the law, and all that rot. And how's this for a conspiracy theory: Some professional journalists dislike competition from amateurs.

As an old foop, I don't read many blogs. I've found a couple by people who seem to know what they're talking about. But there's a lot of uniformed opinion, rumor and otherwise inaccurate drivel out there, too.

Which is different from your newspaper in what way?

Sure, blogs provide a free and unfettered marketplace of ideas. Libertarians and Darwinists will argue that this eventually produces dominance by the best of the species - good journalism. But there's also a danger that it creates fragmentation. People no longer need to expose themselves to the diversity of ideas provided by old-line, mainstream journalism, with its outmoded ideals of diversity and fairness.

Diversity not to include sources of information. It seems you have to go to journalism school to argue against yourself in a single short paragraph.

They have a multitude of choices before them. They can choose only those information purveyors they agree with, instead of those sources that expose them to a variety of viewpoints. They can find affirmation, not information.

This isn't a good trend. It's bad for informed decision-making. It's bad for the serious, mainstream media. It's bad for self-governance.

They can also choose to read diverse points of view, which is good, I think. But hey, I don't work for a newspaper.

Last month, longtime ABC correspondent Sam Donaldson spoke at the University of Denver's School of Communication Summit. Addressing the proliferation of information sources, Donaldson said this, or something close to it:

"Everyone is entitled to his opinion. But he's not entitled to his own set of facts."

That's how mainstream journalism will survive - by providing facts - reliable, accurate, credible facts, the information responsible citizens need to make informed decisions. That is the role and duty of a free press.

I have to note the irony - Sam Donaldson and I attended the same journalism school. (Go Miners!)

Mr. Brown credits blogs with changing journalism, and notes that facts are journalism's salvation. He seems to have missed the obvious connection - blogs can, and sometimes have, kept mainstream journalists honest.

I don't want to overstate the case, but as Mr. Brown complains that blog readers can choose their biases in information sources, he ignores that every journalist has the same problem. The reason journalists should be reading blogs is for the diversity of opinion. They will be better journalists for it.

Posted by Walter at April 11, 2005 10:31 PM