Trusting a watchdog
Walter Williams
“I believe in the profession of journalism … I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service is a betrayal of this trust.”
So begins “The Journalist’s Creed,” written in 1914 by Walter Williams, who six years earlier had founded the nation’s first college school of journalism at the University of Missouri. These were the politically rambunctious years of the Progressive Era, when newspapers were the main news source. Too many of them were scandal sheets with sensational coverage dubbed “Yellow Journalism.”
Mr. Williams and some others, including Joseph Pulitzer, founder of the Post-Dispatch, whose Platform written in 1907 is published daily on this page, expounded eloquently on the need to redefine the role of newspapers. They saw journalism’s role as holding accountable institutions and people who had subverted the public trust to amass wealth and influence.
But now, nearly 100 years later, amid an ever-changing smorgasbord of news media, what is the proper role of the professional journalist?
At a community forum in St. Louis last Wednesday, the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute at the University of Missouri posed this question to journalists and non-journalists: “In the 21st century can public-service journalism survive? Is it time to renew the Journalist’s Creed?”
Technology now has altered how and when professional news organizations deliver news and information. But the change is more than newspaper reporters recording video and audio or columnists who blog or file real-time online messages in short bursts on Twitter. Such change was unimaginable in the Progressive Era when newspapers stood alone as the juggernaut that determined what was the news of the day.
So, what is journalism today? Who is today’s journalist? Is it a blogger working in his den? A radio talk-show host? A late-night comedian? An author of an online book?
Opinions at the forum varied about whether newspapers and local broadcast news provide enough quality watchdog journalism and whether the execution or motivation of the journalists always are as sanctified at the creed pronounces. But those at the forum agreed that the professional media are obliged to ask tough questions and look out for the average guy.
St. Charles County Executive Steve Ehlmann astutely asked the audience to ponder this question: If newspapers survived the advent of radio news and later television news, why won’t they again evolve to the competition?
Professional journalists cross their fingers that their companies are adapting successfully into a full-fledged media world. People are changing their lifestyles and daily habits in most facets of life, not just in getting the news. They use “smart” phones, laptop computers and gadgets with multiple purposes. News consumption is one part of a huge technological sea change.
Adam Hosp, an online developer and Web entrepreneur, talked about how he gathers large amounts of information through the Internet without a printed newspaper. But he also talked about how the professional media are a fountain of credible information from which many other forms of online interaction flow.
Newspaper and media companies already were transforming in the digital age. Then a relentless recession blanketed the country to compound their challenges. Even though second daily newspapers in a few large U.S. markets closed recently, newspaper companies will continue to provide their essential function of making an increasingly complex world more accountable.
Some people think the news media act crazily or annoyingly or get things wrong and miss the boat at times. They’re right; sometimes they do. But the St. Louis audience was clear: They want professional journalists to hold onto their moorings and continue the public watchdog role. The audience told us: If you don’t do it, who will?
Gilbert Bailon has been editor of the P-D editorial pages since November 2007. Previously, he worked as a reporter, editor and executive editor for The Dallas Morning News and its daily Spanish-language newspaper, Al Dia. He still harbors a passion for all things Tex-Mex: food, music, language, boots and border culture. And yes he has found some of that in the Midwest. 
It is absolutely true that professional journalists have the time and ink to do a tremendous public service. Unfortunately, some journalists today are wedded to extreme partisanship that draws them away from meaningful journalism, while emptying the reservoir of credibility filled up by the thousands of hard working journalists who came before them.
Mr. B, another “hot post. Actually, I was sorry I had to miss this exciting forum. How thrilling it would have been to be in the same room as PD journalists and their like kind. I am sure you all lauded one anyone.
Coincidentilly, I had my dictionary open as I was looking up the word “journalism” over the weekend, wondering if perhaps I misunderstood the definition. My dictionary said, ” writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts without an attempt at interpretation.” So according to my definition, the PD editorial writers are not journalists. I had always thought professional journalists wre supposed to be objective and non-partisan. Time to start looking for some real talent and professional journalists at the PD if you intend to stay relevant in the new world of 24/7 news.
Every day I wonder if the PD is going to ask any questions of Lacy Clay or Barnie Frank about their participation in the Freddie Mac bank failure which led to the economy’s failure. If any real journalists still existed, they would be out of jobs by now. But unfortunately, the press is in bed with the Democrats and let them get away with murder, including that slimebad Murtha getting his PNA earmarks and that investigation too will be dropped.
I haven’t seen any journalism in Missouri, Illinois, or Indiana in the ten years I have been here. There is an over abundance editorial writers, they range from newbies with their first job to editors who should retire.
I would be stunned if someone wrote a news article stating facts and not giving an opinion
Journalism as a profession is dead. Newspapers will go the way of the dinosaur for the reasons I have stated, and those who preceded me.
It would be easy to say journalism has itself to blame. There is plenty of blame for sure, but even if today’s version of journalism, whether that means playing it straight, or a more activist public service variety, were universally viewed as totally objective, newspapers would still be in trouble.
The internet is different than radio, which was more instant than print and TV, which was more visual. the internet is all that and more. While newspapers siezed on the opportunities to own TV and Radio stations (Remember the Post used to own KSD and Channel 5), they have had much less luck owning the internet. While TV and Radio offered news on the hour, or at six and ten, they were no threat to the great papers of the past. The internet is someting else. It never sleeps. The National anthem is never followed by all-night, off-the-air snow, it runs full speed and never stops. As I’ve written before, the interet has a symbiotic relationship with the print media. Most of the stuff that runs on the internet originates from print reporters. As papers close, it remains to be seen if the internet will then have to start hiring reporters, or if the news will be submitted by bloggers, unvetted.
I’ve talked with many reporters who vehemently claim there is no bias. I was a reporter for three years and no one ever told me how to report (although a certain Station Manager, who had a Ph.D. in English had strong opinions about my writing skills). However, having worked both sides of the fence, I can say I believe the bias is there today. It can be subtle and maybe not even done consciously. You can be objective pointing out corruptions in one party, but ignore the same story when it happens to the other party. It isn’t just being objective in what you write, it is also being objective in what you cover. The story that ran may be objective. The story that didn’t cheats the readers. You can do it by always identifying conservatives as “right wing” but never calling liberals called “left wing”. There are many ways it happens. This perception is not the result of some vast right wing conspiracy, it is real and it is unfortunate because newspapers need all the support they can get right now. Far too many readers have this opinion to muster enough support for the public support being shopped around by Nancy Pelosi.
No, government support is not the answer. News has always thrived as the result of entrepreneurs. Pulitzer, Hearst, the fictional Gail Wynand who embodied all of them and we don’t see that today. The news is run by newsmen who may know the smell of an alderman with his hand in the taxpayers’ packet, but probably wouldn’t know a new business model if it bit him in the butt. Somewhere out there, that guy has the big idea. We need to hear from him soon.
jjk - excellent comment - you hit the nail on the head. Funny how the PD isn’t covering Pelosi wanting newspapers to get govenment bail-out money. Can you imagine if a GOP majority leader had said this under Bush? What a double standard the press is. Talk about ending a so-called “free press” (which I think ended with the election of Obama). And at the same time, Democrats want to silence free speech on talk radio. These Democrats in Congress are astonishingly brazen. It seems everyday we get closer and closer to Cuba-Venezulian-style of Commi government.
Once again I find myself doing the work of th PD:
http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2009/03/suddenly-pelosi-is-a-total-fan-of-the-free-market-if-it-will-keep-leftleaning-newspapers-alive.html
This ran today in Politico. It is about a secret, off-the-record group of influential, liberal “journalists” who meet in secret to discuss stories. According to the article, they have no “general agreement on anything” other than “the stupidity of the GOP”. Starting from that viewpoint, it is hard for me to see how these members of “JouroList” can seriously call themselves anything but opinion writers. I challenge the Post to denounce this closed-door, secret group and to reveal whether any of its reporters are members. For a paper which demands openness in government, it seems sunshine would also be a great disinfecant in news coverage, too.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20086.html
jjk - Denounce it! Heck, the PD editorial staff probably run it. I am a firm believer that the PD only “reports” stories that have been approved and sent to them by the DNC. It became ever more apparent during the 2008 election. You couldn’t find a negative story in the PD about BO to save your life.
What is really funny now, jjk, as you pointed out, the PD is still on Blunt’s emails. And if you watch either David Schuster or Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, all they talk about is Bush and the Bush administration without so much as acknowledging the idiots in the White House now. This whole crisis is somehow connected to Hank Paulsen (a Dem) who is associated with George Soros and a hedgefund. Just follow the money on this folks. If we ever get any real journalists in this country, the truth is eventually going to come out how all these people in government and Wall Street are connected. You mark my words.
Gee, yappers, is the sky in your world green and there are two suns?
If you can’t compete, you die. We’ve seen many dailies go.
But, as for you, you seem timelessly clueless except to your own internal rants against “the machine” which somehow upset you in your infancy and from which you now demand your share of your mother’s milk. It’s only this way you can claim the Obama tax cuts for 98% of taxpayers is a “tax increase,” “socialism,” “Commi.”
Beg your mothers’ forgiveness, move on, start your own outlet and see if you can compete in the marketplace of ideas rather than in your peculiar abilities to see that your too frequent yappings are queued up in the first 10 slots after any post on these pages.
http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/03/07/why-is-a-tax-cut-for-98-of-americans-being-attacked-as-a-tax-hike/
Free America! Vote Democratic!
A recent story in the WSJ clearly reported if you take all the INCOME of those making over $500k you cannot fund the Obama plan. The middle class is going to pay and pay and pay. The cap and tax proposal Obama is trying to sneak into the budget without debate will increase the average family’s energy bill betwee $800 and $1200 a year with the dough going to the government. In most books that is a tax. Obama now says he’s open to taxing your health coverage. That is a new tax. So, the plain fact is there are not enough “rich” to soak. If you support paying it, great, because that is what you are going to do.