Dr. Mason Lecture: “The Rise of Mass-Media Puffery and the ‘Death’ of Literature in Georgian Britain”

      Nicholas Mason, an associate professor for the Department of English, presented a lecture titled, "The Rise of Mass-Media Puffery and the 'Death' of Literature in Georgian Britain" on March 24, 2011 in the Harold B. Lee Library auditorium.  This lecture discussed on how literature and advertising have been closely related.  His purpose was to inform us that "advertisers need to be more aware of what is happening in literature, and on the flip-side literature scholars need to be more aware of what is happening in communications."
      Dr. Mason lectured about how many people consider early British literature to be of great substance and that advertising has in lack of better terms, corrupted literature.  Literature being considered elitist and sophisticated while advertising as "anti-intellectual."  He then discussed on how literature and advertising have the same roots and had the same purposes.
      He started off by talking about puffery.  He went onto explain that puffery is an exaggerated praise (especially in advertising); it is a disguise/mask for news stories, reviews, and opinion pieces.  Literature and advertising goes way back to Georgian Britain.  Georgian Britain took place 1740-1830.  At this time, Britain was the most economically advanced Western nation.
      During Georgian Britain, much great literature was surfacing because literacy rates were rising.  In order for authors to get people to read their works, they had to get their friends to spread the word on how great their book was.  The spread of word by ear soon turned into authors writing promotional pieces to "advertise" their works.  Here we see the earliest form of literature and advertising merging.
      Dr. Mason then said that the 21st century hasn't changed its methods since Georgian Britain.  When we order items, especially books, textbooks, electronics, etc. there are reviews and product information contained under it.  What are the reviews like?  Whether it be a good product or not, the reviews portray the product to be this glamorous item that you are silly not to possess it.  Those reviews are written by a teams of editorialists.  Whether the product be a good one or not, they only care about selling and bringing in the Benjamins.  You see, how much different is this than back during Georgian Britain?
      Some of my thoughts when listening to the lecture is that we hear all the time, "oh, this book is a classic.  This is truly great literature."  I wonder how many classics are actually considered great literature.  Have we been brainwashed into reading inspiring works just because our professors and parents say those works are amazing when really it's a terrible work that for many years it's been passed down as a great piece of literature when really it's not that great of a read?  What is really considered great literature and what is phony literature due to advertising purposes?  Whenever I would read reviews or ratings on books, movies, etc. I was surprised to find out how many disappointed me with good ratings.  True, it could be my opinion but I feel that those works have good editorialists and good advertising agencies.

Journalism and Faith

        David Waters, producer of the On Faith Web site, said, “Religion is the most important topic out there.  It matters to nearly everyone, even to atheists and agnostics.  It affects nearly everything – from how we raise and educate our kids, to how we make and spend our money, to how we run corporations, communities, and even countries” (Willis 87).

Part of what makes us who we are is our belief or lack of belief in ideas or the world around us.  If anyone could single out what makes others truly different from others, stirs controversy, and prompts them to do an action, it is their beliefs, or specifically, religion.  Whatever religion you may be, the practice of worship and integrating a belief system into one’s life has been around for thousands of years.  Religion is one of the biggest factors that causes controversy as little as between 2 people or nations.  

Sally Quinn and John Meacham, reporters for On Faith, said, “Religion is the most pervasive yet least understood topic in global life.  From the caves of the Afghan-Pakistan border to the cul-de-sacs of the American Sunbelt, faith shapes and suffuses the way billions of people – Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and nonbelievers – think and act, vote and fight, love and, tragically, hate.  It is the most ancient of forces . . . And so, in a time of extremism . . . how can people engage in a conversation about faith and its implications in a way that sheds light rather than generates heat?” 

What’s even more interesting is that as big as religion is in everyone’s lives, whether they claim it be or not, it is hardly covered in the news.  Many journalists admit that religion is not covered as much as some of the other beats.  It’s become taboo among journalists because many of them don’t want to upset or offend their audiences.  However, every story that is covered involves religion even if it’s not mentioned.  Why stories are chosen or covered is supported by religious beliefs.  In fact, so much in our world is touched by religion.  If it affects everyone, why isn’t it covered more than other beats?  I bet religion and events that are backed by religion would be better understood if religion was officially covered.  It would solve many stereotypes, miscommunications, and bring in a bigger diversity of ideas.  

Bill Keller said, “I also endorse . . . that we cover religion more extensively, but I think the key to that is not to add more reporters who will write about religion as a beat.  I think the key is to be more alert to the role religion plays in many stories we cover, stories of politics and policy, national and local, stories of social trends and family life, stories of how we live.  This is important to us not because we want to appease believers or pander to conservatives, but because good journalism entails understanding more than just the neighborhood you grew up in.” 

No matter what religion you believe, or don’t believe in, our views have been shaped by religious practices.  Even those who claim that they aren’t religious, their ideas about how the world works are not new.  Everything has an origin.  After realizing that religion is not covered as extensively as other news, I too agree that religion should be covered more.  However, there are a few things that we need to keep in mind if news organizations decide to cover religious news.

Some recommendations that journalists and news organizations who have reported on religion have found that these techniques tend to be successful:

• Remember that context is the key to the complete reporting of a story.
• Distinguish between the group and the action.
• Consider a religion section.
• Accentuate religion close to home.
• Be balanced in terms of coverage.
• Reflect a newspaper’s region and country.
• Develop a means of obtaining advice and expertise about religion.

The Poynter Institute for Media Studies said, “All news is religious news.  That’s not a statement of faith or an assertion about the importance of religion to society.  Rather, it’s a lot like saying all news is political because there’s nothing that’s not touched by some politician’s interests or some piece of legislation.  Religion is the same way, with tendrils of connection to everything . . . The difference between political news and religion news is that most papers have a political or city hall reporter, but many don’t have someone dedicated to religion.  It’s not hard to imagine how that happened; it is a secular press, after all, and religion can seem a step removed from the practical world of sewers and subpoenas.  But it is not.” 

Journalism as a Public Forum

“Journalists must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 166). 

James Madison mentioned that the press would further democracy which has proven to be true as we have seen journalism evolve over the years.  The press should have a public forum so there can be many ideas and perspectives of the truth when debated against each other, we may reach a compromise.  A public forum allows others to present their ideas and debate opening new ideas and possibly truth regarding an event or an issue.  Journalism should hold public forums because debates will facilitate a marketplace of ideas.  Ideas that hold the truth will stay while those without verification will be lost.  That way, we can rely on marketplace of idea to sort out the truth, rather than journalists. 

 It is fair to say that call-in talk shows and other media outlets represent the extreme sides of issues in our world.  Presenting only the extremes of an issue often leaves out the middle where the majority of citizens reside.  Therefore, this is excluding the majority of America out of the big picture.  Many would consider these outlets a form of journalism.  While these can be used for journalistic purposes, they often fail reporting the news and focus on their opinions and their ideas.  If these outlets would like to be considered journalism, they need to establish the “same standards of truthfulness or allegiance to public interest as any other part of the profession” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 167).

Roles that journalists should fulfill while facilitating a public forum include:

·         Report with details of scheduled events

·         Disclose wrongdoing

·         Outline developing trends

·         Analyze issues and events

·         Provide context

·         Editorial comment (Columnists)

 “I’m very much inspired by this culture of people who believe that journalism should be about raising hell an intelligent way.  But I don’t mean throwing a brick at someone’s head and saying ‘Yeah, yeah, you’re a jerk.’  You should really be provoking people to think – challenging them to justify and defend their ideas, just as I have to justify and defend mine” (Jon Katz, interview by William Damon, Howard Gardner, and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, 1998).  Some of the most popular public discussions often fail to expand public discussion.  They focus on arousing others to heated conversations rather than compromise, compromise, compromise, which allows for a marketplace of ideas.  Take for example when Jon Stewart made an appearance on Crossfire.  He came on the show to criticize that they don’t allow for debate but they pin down winners and losers. 

There are so many media outlets that allow us to not only report the news, but also express our opinions.  Newspaper editorials became just one way of expressing one’s thoughts.  With an increase of technology use, there’s now social media, blogging, Wikipedia, talk radio and shows, and so much more.  With these new media outlets, information is faster and allows immediate audience feedback.  However, public debate forums have led into heated arguments trying to distinguish a winner and a loser with opinions rather than taking in many verified facts and weighing them against each other.  Journalists should allow public forums with ideas backed by the truth and verification.  That way, not only will the truth come out but many perspectives of the truth.  These flowing ideas will allow citizens better judgment on what to think rather than how to think.

“Unless the forum is based on a foundation of fact and context, the questions citizens will ask will become simply rhetorical.  The debate will cease to educate; it will only reinforce the prejudgments people arrive with.  The public will be less able to participate in solutions.  Public discourse will not be something we can learn from.  It will dissolve into noise, which the majority of the public will tune out.  The worry is not the wondrous addition of citizen media, but the decline of full-time, professional monitoring of powerful institutions” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 184).

Ethics

Journalists have an obligation to exercise their personal conscience (Kovach & Rosenstiel 231).

            Ethics, dating all the way back to ancient Greece, is the study of the rational way to decide what is good for individuals or society.  Ethics consists of our choices between competing moral principles (Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins).  A code of ethics can be found in literally all industries.  That code of ethics is what keeps businesses in business.  Journalism has a code of ethics as well but it “issues no profession-wide sanctions against violators of any of these ethical codes” (Willis 51). 

            So, why do journalists bother keeping a code of ethics if they, for lack of better terms, don’t get punished for violating them?  In fact, it is ethics that worries journalists the most.  They contemplate whether they have treated their sources with fairness and if any unnecessary harm was done.  Ethics are what keep journalists up late at night because fairness and balance is what journalists value the most.  Nonetheless, journalists voluntarily adhere to a code of ethics because in many lawsuits involving journalists, when attorneys prove that journalists violated the code of ethics, they lose credibility among audiences and their work is questioned due to honesty.  Many people have regarded journalists to unethical as a whole because if they violate their code of ethics, what else have they violated? 

            As journalists, it is important that we follow a code of ethics because we have a “responsibility to voice [our] personal conscience out loud and allow others around [us] to do so as well” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 231).

            Many news businesses have their own code of ethics such as The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times.  But the most dominant code of ethics, which has been incorporated in all journalist’s personal code of ethics, is the one set by the members of the Society of Professional Journalists (Society of Professional Journalists).  These include:

            Seek the Truth and Report It:  Journalists should be honest, fair, and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.  This is what journalists do every day as part of their duty to citizens.  Not only is it important that we seek the truth by verifying our sources and rechecking our facts, but also that we don’t fabricate our sources and our stories.  Also, allow a diversity of ideas in your stories. 

            Minimize Harm:  Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.  Journalists are humans and so they need to treat their sources as humans.  Journalists will be more in tune with their audiences and sources if they act with some humanity.  Acting with humanity and humility will allow trust between the listener and the news gatherer. 

            Act Independently:  Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.  Journalism was built on democracy and the public’s interest.  When journalists give their loyalties to lobbyists, organizations, and big companies, rather than presenting the news, there becomes a conflict of interest.  One does not present the news but advocates a private interest.

            Be Accountable:  Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.  Journalists serve an audience, widely referred to as the public.  What journalists put out there is what they consider to be of utmost importance so citizens can decide what to think about events happening around them.  Whatever they decide to publish, not only should they carefully analyze the effect that it will have on their audience, but also they must take the responsibility oh what happens after what they publish.

            It is important for journalists to have a personal code of ethics (a moral compass) and to use wise judgment when they gather and present the news.  Journalists will maintain their credibility and audiences can expect a trust between them and the journalists.  “Only in a newsroom in which all can bring their diverse viewpoints to bear will the news have any chance of accurately anticipating and reflecting the increasingly diverse perspectives and needs of American culture” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 231).

Watchdog Journalism

             “Investigative reporting’s roots were firmly established in the very first periodicals, in the earliest notions of the meaning of a free press and the First Amendment, and in the motivation of journalists throughout the profession’s history.  These roots are so strong, they form a fundamental principle:  journalists must serve as an independent monitor of power” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 140).  For many years, journalism’s role as a watchdog has furthered along democracy and freedom.  When journalism first started out, one of the largest roles it played was being a watchdog on those in power.  It was journalism that helped citizens discover that their leaders were abusing power and that they are not under absolute rule.

            There are 3 types of investigative reporting:  original, interpretative, and reporting on investigations.

            “Original investigative reporting involves reporters themselves uncovering and documenting activities that have been previously unknown to the public” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 145).  Original investigative reporting is similar to police work and official public investigations.  This involves searching through public records, doing undercover work, monitoring of activities, and much more.  Original investigative reporting uncovers information not gathered by others in order to inform the public of events or circumstances that might affect their lives.  An example of original investigative reporting is when Marcus Stern and Jerry Kammer of the San Diego Union-Tribune led an investigation about Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham.  Stern noticed some relationships between Cunningham’s travel and style of living.  Stern along with Kammer searched through campaign contributions from defense contractors.  There, they found financial exchanges that led to bribery.  This led to the resignation and criminal conviction charges of Cunningham (Marcus Stern, “Cunningham Defends Deal with Defense Firm’s Owner,” June 12, 2005).

 Interpretative investigative reporting is similar to original interpretative reporting in the fact that they both use the same methods of investigation but interpretative investigative reporting takes the interpretation to a different level. “Interpretative reporting develops as the result of careful thought and analysis of an idea as well as dogged pursuit of facts to bring together information in a new, more complete context that provides deeper public understanding” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 146).   An example of interpretative investigative reporting is when a team of reporters for the New York Times published a ten-part series about social class by taking demographic and socioeconomic data.   With their research, they published articles concluding that “class - defined as a combination of income, education, wealth and occupation – influences destiny in a society that likes to think of itself as a land of unbounded opportunity” (New York Times, “Class Matters – Social Class in the United States of America,” May-June 2005).

Reporting on investigations is reporting that “develops from the discovery or leak of information from an official investigation already under way or in preparation by others, usually government agencies” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 147).  In other words, it is a type of reporting that happens after an investigation takes place.  Information is then released through anonymous sources leaking information or discovery through the investigation.  An example of reporting of investigations is when Richard Jewell was assumed to have planted a bomb at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.  The information was leaked through anonymous leaks from police and FBI sources.  After the investigation, it proved to be false. 

While investigative reporting continues to be an integral part of journalism, the watchdog role has weakened over the years.  Investigative reporting started out revealing abuses of power in: education, economics, foreign affairs, the military, national security, politics, and social welfare.   Those areas affected the most people and it is where the majority of everyone’s money is spent.  However, a study in 1997 revealed that more than half the stories in investigative reporting now are focused on lifestyle, behavior, consumerism, health, or celebrity entertainment (Project for Excellence in Journalism, “Changing Definitions of News: A Look at the Mainstream Press over 20 Years,” March 6, 1998, 3). While most of the reporting seems to be original investigative work, it’s not.  In fact, most of it is “stunted.”  They come from TV news consultants who offer stations the scripts, the shots, the experts to the interview, or the interviews already on tape, staged to generate ratings for sweeps periods.  While shows like Dateline, 20/20, and 60 Minutes do provide some investigation in their shows, their purpose is entertainment and to do good programming. 

Here’s a link to a clip from Saturday Night Live doing a parody on Dateline.  Although it is poking fun at the show, it illustrates that those “investigative reporting” shows have focused more on good programming rather than being a watchdog and an independent power.

·         Journalism has been the watchdog for centuries with various methods of investigative reporting.

·         However, journalism’s role as a watchdog has continued to change over the years due to entertainment shows who claim to be doing investigative reporting. 

Journalist as a Ideologue

           An ideology is a set of ideas that constitutes one’s goals, expectations, and actions (Wikipedia).  Many journalists profess to live by this idea that they leave all of their personal beliefs at the work door.  Journalists will say that they don’t bring their ideologies into the work field but in reality their ideologies decide what stories to cover and how they are covered.  In fact, “journalists can no more disconnect themselves from their worldviews and value systems than can anyone else” (Willis 61).  I believe that journalists have more knowledge about what is going on in the world regardless of their beliefs compared to other citizens in the world.  However, journalists are editors to an extent because they have to decide for the world what to cover.  Everywhere has news but all of it goes through a filter of importance. 

In class, we did an activity where we were given a list of stories that we had to choose to broadcast if we were a news company.  We were divided into 4 groups.  As we heard the other groups, we choose some of the same stories and some were different.  What may seem important may not seem important to another person.  Should this be a serious problem?  I think not.  What proves to be more newsworthy are journalists selecting stories that fall under Herbert Gans’s enduring values rather than broadcasting the same stories as everyone else (Herbert Gans, Deciding What’s News [New York: Vantage, 1980]).  Stories that have these enduring values have qualities important to Americans which makes it ok if not all the same stories are covered.  Stories that tend to be newsworthy fall under these categories:

• Altruistic Democracy:  Stories about the government, especially when they make a horrible mistake, it becomes news because we rely heavily on our government to be trustworthy and responsible. 
• Responsible Capitalism:  Stories about businesses and businesspeople are important because money and the economy affect not only the country the people live in but other countries as well.  Money has a huge impact on people’s lives that it can change behavior.
• Order:  Crime stories tend to draw lots of attention because crime poses a threat to order. Crime is newsworthy because this country is built on order.  When there is chaos, we like to see justice triumph. 
• Moderatism:  It is said that America tends to be moderate on issues.  However, there are extremists from both ends and it is the extremists that are often heard more often than the moderates.  America favors being in the middle because the two extremes poses a threat, instills fear, and far from reality.
• Leadership:  Just like altruistic democracy and responsible capitalism, stories about important figure doing something out of the ordinary, whether it be good or bad, is of some interest to the people because they want to trust their leaders and feel safe.
• Small town Pastoralism:  Americans love the simple life despite their busy lives.  They believe that the agricultural community contains most of the goodness compared to the big cities where most of the corruption lies.  Events that affects the suburbs becomes big news because Americans believe most of the moderates and “good” people reside there and if there is a crisis, we feel empathetic. 
• Rugged Individualism:  Americans feel refreshed every time there is an individual or group who acts as the underdog, who would stand up for a greater cause. 

Not all of the news companies will cover the same stories.  However, journalists will tend to pick out stories that contain some of these values.  When they select stories that have these values, they become newsworthy and better serve the audiences they represent.

Independence & Journalism

            “Journalists must maintain independence from those they cover” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 118).  Journalists have biases and opinions.  It is impossible to not have an opinion about anything.  In fact it would be scary if no one had opinions in this world.  However, is there a point in journalism where personal opinions can be for lack of a better term, controlled?  Is there a way to report the news without letting your biases seep through your journalism? 

            Journalism is different than propaganda and activism.  Propaganda is shaping, manipulating, or changing a way a person should think or act about a particular idea, behavior, or event.  Activism is action that will or intends to bring change in a social, political, environmental, or economic way.  By most definitions, journalism reports the news while propaganda and activism promotes viewpoints.  It’s hard to not have any biases or opinions but journalists can avoid presenting propaganda or activism as news.  If journalists keep the core principles of journalism intact, they can avoid acting as propagandists and activists.  “The issue is in the nature of the work itself.  People should not become focused on the wrong thing . . . communication and journalism are not interchangeable terms.  Anyone can be a journalist.  Not everyone is” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 120). 

            Journalists not only have to keep an independence of mind but an independence from race, ethnicity, and gender.  In America, especially in the work field, we are encouraged to stress having diversity.  When people hear diversity, they think of race, gender, ethnicity, and economic status; focusing more on demographics.  Although those factors are included in diversity, they don’t completely shape our personal ideas and beliefs.  Rather it be our class, education, region, family, personal psychology, personal experiences, and religion that shape our personal ideas and beliefs.  “The argument, I believe, ignores and/or minimizes the influence of class, education, region, family, personal psychology and religion in shaping our personal ideas and beliefs. . . .Observable traits such as race and gender . . .serve as a proxy” (Peter Bell, at CCJ Forum, Ann Arbor, MI, February 2, 1998).

            In the journalism field rather than have a diversity of race, ethnicities, genders, and economic status, it is more important to have a diversity of ideas.  Simply by putting an African American, Asian, or physically handicapped person in the newsroom does not guarantee that you have diversity of ideas.   Journalism should not only cover the truth but many sides and views and beliefs to each story.  “You can determine revenue on the basis of demographics, but you can never determine content. . . .Far from hiring in the newsroom being an indicator of where diversity comes from, it’s knowing your audience, and to be truly interested in your audience from the top to the bottom, from the left to the right, and from all economic levels” (John Hockenberry, at CCJ Forum, Ann Arbor, MI, February 2, 1998).

            In journalism, it’s important that we keep an independence of mind.  Yes it’s hard to suppress our opinions but it’s possible to steer away from propaganda and activism.  We should embrace our beliefs but not promote them to our audiences.  Along with embracing our opinions, the news business needs diversity in ideas.  With diverse ideas, it creates better journalism so the people know what to think rather than how to think about the news.