“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).
No comments:
Post a Comment