Why Journalism Still Matters is a collection of articles that reflects on the value and importance of journalism to western democratic systems. As the book’s introduction indicates, these are thoughts that the author, Michael Schudson, has pondered during his long academic career covering fields such as journalism history, media sociology, political communication, and public culture. His voice is polyphonic, as he approaches today’s journalism problems from different perspectives (professional, sociological and political), a fact that greatly enriches the ideas he offers us. Michael Schudson is currently Professor of Journalism at the graduate school of journalism at Columbia University, and author of a dozen monographs, among which are The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life (1998), The Sociology of News (2003, 2011) and The Rise of the Right to Know (2015), already reviewed in this journal in Volume 2, Issue 1.
The book is composed of 11 chapters (most of them already published as articles) and divided into four parts: ‘Where Journalism Came From’, ‘Going Deeper into Contemporary Journalism’, ‘Short Takes on Journalism and Democracy’ and an Afterward. Right from the introduction Schudson proposes that journalism matters more than ever today. Not all journalism is the same. He argues that the journalism that matters is professional journalism, which he defines, according to Hallin, as that in which reporters are committed more strongly to the norms of the profession than to political ideas (1).
In the first part, Schudson makes a historical review of the practice of journalism that was born with the Enlightenment. Journalism is neither eternal nor consubstantial to man: it is born when certain circumstances are present, which are precisely those that make democracy possible. The need for good professional formation for journalists is argued from the starting point of a fictional interview with the ‘spirit’ of Walter Lippman (1889–1974), a theorist admired by the author. In this first part the author also explains how the development of journalism is linked to its process of professionalization, which began in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with the emergence of full-time journalists.
From 1920 onwards, began what he calls the stage of Objectivity 1.0, when the development of the press allowed it to influence political activity and, simultaneously, to develop propaganda and public relations, trying to influence newspapers. The term ‘objective’ begins to be used, as the ideal to be achieved by the newspapers, which reaches its maximum brilliance in the 1950s and 1960s. Then, social riots, linked to a culture of protest and mistrust of the ruling classes, gave rise to an investigative, analytical, critical, more aggressive and less conformist journalism. Journalism began to pay more attention to the context than to the facts—precisely in order to understand the facts well—giving rise to objectivity 2.0. According to Schudson we may be entering a phase of objectivity 3.0, which is characterized by a total fidelity of journalists to the story they are telling, even if they do not like the conclusions they draw, which reflects a capacity to place themselves in the shoes of the people they are reporting on. After all, Schudson considers that Objectivity ‘is a discipline of not expressing, of setting self-expression temporarily aside. It is a form of tact, and tact is a form of empathy’ (67).
But, didn’t this fidelity to show a story with total fidelity already exist in the journalism of a century ago? Wasn’t the five W’s rule for achieving objectivity 3.0 reached for this purpose? I think it is strange to judge objectivity by the absence of one’s own judgment regarding the facts shown, because telling a story necessarily involves personal judgment, in the selection of one piece of information that is considered relevant and discarding another. And also because there may be news that cannot be told without making statements. I am thinking, for example, of Vasily Grossman’s masterful report about the discovery of the Treblinka extermination camp in which he expresses his horror and condemnation. An aseptic chronicle without empathy for the victims and the horror experienced there would have been a bad chronicle. Sometimes objectivity may require a bit of subjectivity in the journalist.
In the second part of the book, ‘Going deeper into Contemporary Journalism’, he addresses some of the debates surrounding the current exercise of journalism. In my opinion this is the best part of the book, as it addresses four of the most burning issues in journalism today: how’s developing independent journalism is developing, fake news phenomenon, the multiplication of the journalistic forms in our society or the evolution of the profession in these times of crisis and changes.
Once again, Schudson offers thought-provoking ideas regarding these issues but he also opens up some new questions in the course of his considerations. For instance, by the time he recognizes that absolute independence does not exist in journalism he claims for protection of journalism from becoming a prisoner of its corporate reality or being swallowed up by spheres of power such as politics or pressure groups. Likewise, in its desire for independence, it must also avoid being tied to its own routines and ethics so that it ends up seeing the reality of things through narrow points of view. But, what does this mean exactly? Schudson assures that journalism should not be ‘a platform for a set of individual thinkers and explorers in search of truth, but a collective enterprise of energetic, informed, and curious communicators who try to keep a society attuned to itself and its environment’ (78). But it would be helpful to clarify this last idea a little more, since independence is not incompatible with being attached to certain routines and rules that may guarantee precisely independence. If not, the risk is to point to an unrealistic, abstract and useless independence.
Another interesting point in this part is the idea of how the readjustments the profession is undergoing—with newsroom closures, layoffs and advertising crises—do not pose a threat to the survival of independent journalism or to democracy, although it may seem contradictory. According to Schudson, in many ways journalism today is of better quality than it was a few years ago. On one hand, digital media makes it much easier to find and manage information and to disseminate news more quickly and widely. On the other hand, there is greater cooperation between journalists around the world with ‘independent’ organizations to bring controversial issues to light, as happened with the Panama Papers. In this sense, the expert alludes to the existence of a Happy Tune that journalists can whistle despite all the difficulties. Digital journalism offers undeniable risks but also undeniable advantages over the past. Indeed, technology offers more resources to contrast information, to verify sources and to avoid misleading or poor quality journalism, but the reality is that there is much more confusion today than ever before, motivated in part by the enormous multiplication of news that impacts us continuously. The growing speed and the enormous competition that exists between the media, linked to the need to obtain ‘clicks’ for advertising, does not exactly help to improve the quality of the media, but quite the opposite. Therefore, where the author presents advantages, many other disadvantages can be claimed as well.
In the third part of the book, Schudson takes the opportunity to address some ideas about the relationship between journalism and democracy. First, he reflects on the role of the American citizen, from the beginnings of the United States to the present day. He uses a bold comparison to characterize the evolution of American citizenship according to the members of the Simpson family, the popular cartoon series. In the beginning there was the Marge Simpson Era (1789–1820s) typified by an elitist and correct citizen immersed in a society dominated by an elite. Then came the Homer Simpson Era (1820s–1890s) with the emergence of political parties that brought together enthusiastic followers more interested in the success of the political party than in the ideas they defended. Later came the Lisa Simpson Era (1890s–1920s) where the demands of the civic movements revealed a new citizen who was more informed due to less partisan newspapers, and more concerned with political programs than with parties. Disappointment and disillusionment in the system led, from 1950s onwards, to an irreverent citizen who defined the Bart Simpson Era. Finally, Maggie Simpson represents the future, a new era that will be heavily conditioned by digital media but not determined by it. According to the author, the eruption of a technology has never determined the course of history, since these it responds to factors that are inherited from the past, although technology can accelerate change. It’s a nice comparison, though perhaps a little artificial. In any case, it serves to help understand the evolution of the American voter.
After this comparison, Schudson discusses the influence that journalism has over the democratic system, describing the roles it takes on. For the author, it is not a contradiction that a journalist should define himself as independent from political life–and at the same time be aware that there is no other institution as essential to democracy as journalism. But it so happens that the limits are not so clear and sometimes journalism takes on political roles, as it has done since the second half of the twentieth century. ‘Journalists wear political hats. They do so sometimes avowedly (in editorials or opinion columns or as their principal objective in advocacy publications), sometimes under extreme situations that make them uncomfortable (in negotiating with the government to sometimes withhold information from the public to protect national security), sometimes as insiders or people very close to insiders in ways that they prefer not to discuss (except perhaps in memoirs), and sometimes in the course of trying to provide fair-minded and thoughtful leadership in reforming reportorial conventions to adapt to changing social norms and values, either a step behind or a step ahead of public opinion’ (166). This is an honest description of the role—not easy at times—of the journalist, who has to deal with very complex situations and shoulder no small responsibility to society. In this sense, these reflections connect in a particular way with the last chapter of this third part, in which Schudson concludes by showing how democracy, in its exercise, follows necessarily slow paths. This is a particularly interesting reflection because the acceleration of processes brought by technology and the anxiety of desiring immediate results damages the quality of democracies.
During the fourth and final part of the book, the author responds to the criticisms made to some of his observations, especially those shown on his book Why Democracies Need an Unlovable Press, which appeared in a special issue of Journalism Studies (2017, vol. 18 [10]). This is a slightly disconnected part of the book’s main line of argument, and it seems that the author has wanted to take advantage of the occasion to keep up with the recent criticisms made of him. Even so, it is an interesting statement, as it is thought-provoking. There is no need to mention the criticisms here, except for the accusation of being excessively optimistic and utopian in his vision of what journalism can do for democracy. He does not deny that reality tends to present itself with a stern face, but he is a teacher and, as he says, ‘any teacher has an obligation to be optimistic and to believe the next generation can accomplish great things, greater than we can yet even imagine’ (193). According to his conclusive words, ‘I aspire to an optimism of spirit, but only paired with realism of assessment’ (194.)
Overall, Why Journalism Still Matters is a book that argues convincingly for the importance of professional journalism to our democracies. It is written at a time when both institutions seem to be in disrepute because of attacks from various fronts (economic crisis, media closures, professional intrusion, proliferation of false news, lack of objectivity, hidden interests, etc.). Schudson’s book tries to show why professional journalism is more necessary today than ever. Perhaps this set of articles is the prelude to a new book offering a more complete and structured response, uniting these reflections in a single essay, as a colophon to all that has been commented. At the same time, the suggestion might be made to focus more on journalists than on the profession, because in these times of social networks, of direct interpersonal communication and direct interaction with users, the reader relies more on trusted voices than on one form of media another. After all, isn’t it true that what really still matters—more than journalim—are journalists?
School of Communications, The Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome, Italy
[email protected]