Journalist and novelist Tom Rosenstiel put forth a controversial claim in a recent Poynter op-ed: "For a host of reasons, journalists today understand less of the truth about the people they’re covering."
Rosenstiel, the president of the American Press Institute, cites a number of reasons for what he says is a subtle shift. That includes technological advances in the late 1980s that allowed more journalists to report live on the scene of breaking news. Though that meant more news coverage, it also meant that investigators and other officials had a harder time developing trust with a few experienced journalists. Newer reporters complained about uneven access when they got scooped, so it was just easier for public officials to mandate that all reporters had the same access.
"More outlets covering the news had the ironic effect of shifting power away from journalists toward newsmakers. It was simple economic theory at work: More outlets competing for stories made it 'a sellers' market' for information," Rosenstiel writes. "Sources, rather than journalists, were more able to dictate the terms of the sale, cherry-picking friendly outlets and angles (Trump and his Fox and friends)."
And, with the rise of social media, newsmakers can get content to their audience without the news media. "The press is no longer a gatekeeper over what the public knows — the classic definition of the media. It is now instead often an annotator of what the public has already heard," Rosenstiel writes. "This annotator’s role is powerful and important. It forces journalists to away from being gullible stenographers and emphasizes verification and proof. Trump in many ways, ironically, has made the press more disciplined, more careful and more transparent. I love stories that note the reporting is based on interviews with 27 officials in the West Wing speaking anonymously."
Read more here: https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2019/do-journalists-know-less-than-they-used-to/
Rosenstiel, the president of the American Press Institute, cites a number of reasons for what he says is a subtle shift. That includes technological advances in the late 1980s that allowed more journalists to report live on the scene of breaking news. Though that meant more news coverage, it also meant that investigators and other officials had a harder time developing trust with a few experienced journalists. Newer reporters complained about uneven access when they got scooped, so it was just easier for public officials to mandate that all reporters had the same access.
"More outlets covering the news had the ironic effect of shifting power away from journalists toward newsmakers. It was simple economic theory at work: More outlets competing for stories made it 'a sellers' market' for information," Rosenstiel writes. "Sources, rather than journalists, were more able to dictate the terms of the sale, cherry-picking friendly outlets and angles (Trump and his Fox and friends)."
And, with the rise of social media, newsmakers can get content to their audience without the news media. "The press is no longer a gatekeeper over what the public knows — the classic definition of the media. It is now instead often an annotator of what the public has already heard," Rosenstiel writes. "This annotator’s role is powerful and important. It forces journalists to away from being gullible stenographers and emphasizes verification and proof. Trump in many ways, ironically, has made the press more disciplined, more careful and more transparent. I love stories that note the reporting is based on interviews with 27 officials in the West Wing speaking anonymously."
Read more here: https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2019/do-journalists-know-less-than-they-used-to/
No comments:
Post a Comment