I'm most interested in what Jenkins has to say about the media being the "gatekeepers" of information. It's interesting that "over time, freedom of the press increasingly came to rest with those who could afford to buy printing presses" (268-9). What began as an "abstract right to participate in a democratic culture" (268) shifted to being invoked more by journalists than common people as the media defended their right to hand out information. While the freedom of the press is absolutely a cornerstone of our democracy, it's interesting to see the reaction of the gatekeepers as "the emergence of new media technlogies supports a democratic urge to allow more people to create and circulate media" (269). He states that "the media industries will not relinquish their stranglehold on culture without a fight" (255). In other words, the traditional media has been running the sandbox for a long time and aren't planning to make room for the new guys who are trying their hand at making sandcastles.
An example from the previous chapter is the polling data from the 2004 election, which news networks withheld but bloggers published; afterwards, irritated journalists "argue[d] that nonprofessionals should not be in the business of reporting or interpreting the news" (227). The media also object in other ways; months after the 2008 election, "Joe the Plumber" took a trip to Israel to do some on-site reporting for a website, and CNN's Kyra Phillips was practically apoplectic: "Oh, Lord, Joe the Plumber's got a new gig," she announced, followed later by asking, "Hey, Joe, what do you know? No, seriously, what do you know?" (Bates) And if that wasn't enough to tip off the general public that Kyra didn't approve of an average person doing on-the-scene reports, she added, "Just want to remind you that Joe the Plumber has no journalism experience" (Bates). Was her ire solely at Joe, or was she speaking to the wide range of average Joes and Janes who have taken the news into their own hands?
Was Kyra's reaction a fluke? Probably not, since Jenkins describes "a smirking Cooper" who, before the Democratic primary debate, "lectured the public about videos that did not belong on national television" (277-8). Such an approach didn't stop the public from seeing the videos that CNN didn't find appropriate, since "the thousands of posted videos drew significant traffic to YouTube prior to the debates" (287), and "afterwards, some who felt excluded or marginalized deployed YouTube as a platform to criticize the news network" (278). Does CNN have the right to decide what appears on its network? Absolutely. Can they control the public's reaction? Absolutely not.
It's totally understandable that journalists, who have put in the time and work to be educated in their field and land a job in a career they (presumably) love, are reluctant to share the spotlight with amateurs. However, the reality of the digital age is upon them, and for traditional media to ignore, brush aside, or outright ridicule citizens who are interested enough in the political process to actively participate online is to invite distrust and resentment against themselves. An adjustment for popular participation in the spread of information will have to be made.
Source: Bates, Mike. “CNN’s Kyra Phillips Unloads on Joe the Plumber.” NewsBusters. N.p., 7 Feb. 2011. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.
Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture. New York: New York U, 2006. Print.
I'm not surprised that professional journalists look down upon amateurs. But, ironically, it's often that these journalists don't know much themselves.
ReplyDeleteI'm pursuing a degree in Government in addition to Rhetoric, and one common complaint I've heard from my Government professors is that journalists, at least in America, are often unqualified to report on politics. Since they are only required to study journalism, and not history, economics or political theory, they often don't know what they should know about the Constitution, public policy, etc. This means that journalism often devolves into commentary, instead of mere reporting. What makes Keith Olbermann or Bill O'Reilly qualified to 'report' the news?
In my opinion, skepticism towards Joe the Plumber is justified, because his sole credential is the fact that McCain used him as a mascot in his campaign. However, I'm not entirely sure all amateur journalists deserve such scorn.
I tend to be skeptical towards amateur contributions in news, but I won't write them off completely. The sad state of journalism in this country can't be made much worse by amateurs who genuinely wish to report on the news.
That's a really good point; I don't have any basis (except for my own annoyance with them) for calling traditional media unqualified, so it's nice to hear it from someone who should know.
ReplyDeleteMy think about Joe is that if the media hadn't jumped on the story, he would have remained unknown-- McCain wouldn't have persisted in talking about him if it wasn't getting airtime. Reporters made Joe the icon that he was, but even during the campaign they were already maligning him-- as if this one guy who wasn't running for anything should have mattered that much, you know? The media did a Frankenstein thing by turning this ordinary guy into a celebrity, then couldn't shut him down.
But since reporters have been dismissive of bloggers and other amateurs thus far, I doubt that Kyra Phillips or anyone else in traditional media would have been happy even if an unknown person went to Israel to report for a website. The only difference is that the unknown would have (likely) been ignored altogether.
CBS: Katie Couric: English, focus on American Studies
ReplyDeleteNBC: Brian Williams: No college degree (BUT he has a very cool voice and he's got that classic handsome anchor look... but in all seriousness I think he's the best out of the 3 network anchors)
NBC: David Gregory: International Studies
ABC: Diane Sawyer: English, apparently studied some law as well
CNN: Anderson Cooper: Poli Sci and International Relations (as Jon Stewart noted recently, what a glorious head)
Anyways, Anthony's comment about incompetent journalists is something that I frequently hear myself, but it's not just simply an issue of journalism's pedagogy (which I agree is becoming far too professional-orientated). This boils down to that o-so classic conundrum of American society. The elites vs the common folk. Personally, I feel that ever since the nation sent the militarily-able and hugely popular Andrew Jackson to replace the crazy freaking smart John Quincy Adams, the common folk have more often than not won.
But this raises the question: was that a good thing? Strong arguments can be made for both sides, just as strong arguments can be made in the debate between "average joe" vs the professional journalist. Here's the thing that I find is the difference maker between journalists and the "average joe". I feel that professional journalists (at least the good ones) are able to delve into multiple issues (skilled generalists) whereas the "average joe" might only be able to cover a single issue (and at times perhaps more expertly than the journalist).
LOL @ "crazy freaking smart John Quincy Adams".
ReplyDeleteYou're right; we love our elite v everyday argument. And it seems to be rediscovered every 10 years or so, as if it has never happened before. Ha! Thank goodness for people who study history. We have more common folk than not, so yeah, the commoners are going to win a battle of our guy v. your guy.
I wonder if news reporting will evolve to journalism being a default dual-major field, with journalists being experts in a field who also just happen to know how to deliver the news, so they are ready when their expertise comes round?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Su (is that how you do that?)
ReplyDeleteI think journalists really need to work on becoming better generalists, which requires a lot more cross-disciplinary study (Couric's American studies is a good example). I don't expect journalists to be always intimate with subject matter knowledge and give mind-blowing analysis, but I do expect them to know how to ask the right questions and who to ask. I guess in other words, I would like to see more Renaissance men/women in journalism.
At a conference with college-aged students a few years back, we were hearing from an editor of a weekly magazine and he said, "How many of you are Journalism majors?" A few people raised their hands, and he proceeded to say, "Change your major. Today. Unless you're a senior, I guess." I thought that fit with your comments about the "traditional" journalists abhorring the upswing in a sort of common-man media. Because of your post, I looked up David Gregory and I now have a bone to pick with my mother. She's been telling me for years that he's so good because he's also a lawyer. Wikipedia says otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right to say that it's sort of "ready or not, here we come!" at this point. Luckily for more amiable reporters, they are ready. They have the fame that could get my amateur self some air time, or get my story or my picture or my pet issue some recognition. To me, it seems like, if journalists properly prepare themselves to take advantage of it, media by random individual could be just as rewarding for them.
@Chinchin: A great idea. But I wonder if it will play out that way. I'm sure a lot of people go into journalism intending to be generalists, not specialists, but if regular people without any particular expertise continue to push against mainstream media, what will the would-be professional have to do to keep ahead? Ideally, journalists should already be well-read and curious people, and I can only see that standard continuing to go up.
ReplyDelete@Jenna: Very true! After all, reporters have always had "man on the street" interviews, and the evening news has used non-professional viewer videos since the camcorder was invented. There are a lot more places to be than there are traditional journalists, so having input from multiple sources has to be helpful. (Although there's a point when it would go from "helpful" to "overwhelming"; imagine being the one who has to vet hundreds of videos sent in by viewers.)
Really good post! Things get really interesting when "legitimate" news entities have to turn to average citizens as their sources. The 2009 Iranian Revolution presented a fascinating case of this because it was such a huge news story but reporters simply didn't have access to the information they needed to legitimately present it... so they ended up turning to tweets and youtube videos and facebook posts for their sources while constantly qualifying the legitimacy of the news posts. It seemed as though CNN was the first to embrace the potential of "real people" covering news stories with their i-Report idea, but Jenkins also brings up the fact that skeptics say that their ability to involve themselves in the mediation of this content gives them the same gatekeeper status that we ask them to give up.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the "constantly qualifying" is to cover their backsides, or if it's to protect their status as the delivery mechanism of the news? Neither one is a particularly comforting thought, but I kind of hope it's the former instead of the latter. (I don't want to think the worst of them all the time!)
ReplyDeleteMy dad likes to tell us that news reports during Vietnam would usually end with the reporters saying, "None of this is official" or something along those lines to keep from getting flack from the suits for broadcasting something before the government put a stamp of approval on it. At least we've made progress since then.
I agree that some kind of change needs to be made in regards to the ability of the population to participate in the news process. I think that implementing a system of collective intelligence is a really good goal to strive for when it comes to the news/spread of information. I had no idea how limitedly qualified so many reporters were, so I have to wonder what would be so terrible about using collective intelligence to report the news, when there seem to be no experts anyway?
ReplyDelete