I was lucky enough to attend a session of the American Society of News Editors’ “Ethics and Values Forum,” held this week at the Reynolds Journalism Institute here in Columbia. The forum, moderated by the Poynter’s Institute’s Kelly McBride and Bob Steele, summarized what had been discussed during the previous day’s panels. (As a disclaimer, I missed those panels, so I may have processed what I heard out of context)
I wanted to share some ideas I heard at the panel, as well as hear your responses to my initial reaction to them.
The Fifth Estate
Most journalists know their profession is commonly called the “4th Estate,” so named by those who consider it as important to U.S. democracy as the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government (the other three “estates”). According to the panel – I believe McBride mentioned it – the bloggers, Tweeters, and at-large pundits online world constitute a “5th estate.”
At the moment, McBride said, most of the 5th Estate takes content from the 4th Estate, but provides little in return. The 5th Estate’s behavior is killing the 4th, in the form the 4th’s decreasing volume of original reporting. The 5th Estate will flounder if the 4th dies, McBride said, but, more importantly, democracy will not survive if the 4th Estate dies and the 5th lives.
Claiming democracy will perish if the press – as we understand it today – fades away is bold. I’m inclined to distrust the idea on its grand nature alone.
The panelists themselves seemed to discount the idea when they highlighted Talking Points Memo as an example of an organization migrating from the 5th to 4th estate. It may take time for similar sites to emerge, of course, and that gap is scary.
On a minor note, I’m not sure the term “5th Estate” makes sense. If the 4th Estate is named because its importance to democracy, do we wish to similarly ascribe “unofficial branch of government” status to the 5th Estate if it holds the power to destroy democracy?
For that matter, how many Estates can we have? What’s the 12th Estate going to look like? How will it relate to the other 11?
Relationships
McBride asserted, slightly offhandedly, the “essential importance of relationships” for successful journalists. The word “relationships” often reminds me of Relational Responsibility, by Sheila McNamee and Kenneth Gergen.
What’s neat about the book is its structure. McNamee and Gergen begin by outlining their theory of relational responsibility (you can read a summary of the theory here if interested). The next section presents critiques – some supportive, others not – from other authors who were able to read McNamee and Gergen’s outline and submit responses. In the final section, McNamee and Gergen respond to the critiques.
In this setup, the authors practice what they preach. They see their presentation of relational responsibility as inextricably linked to how others evaluate it. So, they try to recognize that link within the book itself.
Could a journalist publish a report with as much respect for others? I wonder whether someone locked into a “traditional” newsroom would even attempt to.
Could you imagine a story that says, “here’s what we think happened at this event, but after that you’ll find some other recollections, and then after those we’ll respond to some of those comments.” Of course not. Traditional newsrooms, I would guess, are too concerned about appearing authoritative.
“Conversation”
The words “conversation” and “discussion” appeared repeatedly throughout the session. “We need bring so and so into the conversation.” “This has been a really rich discussion.” &c. The words were tossed around so many times I lost track of what they meant. They began to feel vacuous, or at least unhelpful.
I asked myself what such a “conversation” might look like, and imagined people sitting around the room, debating something in civil tones. OK, fine.
But, why are they talking? Suppose it’s for each participant to arrive at a conclusion about some issue in the area. If so, then to consider the “conversation” by itself is incomplete. The conversation occurs within a larger context. In the case of this hypothetical, the context might be that the participants’ conclusions will affect another action, such as voting. Whatever the context is, it demonstrates that a “conversation” isn’t just.
What is the context for a conversation about journalism? Is it to convince readers why professional, traditional journalists are important? Do the readers get any kind of “vote” in the process? What, in other words, is the reason for the conversation? What do each of the participants get to do?
Notes on an editors conference
I was lucky enough to attend a session of the American Society of News Editors’ “Ethics and Values Forum,” held this week at the Reynolds Journalism Institute here in Columbia. The forum, moderated by the Poynter’s Institute’s Kelly McBride and Bob Steele, summarized what had been discussed during the previous day’s panels. (As a disclaimer, I missed those panels, so I may have processed what I heard out of context)
I wanted to share some ideas I heard at the panel, as well as hear your responses to my initial reaction to them.
The Fifth Estate
Most journalists know their profession is commonly called the “4th Estate,” so named by those who consider it as important to U.S. democracy as the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government (the other three “estates”). According to the panel – I believe McBride mentioned it – the bloggers, Tweeters, and at-large pundits online world constitute a “5th estate.”
At the moment, McBride said, most of the 5th Estate takes content from the 4th Estate, but provides little in return. The 5th Estate’s behavior is killing the 4th, in the form the 4th’s decreasing volume of original reporting. The 5th Estate will flounder if the 4th dies, McBride said, but, more importantly, democracy will not survive if the 4th Estate dies and the 5th lives.
Claiming democracy will perish if the press – as we understand it today – fades away is bold. I’m inclined to distrust the idea on its grand nature alone.
The panelists themselves seemed to discount the idea when they highlighted Talking Points Memo as an example of an organization migrating from the 5th to 4th estate. It may take time for similar sites to emerge, of course, and that gap is scary.
On a minor note, I’m not sure the term “5th Estate” makes sense. If the 4th Estate is named because its importance to democracy, do we wish to similarly ascribe “unofficial branch of government” status to the 5th Estate if it holds the power to destroy democracy?
For that matter, how many Estates can we have? What’s the 12th Estate going to look like? How will it relate to the other 11?
Relationships
McBride asserted, slightly offhandedly, the “essential importance of relationships” for successful journalists. The word “relationships” often reminds me of Relational Responsibility, by Sheila McNamee and Kenneth Gergen.
What’s neat about the book is its structure. McNamee and Gergen begin by outlining their theory of relational responsibility (you can read a summary of the theory here if interested). The next section presents critiques – some supportive, others not – from other authors who were able to read McNamee and Gergen’s outline and submit responses. In the final section, McNamee and Gergen respond to the critiques.
In this setup, the authors practice what they preach. They see their presentation of relational responsibility as inextricably linked to how others evaluate it. So, they try to recognize that link within the book itself.
Could a journalist publish a report with as much respect for others? I wonder whether someone locked into a “traditional” newsroom would even attempt to.
Could you imagine a story that says, “here’s what we think happened at this event, but after that you’ll find some other recollections, and then after those we’ll respond to some of those comments.” Of course not. Traditional newsrooms, I would guess, are too concerned about appearing authoritative.
“Conversation”
The words “conversation” and “discussion” appeared repeatedly throughout the session. “We need bring so and so into the conversation.” “This has been a really rich discussion.” &c. The words were tossed around so many times I lost track of what they meant. They began to feel vacuous, or at least unhelpful.
I asked myself what such a “conversation” might look like, and imagined people sitting around the room, debating something in civil tones. OK, fine.
But, why are they talking? Suppose it’s for each participant to arrive at a conclusion about some issue in the area. If so, then to consider the “conversation” by itself is incomplete. The conversation occurs within a larger context. In the case of this hypothetical, the context might be that the participants’ conclusions will affect another action, such as voting. Whatever the context is, it demonstrates that a “conversation” isn’t just.
What is the context for a conversation about journalism? Is it to convince readers why professional, traditional journalists are important? Do the readers get any kind of “vote” in the process? What, in other words, is the reason for the conversation? What do each of the participants get to do?