George F. Snell recently argued that “reporting” is distinguishable from “journalism” in the following way:
Reporting: A 747 aircraft crashed in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean yesterday.
Journalism: A review of maintenance reports of the 747 aircraft that crashed last month revealed that the airplane had a faulty engine parts. Reports indicate that airline management ignored warnings that the parts were malfunctioning.
Journalism is getting beneath the news. It’s investigation, analysis and thoughtful commentary. It’s in-depth expository reporting. And people are still willing to pay for good journalism. That’s why newspapers and magazines that have placed a premium on providing good journalism have done better — for the most part — than those that focused more on reporting (the Wall Street Journal and New York Times come to mind).
Whose journalism?
“It’s in-depth expository reporting.” How can journalism be different from reporting if it’s a particular form of reporting?
Setting that question aside, is it correct to say that Snell’s definition makes no assumptions as to who is investigating, analyzing, and commenting? If so, is it true that “people [I assume he's thinking primarily of Americans] are willing to pay for good journalism”? Were they ever willing to pay for it?
I present Exhibit A: the federal government. The government happens to have a Federal Aviation Administration, which, according to its Mission, “[issues] and [enforces] regulations and minimum standards covering manufacturing, operating, and maintaining aircraft.” The FAA issues reports on such matters. The Government Accountability Office also issues reports investigating, analyzing, and commenting on government activities, reports that news organizations generally find trustworthy [1].
Although it’s incorrect to say that federal agencies are the only groups capable of producing journalism (as Snell points out, the major newspapers and magazines do so as well), were we to support a higher taxation rate, of course, we would also be supporting for the invaluable journalism of the FAA, GAO, and others. But, I think I can just assert that Americans shudder at the word “taxes.” Is it then fair to assert that Americans are still willing to pay for good journalism? Or, does the question require additional clarification: Whose journalism?
Journalism and argument
Why is the distinction between journalism and reporting important? Is not the quality of a claim — its evidence and reasoning — more important than naming the species of the claim?
What if I were to tell you that a plane crashed outside my apartment yesterday. Would you believe me? Not unless you were given additional evidence, such as a quote from an airline official, or images from the scene. So long as a reader uses critical thinking skills, and thereby recognizing that some claims are more difficult to prove than others, shouldn’t we be discussing which kinds of claims are more important for us to preserve?
Notes
1. Here’s a report from The New York Times, which Snell approvingly cites, that uses a GAO report to add background to a story.
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/8o5Ly9
Pingback: Tweets that mention Differences between reporting and journalism - Dave Herrera (.org) -- Topsy.com
Interesting distinction between reporting and journalism. I’m curious as to how you would differentiate “journalism” from “editorializing” in the sense that your example of journalism (vs. mere reporting) is clearly making some judgments in its analysis. I know there are some important nuances to the idea of someone being capable of completely objective or impartial journalism, but I’m more just curious as to how you see the distinction, Dave.
I like the attempt here to show the difference between fast news and investigative reporting.
Journalism is still something different, however. Journalism is a much bigger construct.
Alas, for better or worse, fast news is what the majority of news consumers have the attention span for these days.
Curtis,
I have to ask for clarification on two things before I can answer your question.
First, what are you referring to as my example — Snell’s quote, or the FAA links?
Second, when you say “editorializing,” are you thinking of someone writing in a story “Senator X, who is a terrible person, said today…” or are you thinking of an editorial or opinion column in the back of the news section?
I was referring to the Snell quote:
I guess my question regarding “editorializing” relates to my own doubts about the ability to be completely objective in anything we do. With “reporting” we have a better chance of obtaining something closer to the Platonic Form of objectivity, since it is simply relaying facts of a particular story. But the more in-depth “journalism” seems destined to fall into the purview of personal involvement in a situation as one delves deeper into a subject. In Snell’s quote, “airline management ignored warnings that the parts were malfunctioning” has a definite view on the situation. The “journalist” could have just as well said “airline management carefully considered the warnings but determined that the risk was insufficient to warrant further investigation.” Both are journalism. But clearly, there is some editorializing in choosing which perspective is accurate.
I think our views on this question are pretty closely aligned, actually. In the sense you’re talking about, I see few differences between journalism and editorializing. I agree that as one investigates a story, one’s personal involvement increases and the chances of “objectivity” decreases.
Incidentally, that the “journalist” in Snell’s quote picked one conclusion over another strikes me as “editorializing,” but I don’t see that as a negative. Instead, I see it as drawing the journalist’s work into the same realm as any writing that tries to convince us something is true or false.
When we encounter the latter form of writing, we use our critical thinking skills to judge whether to accept the writer’s conclusion. In the same way, I’m fine with exercising the same technique on journalism, so that we acknowledge the journalist’s necessarily editorializing AND demanding that he or she back up the claims. So, returning to Snell’s example, the journalist better well have indicated why “reports indicate that airline management ignored” etc. Otherwise, we shouldn’t accept it, right? This seems like a more fruitful way to approach journalism, rather than wondering, “uh oh, was that objective?”
But, one key marker of when we call something journalism, I think, is that journalism tries to relate facts or data that weren’t known before. We didn’t know how the airline management felt…until someone asked. We didn’t know what the CIA did…until someone requested the records. This attempt to figure something new out seems to set journalism slightly apart from just any old descriptive argument.
I hope that made some sense. This is a topic I’ve been pondering for a while, so I’m eager to hear critiques.