Journalism will bounce back; so can I get an advance?

Drinking last night with a veteran journo who now works for the Associated Press in London.

On the usual subject, he expressed the usual hope, to the effect that he I thought public will realize what it's missing and journalism will would mount a return.

"I agree one hundred percent," I replied. "It's just that I don't know if it will take the public two years to realize the consequences of no journalism, or forty."

Comments

[michael clendenin]

I think the public is going to have to get starved for objective reporting, and convinced that journalism will provide it. I and others I know have dropped subscriptions to the Washington Post because of its over-the-top biased reporting during the election season (confirmed by its own ombudsman after the election was over), but have failed to subscribe to conservative rival the Washington Times because we/they weren't interested in the same level of bias from the other end of the spectrum. And there is little that is objective on the Internet. Difference there is that most on the Internet don't try to set themselves up as the paragon of objective journalism, instead catering to their niches.

[David Murray]

Yes, an important point that journalists often forget: Journalism has to get better. More thorough in some cases, more even-handed in others, more compelling, deep and courageous.

A truly great newspaper would be read. But that newspaper has yet to come out.

[amy]

"I think the public is going to have to get starved for objective reporting, and convinced that journalism will provide it." Beautifully said, Michael. Remember what happened with yellow journalism in the early 20th century? And how the concepts of fairness and balanced reporting emerged to counter the salaciousness? I believe that's what will happen all over again. I'm just praying it happens sooner rather than later.

[michael clendenin]

Thanks, Amy. And I am under no nostalgic illusions that it was all better in some earlier time. Look at the press during Ben Franklin's time, and again in Abe Lincoln's. But, again, I would argue that those publications advertised just what political slant they came from, not claiming that they were completely unbiased and objective.

And now Dan Rather wants Obama to save the press! (http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/135834). Can someone pass my message along to him? He's as much to blame as anyone for screwing the credibility of "objective journalism."

[David Murray]

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/good-journalism-good-for-the-journalism-business/Content?oid=1169130