INFORMING THE PUBLIC: JOURNALISM’S RELATIONSHIP WITH FREEDOM

In math and science it is important to have a frame of reference. ‘One’ means nothing if it doesn’t have any other context (for instance, one kilogram or one out of 100). Even more so, it is vital for a community, society, or republic to have a common frame of reference simply for ease of communication, and more importantly for organization and advancement.

We use common knowledge to create a frame of reference within a community, and we use this frame of reference to define shared goals and opinions. When a community can identify common goals and prominent figures to be admired or condemned, it opens the door for the populace to take coordinated action: It allows the seeds of modern democracy to be sewn.

Public news has been around nearly as long as democracy has, for example the Acta Diurna or “Daily Acts” that was published at least as far back as 59 B.C. in the Roman republic. The spread of information is, in itself, a cornerstone of community.

News also creates community, beyond providing a frame of reference. American journalism has its roots in community. American journalism sprouted from eighteenth century publick houses (pubs) where publicans (the pub owners) would share information left by travelers in the logbooks that usually resided at the end of the bar. This information ranged from shipping news, to stories and gossip garnered all over the world, to political arguments, and soon came to be published by entrepreneurial printers.

Due to these publishings, English politicians had to dub a new phenomenon they began to observe, and called it “public opinion.” This was the start of the new era of independent, often accurate, sometimes sensationalized and polarizing news.

However, in the late 1800s, American news providers began to realize that independence from the state and accuracy may not be the be-all, and end-all of journalism. In a time of polarized and partisan news that aimed to proselytize its readers, Adolph Ochs, a Tennessee-based publisher who had purchased the sinking New York Times, declared that his top goal was to always present the news impartially, not giving bias to anyone regardless of their views or money.

Other newspapers had claimed likewise in the past, but Ochs proved that he meant it. His success with Times led to the birth of modern, 20th century journalism.

To clarify, journalism is the act of providing consumers with enough accurate, impartial information to make decisions for their lives and to govern themselves.

Consider authoritarian governments such as North Korea, the former Soviet Union, and the People’s Republic of China, or monarchies throughout the ages: They censor and suppress journalism that is not associated with the state, even going as far as to implement “official” news produced by the ruling party. In all cases nonpartisan, objective journalism is discouraged, censored, and even punishable because proper journalism allows its consumers to think for themselves.

Lately, however, there has been a shift away from the idea of impartiality. Some believe that because journalists as individuals cannot be objective, neither can the news. Therefore, “objective news” is a decrepit and unreasonable ideal. But, even while we all have biases, we can still use an objective method to verify and present information.

Jill Lepore, Harvard University historian and staff writer for The New Yorker magazine, asserts in her recent article, “The Hacking of America,” published in the New York Times, that the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine – federal guidelines that stated that broadcasters have “certain obligations to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance” – is what opened the doors to polarizing figures such as political commentators Rush Limbaugh and Trevor Noah.

The problem was only magnified when President Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which removed many anti-monopoly precautions and allowed for further corporate conglomeration of news media. Whether the government should regulate news media is open to debate. But using an impartial method of collecting and presenting accurate information is a burden journalists must bear – that is their loyalty, which should lie with the truth and to serving the people.

Truth is, in the eyes of a profits-driven mega-media company, it doesn’t matter how you slant the news; all that matters is that it sells.

Because of this shift away from objectivity, public esteem for journalism is now lower than it has been in years. Only 30 percent of Americans had a “great deal” or “a lot” of confidence in the U.S. media as a public institution, as measured in a survey of 1,350 adults taken in January 2018 (NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll(Marist College): https://tinyurl.com/yd69axod).

There also has been a steady decline in consumption of all news, measured from 2016 to 2017, especially of TV broadcasting where news is overall the most conglomerated and partisan.

If journalists want to regain public trust, they must realize that accuracy is not the only component to respectable journalism. They must separate themselves from consolidated, partisan media companies whose aim is to make money, not to support or build democracy or community.

That is why we here at the Advocate aim to present our readers with accurate, impartial news and diverse opinions (the latter are distinctly separate). Not only so that you can be aware and informed, but because MHCC is a valued community and creating a common frame of reference is what helps build a strong community.

Our weekly editorial is designed to explore compelling issues that affect the community we serve. It has no attributed author because it represents the collective voice of the Advocate editorial board.