Public Journalism

Just before I say anything else, these are a couple of images I found on Poynter Online. They compare the way news was once gathered, and the way it is gathered in 2008. I thought it was just worth noting the increased role of the public in news, not only in the form of bloggers but the increasing conversation and value network between journalists and the community in general. Now not everyone may agree with these diagrams, and Poynter online are heavy advocates of public journalism, but I still think they are an interesting comparison, perhaps hinting at the future of journalism, even if we aren't quite there yet.

I have to admit that I wasn't all that familiar with the concept of public journalism before I did these readings, so I have greatly expanded my knowledge of this issue. Public journalism is closely linked to the discussion last week about who constitutes a journalist, because if we accept bloggers as journalists then we are already practicing public journalism.


From my understanding (and summed up in Perry's (2003) book The Roots of Civic Journalism) public journalism-

• Attempts to situate journalists as active participants in community life, rather than as detached spectators
• Makes news a forum for discussion of community issues (journalists should be catalysts- not simply recorders of public debate)
• Favours the issues, events and problems important to ordinary people
• Considers diverse public opinion through the process of discussion and debate among community members
• Treats the public as citizens with the responsibilities of self-government, rather than as consumers to whom goods and services are sold.

I think these are a fair set of principles, and they are lacking in the majority of current journalism coverage. Journalists also seem to think they will loose their credibility and objectivity if they try to present the public agenda, and while this may be a danger, I feel journalists can still remain objective. All journalism tends to gravitate towards experts and official sources, such as politicians, for the perspective on issues, and this no doubt contributes to the idea that there is a disconnect between journalists and the public. I don't see anything wrong with asking the public, they can still be credible news sources. However from what I have read, the practice of public journalism still seems to be highly experimental, and the larger the media audience the more difficult it becomes.

However I believe elections are one area where improvements can definitely be made on a large scale. As the readings state, election coverage rarely helps the public make any sort of informed decision, rather it is reduced to a horse race between candidates, and conflict is emphasised over political policy comparisons. However Venables (2001, Australian Journalism Review) argues that it is easy enough to practice public journalism in regards to elections. Journalists need to-

• Avoid refering to the ‘voters’ or ‘the public’ as though they were someone other than the readers.
• Conduct public polls to determine the chief concerns of voters
• Address each of these concerns in turn through lengthy background articles
• Offer equal column space for each local candidate to discuss these issues
• Avoid horse-race style polls

This could be achieved all over Australia, with each seat considered in this way, so that each local public can voice their concerns, and in turn the whole of Australia will have experienced public journalism.

I have found an interesting example on the web where Barack Obama talks to BlogHer. This blog has an audience of around 9 million American women, and Obama is the first politician to accept an invite to talk on the show. The agenda was set by the public, and Obama was asked questions posed by the bloggers themselves, which I believe very much focuses around some of these aforementioned public journalism principles.

So what does everyone else think? Are we scared to venture into this area of public/professional collaboration?

Why don't we practice more public journalism? (why not answer my poll below?)

Can it realistically happen when the media audience can consist of an entire nation?

Also, here are some further sources on this subject in case anyone is interested.

1) Bentley, C,.H, 2008, Citizen Journalism- Back to the Future?, speech prepared for the Carnegie-Knight Conference on the Future of Journalism, Cambridge, retrieved 10 Aug 2008 from Poynter Online, http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=122

2) Forde, S, 1999, ‘Journalistic practices and newsroom organisation in the Australian independent and alternative press’, Australian Journalism Review, vol.21, no.3, accessed online at Informit database

3) Mc Knight, D, 1997, ‘Public journalism, citizenship and strategies for change’, Australian Journalism Review, vol.8, no. 2, accessed online at Informit database

4) Perry, D.K, 2003, Roots of Civic Journalism, Rowman and Littlefield, America

5) Ramirez, P, 1999, ‘About expanding our vision’, in Civic Journalism is…Pew Centre for Civic Journalism, online, http://www.pewcenter.org/doingcj/pubs/cjis/index.html

6) Romano, A, 2001, ‘Inculcating public journalism philosophies into newsroom culture’, Australian Journalism Review, vol.23, no.2, pp. 43-62, accessed online at Informit database

7) Venables, D, 2001, ‘City voice: a community newspaper does public journalism’, Australian Journalism Review, vol. 23, no.2, accessed online at Informit database

8) Poynter Online- www.poynter.org

9) Pew Centre for Civic Journalism- www.pewcenter.org

10) New Assignment- www.newassignment.net/

11) Public Journalism Network www.pjnet.org