By Arman Rahman
It is a strange and wondrous time for journalism. It is even more strange and wondrous to tell others you are going into journalism. A mix of excitement and pity swirls their face. “Ohhh, well you certainly chose the right time, there’s so many changes! With Trump and Fake News maybe you can be one of the better ones.”
Suddenly after Trump assumed the Presidency befuddling all in his wake, journalists became failed sages. Their mysterious rituals gave them the wrong prophecy, causing their audiences to turn to other sage tribes for an outlook they could agree with, in this case fake news.
The metaphor of “mysterious rituals,” while a sarcastic jab at critics, is worth noting. Only now are readers and viewers beginning to question and want to know more about the information others are producing for them. Hence the bottom line here: it’s time for journalism to evolve. It’s time for reporters to evolve and facilitate this evolution. It’s time for journalism to evolve in concrete, tangible ways, similar to those listed by Tom Rosenstiel in his Brookings Institute article from 2016. Rosenstiel lists a total of seven ways journalism must change post the 2016 Election, yet the most important and encompassing is the need for clearer and more open reporting. Only through this evolution can journalism begin reaching minds more quickly, with trust.
Reporting methods must not only be completely transparent, but they must involve the public, a process Rosenstiel calls “collaborative intelligence.” Gone are the days of “multiple sources indicate,” “an anonymous White House employee leaked,” or “studies show.” While before the public might have acknowledged these as legitimate, some news outlets have abused those attributions, or cited sources while siding with them wholeheartedly. For example, FOX News, in a March 3rd story, reported an Immigrations Customs and Enforcement raid in
California that was shut down by the state’s mayor. The headline read: “Violent criminals among illegal immigrants caught in California raid derailed by Dem mayor.” The only evidence to support the claim that “violent criminals” were among those arrested was a statement from ICE Director Tom Homan, who’s one and only job is to support his organization in its efforts against illegal immigration–an organization whose credibility has been repeatedly called into question. Meanwhile they ripped apart the Democratic mayor, discussing whether she “obstructed justice.”
On the flip side, MSNBC hardly reported the event at all as of the eve of March 3rd, and all stories listed under their “Immigration Policy” tab attack and negatively frame President Trump and/or his administration. While these may seem like two extremes, both were reflected in the outlets’ broadcasts, both of which sit at the top of the list of most watched cable news programs of the past month, according to TV Newser.
Almost all Americans subscribe to and agree with one outlet or the other, labeling “their opponent” as not reporting fairly, or not having good sources, or having a bias–all of which are completely valid for both when examined side to side. This disparity is so large that all journalists must discipline themselves to clearly set the standard. Stories should clearly display both sides of the argument or issue. Sources should only be used if they are credible and legitimate, otherwise any holes in their credibility or legitimacy should also be clearly displayed. A reader must be able to know, trust, and easily research any sources used in a story. Along with full transparency, the reader should not feel isolated from journalism, the basis for Rosenstiel’s concept of “collaborative intelligence.”
In the era of social media, journalists now have a powerful tool: more citizens who are there. If someone was able to get cellphone video, reach out to him to get more in better quality if you cannot shoot from the scene directly. If someone set up a crime watch Twitter page or blog for their neighborhood or area, follow that blog and ask them to remain extra vigilant and reveal anything they find on the blog or to you. Employ the use of unbiased social media polls in your work, such as Facebook or Twitter polls. All the while, be aware of the potential bias of who you are reaching out to. Bottom line, trust will be re-established with the public if they see journalists actively enlisting their support and actively watching out for biases. It will also cause more people to keep watch for the genuine truth in their daily lives.
All in all, it is pivotal to remember that journalists are not sages or mystical wordsmiths toying with information. They are average citizens in search of the truth, a journey everyone embarks on. With every journey, there is newer and harder terrain to traverse, new tools to use in different ways. It’s now time for journalism to invent new tools and use old tools in new ways. The truth will always need to work its way to the public, and journalism will always need to take it there. This isn’t even its final form.