Dear Journalists (of the professional variety),

Ein Gastbeitrag von Alexandra Browning

I write this as a student of journalism, at a university heralded for its quality and the quality of the journalists it has produced throughout history. I write this as a twenty-year-old staring graduation in the face, amidst a struggling economy, in an environment echoing with the death knolls of many of our country’s great newspapers. I write this terrified, questioning, and – one could say – even angry.

The University of Missouri school of journalism recently celebrated its centennial anniversary. Our school is respected throughout the country, and potentially the world. As a student here, I am anxious to learn how to further that reputation, excited about the opportunities journalism as a profession will offer me, and though worried, also excited to be a part of where journalism is headed for the future. What I’m learning in my four years of education, I have assumed, will put me on the right track to be a big part of all of those things. What I’m learning at Mizzou I have considered the status quo for journalism, everything any good journalist should want to learn, important and pertinent in every way. What I am learning at Mizzou, though, can be categorized as the purist ideals of the forerunners of journalism from the beginning of the newspaper – the beginning of American journalism. Where we stand, potentially at the newspaper’s end, could quite feasibly be a very different world though, couldn’t it?

To clarify, what some might call ‘purist ideals’ include the notion that journalists function as a watchdog against government corruption, a voice for the voiceless with the aim to create change in our country for the better, a purely objective platform from which our audience can take summarized information and form their own opinions on the global political and social climate, and on top of that entertainers. I have learned these, can rattle them off by heart, and thought them to be universally cherished among journalists – this is the core of our profession. But why? Why did I believe that this was true? I have noticed, my entire life, the trend in the media of reporting on mindless entertainment rather than big issues. I have seen headlines and broadcast blurbs exclaiming over Britney Spears having shaved her head, meanwhile satisfying a personal need-to-know about the world by reading news sources from other countries. Where, in America, are these ideals exemplified? Though dangerously tending towards vast generalizations, it seems that in our media, they are not.

The next question is, are these standards beyond our capacity to achieve? Are these ideals possible to meet? And if we believe that they are – if we see in history that they once were met on a regular basis – is there a real possibility, in today’s culture, for emerging journalists to enact them in existing newsrooms? Is there an outlet for those of us being taught to respect and strive for these ideals to truly achieve them? Even further, can it be agreed upon what these ideals even mean? The ever-debated question of ‘What is objectivity?’ echoes in my mind, having been asked in every journalism lecture I’ve taken thus far. Where do we begin? In being taught, for example, to be objective – to be the undefinable – are we meant to conjure a personal definition? Acknowledge the possibility but settle for less? Or float between publications and allow the medium by which we report and the editors there decide what the definition will be?

It seems that these doubts are constantly fed by the state of the media today. Media, as of late, is commonly owned by a corporation, whose success is defined by stock prices, which directly relate to ratings. Ratings come from the audience, which the media aims to please yet also inform. So, for a journalist who is only allowed to report on what brings good ratings, what can be done with an audience that is pleased by not feeling? That prefers to be entertained by stories of celebrity gossip rather than be informed by stories of civil war in other parts of the world? How can we generate a longing to be made aware of real issues? Are there corporate mediums willing to let journalists report on what they personally find to be important, even if the public interest has yet to be indicated by purchasing trends? Have we lost sight, potentially, of a public that really does want to know, to feel, to be informed, who are no longer our consumers because we chose to cater to the numb?

And then there is the question of the newspaper itself – the form for our function, and whether or not it will last. I have a healthy respect for traditional reporting (be that due to intimidation by my harrowing grade in the class on it, or my consumption of it throughout my lifetime), and understand that newspapers aim to remain continuous in an attempt to maintain the comfort of their audience. Nobody wants to lose readers, especially not today. So, we are all taught the writing style specific to news writing, we know what the inverted pyramid is, and we can cite the rules of AP style. There is also an unspoken understanding among journalists that we will all report on stories that we have absolutely zero interest in, simply because that’s what newspapers report on. A paper will ‘always’ report on the goings-on of the school board meeting, and is ’supposed’ to cover the local parade, and knows the ‘type’ of event that goes into a paper. But, why? Why is it accepted that we report on topics uninteresting to us – topics even our readers care not to read about! If reporters could write about topics for which they are passionate, in whatever style best capable of conveying that information, for once really allowed to use their voice (!), is there any doubt that these people, trained to be some of the best writers of our time, could generate public interest? Can we not see, from the viral success of blogs, where a writer is his own editor, writes about things important to him, and uses his own voice, that readers become loyal to those who write passionately? And the dilemma of the public not trusting the newsman – wouldn’t it be solved if writers were actually writing about things they cared about? It’s impossible to deny the element of trust established simply because an author is clearly passionate about the information they choose to convey.

So, the solution. A new generation, myself included, is being taught to follow their predecessors – whose art is dying. Don’t extinguish a writer’s passion by insisting they write the way somebody else decided was best. Tradition should be taught and respected, but not enforced. LET journalism change. Let us grow. Include stories in the paper that the reporter cares about, and drop the stories nobody wants to see anyways. Freedom of speech should be available to everybody, so make it available to your journalists. Allow headlines that elicit emotion, and let go of the tendency to cater to the numb.

Yours truly,

Alexandra Browning

Alexandras Blog findet ihr hier.