NPR ethics policy update: Journalists can now participate in activities that advocate for “freedom and dignity of human beings” on social media and in real life. https://t.co/oLe7PSffJj pic.twitter.com/vcLmRhyHgW
— kellymcb (@kellymcb) July 29, 2021
When journalism profs talk about “old-school journalism,” we are actually discussing a rather modern phenomenon which is often called the American Model of the Press. It was born when printing presses started speeding up in the mid-to-late 19th century and, as it evolved, it stressed accuracy, fairness and balance when dealing with controversial issues.
What does that mean? At the very least, it meant showing respect for competing points of view — in part to allow newspapers (and advertisers) to reach a broad, diverse audience of readers.
This model replaced, at least in newspapers and wire services, what is often called the European Model of the Press. In this model, accuracy is still emphasized, but newsroom coverage is clearly and honestly based on specific editorial points of view — liberal, conservative, labor, business, etc. It is openly biased.
I offer this journalism history flashback because these terms played a major role in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here for the iTunes feed of this program). The key question this week: How are readers supposed to relate to journalists and newsrooms when they claim to use the American Model, but their news coverage (especially online) is, on most issues (especially topics mixing politics and religion), clearly being crafted to fit a particular cultural or political template? Yes, we are talking about “Kellerism,” a term long used here at GetReligion (click here and then here for background).
In part, host Todd Wilken and I focused on a viral tweetstorm by the Russian-British comedian Konstantin Kisin, instead of dissecting the contents of one or more mainstream news reports.
It’s crucial to note that Brexit — as opposed to Donald Trump-era America — was the first hook for Kisin’s long, long commentary. Also, the ultimate goal here is to understand why so many people are skeptical when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccines (whether one agrees with that point of view or not).
(A reminder to readers: I myself, as a 67-year-old guy with asthma, got my COVID shots as soon as possible. I also wear a mask when visiting institutions that ask me to do so. As for church, I follow the instructions of my bishop and our priests. It also helps to know that, after decades as a pro-life Democrat, I am now a third-party voter.)
Here is the opening of the Kisin thread. Whether he knew it or not, it is a litany mourning the loss of the American Model of the Press.
You’re struggling to understand why some people are vaccine hesitant. The “let me help you” megathread:
Imagine you’re a normal person. The year is 2016. Rightly or wrongly, you believe most of what you see in the media.
— Konstantin Kisin, wrong opinions within (@KonstantinKisin) August 2, 2021
Imagine you’re a normal person. The year is 2016. Rightly or wrongly, you believe most of what you see in the media.
You believe polls are broadly reflective of public opinion. You believe doctors and scientists are trustworthy and independent. You’re a decent, reasonable person who follows the rules and trusts authority.
Imagine your shock then, when Brexit, which you were assured won’t happen because it’s a fringe movement led by racists for racists, happens. The polls, which widely predicted it wouldn’t happen were completely wrong.
The experts and media pundits who told you it wouldn’t happen day after day are also wrong. “Oh well” you say, “these things happen”.
Yes, this leads to the 2016 election and the rise of Trump, which just wasn’t supposed to happen.
Then there is the press coverage of the #BlackLikeMe demonstrations and the miracle that they had nothing to do with COVID-19 rules and procedures.
Then there were these two highly symbolic media-bias case studies:
Imagine your outrage as you see news reports of a bunch of MAGA hat-wearing kids from a religious school contemptuously confront a native America elder. Reza Aslan tells you the kid has a “punchable face” and while you abhor violence, it’s hard to disagree.
Imagine that for days you watch coverage of these events, with expert after expert, pundit after pundit, sharing and fuelling your outrage about them. With every word, your belief that you are a good person and that your country is a good country wavers.
Imagine that soon after, however, the Jussie Smollett story turns out to be an attention-seeking hoax. Imagine that you quickly discover that the native American elder was the one who confronted the kids and not the other way around.
The case studies roll on and on, from Russia-gate to Hunter Biden and everything in between.
Let me stress, once again, that Kisin is not trying to justify the actions of those who reject vaccines. He is trying to help journalists and the chattering classes understand WHY so many people in America and the UK have such strong doubts about the messages they are receiving about the vaccines and other rules linked to the coronavirus pandemic. Why are these citizens so cynical?
Kisin concludes:
These same people are now telling you the vaccine is safe, you must take it and if you don’t you will be a second class citizen. Understand vaccine hesitancy now?
Kisin is discussing media culture just as much, or more, than he is discussing political culture. He is discussing life in an age in which there are, well, two Americans (and two Englands) and citizens live in concrete news-silos that only tell them what they want to hear.
Has the journalism culture changed? Yes, in part because of the strengths and weaknesses of digital media — digital advertising, in particular — and the niche-journalism culture that works best (sort of) in the age of the Internet. It pays, these days, for journalists to preach to their choirs.
Are we seeing signs that a digital-generation of journalists wants to be more honest about this?
Maybe. Let’s end with this commentary from media-ethics pro Kelly McBride of NPR and Poynter.org: “New NPR Ethics Policy: It’s OK For Journalists To Demonstrate (Sometimes).” Here’s the key passage:
The new NPR policy reads, “NPR editorial staff may express support for democratic, civic values that are core to NPR’s work, such as, but not limited to: the freedom and dignity of human beings, the rights of a free and independent press, the right to thrive in society without facing discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, disability, or religion.”
Is it OK to march in a demonstration and say, ‘Black lives matter’? What about a Pride parade? In theory, the answer today is, “Yes.” But in practice, NPR journalists will have to discuss specific decisions with their bosses, who in turn will have to ask a lot of questions.
To what degree is this change being driven by journalists baptized in the Twitter culture that dominates elite zip codes in the media Meccas of the Northeast and West Coast? Let’s read on:
This pressure on news companies to allow their journalists a wider berth to participate in civic activities has been building over the years, particularly as social media has made direct engagement with audiences — sometimes rich, sometimes messy — part of the day-to-day workflow. As social justice causes took to the platforms, journalists were often caught in a new gray area between longtime professional practices and mores around personal communication. In the wake of George Floyd’s murder, a younger generation of journalists pushed NPR to modify its traditional prohibitions.
“Our goal was to make NPR a place that employees felt they could be themselves at work, and they wouldn’t have to be one version of themselves outside of work and another version at work,” said Alex Goldmark, senior supervising producer for Planet Money and co-chair of the 22-member committee that handled the revision.
None of this is new to GetReligion readers, especially those who followed our discussions of the “two Americas” theme in the work of New York Times readers representative Liz Spayd. Newsroom controversy about that work led to her dismissal, of course.
Please see: “Disturbance in the Journalism Force? New York Times spikes its public-editor post.”
Also this: “Once more unto the breach, dear friends: ‘Why Readers See The Times As Liberal’.”
These are trying times for those of us who want to see journalism accurately and fairly address the most important issues in both halves of this divided media culture.
Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it on to others. This is the iTunes feed. Or click here to go to the GetReligion podcast homepage.
ybvdadminuser
