Some blogposts (h/t Nieman Labs) & a story I've run across recently (h/t MuckReads), the latter illustrating the former.
"Something seems wrong here" - journalism's offerings don't meet our greatest needs. In Journalism for makers, Jonathan Stray muses,
"I find myself wondering what it would take to fix the global financial system, but most financial journalism doesn’t help me to answer this question. Something seems wrong here. The modern world is built on a series of vast systems, intricate combinations of people and machines, but our journalism isn’t really built to help us understand them. It’s not a journalism for the people who will put together the next generation of civic institutions."What it offers now, is mostly something - somethings - different, Stray says: that "...contemporary journalism is either “in service to the status quo” or represented by a “zealous suspicion of power”." (notes Josh Stearns)
The outcome of this deficient journalism diet is dysfunction: we get the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, each realizing something's wrong, but each - with plenty of ammunition - pointing the finger in a different direction.
What we're missing, what we need, is journalism that shows the big picture, not just the journalism of "here's what happened today", "snapshot" (or worse, "balance" or cherrypicking) stories leaving us with "trees-accurate but forest-deficient" awareness; what we need is journalism like Mother Jones offers, that points out "what we believe that just ain't true", and repairs the misconceptions. Like Drum & Gilson's Charts: 6 Big Economic Myths, Debunked. ("Do taxes really kill growth? Was the stimulus a joke? No, and we have the numbers to prove it. ...")
No comments:
Post a Comment
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.