As individuals striving for democracy, you need us. You need us because without us you would probably be uninformed, ignorant and in danger of being oppressed by your government. Listen, we’re not being haughty. These aren’t our words. They’re theirs.
If you were confused by the above-slew of pronouns, this might help. When we say “you” we mean you, the always-attractive reader. “Us,” on the other hand, refers the less attractive but hardworking journalists. See, we told you we weren’t arrogant.
“They,” more importantly, refers to the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy. Yes, it is a mouthful, but it’s a mouthful we think brings up some important points.
In a report released Friday, the Knight Commission concluded that the crumbling of “private news media” could present “a crisis for democracy.” This conclusion stems from the belief that the unhindered, uncensored flow of information is vital to any system that claims democracy.
While the floundering of big media may have sparked this report, its focus was not solely on propping it up. The report aimed to usher in a new generation of information exchange.
Its recommendations, which include universal broadband service in the United States and improvements on local news and information, seek to empower individual communities — giving them the ability to wield information.
The report acknowledges what we call the true face of journalism, stating that “part-time, episodic or uncoordinated public vigilance” is not the same as the efforts of “skilled practitioners” employed by traditionally trained journalists.
We’re not going to say universal broadband service is a bad idea. We’re not going to say that our local news needs no improvement. We’re just saying that with the intention of creating more news outlets, these things might lead to a loss in credibility — a sort-of Wikipedia-effect on the news.
The commission, like us, acknowledges a sort-of “democratic renaissance.” With the evolution of the Internet to include Facebook, MySpace and other social networks, as well as the blogosphere, it has given many a voice. With a few calculated clicks “you” can substitute for “us” and report the news. We don not like this idea.
While all this empowerment seems great, we don’t really think it’s a good idea to blur the line between “you” and “us.” The commission may not disagree. Reporting news is a sensitive issue. Journalism is not only a channel that directs information; it seeks to interpret it, to put it in context — to give it meaning.
Democracy in its purest form is everyone having a voice. When you label all of these voices “news,” however, we have a problem.
Again, and this might sound odd to some, we don’t just channel the news to you. We process it. Sometimes directly — like in this editorial — and other times indirectly. The fact that you even call this collection of recycled paper a “newspaper” means you somewhat trust us. It is this label of “news” that we hold to the higher standard we labor to maintain.
Professionalism and formality are needed in journalism. It’s what gives us credibility. We absolutely cringe when CNN asks its viewers what they think.
Don’t get us wrong; the report casts light on an exciting future. As technology continues to make communities out of large expanses of land, though, let us not lose the credibility traditional journalism has provided over the last few hundred years — or at least for the most part.