Talking Points from the Institute, Part 3
From the McCormick Tribune Specialized Reporting Institute Talking Points
The Poynter Institute faculty at the generated a list of talking points to help reporters create coverage plans for the presidential nominating process. There are 12 points, and I'll cover two per entry.
5. How transparent am I? Do I tell my audience how I know what I know? Do I tell my readers, listeners and viewers as much as I can about my sources--even the unnamed ones? Do I include in stories my unanswered questions?
If I just bust out and say "Let's add meta-reporting to the long list of stuff reporters need to do!" you might get the impression I have no idea what it means to be a reporter these days, i.e. the workload. Adding to the workload is not the issue here. Instead, meta-reporting is actually a complete re-thinking of journalistic discourse (see #6 below, too re: ) and what it is the journalistic knower does.
In lecture mode, the journalistic knower is observer of the scene and privileged partner with the source--the official knower. Citizens are understood not to know by virtue of being separated from sources. A common and ironic circumstance of this arrangement is that journalists all too often require official sources to confirm the firsthand experiences of citizens. Another problem that follows from lecture discourse is the tendency on the part of some journalists to think they know much more than they actually do. Read the political coverage by The New York Times and the Washington Post any day of the week for excellent (sad) examples. You'd think these reporters had advanced degrees in psychology and anthropology from the things they write about candidates.
The discourse conventions of journalism in the late 20th century--the journalism we still teach and the journalism the profession is desperately clinging to now that the is shifting--convey "how we know" in particular ways (e.g. how references are handled and what attributive verbs are used). The rhetoric of journalism positions the journalist as "objective observer" and the source as expert. The effect is a lecture from those who know to those who do not know.
The most stunning moment at the seminar for me happened when Butch Ward, of the Poynter faculty, made this comment: "Have the courage to tell how you know what you know."
Journalism already does this! The features of journalistic discourse are designed to do exactly this--by the dictates of the old noetic field. But the field is shifting, and one interesting bit of evidence is that Ward means "courage" in the sense of: Revolt against discourse! Out with the old. In with the new. Dialogue; don't lecture. The official source may be a spinner and a propagandist--an interested communicator, not a expert. Cut through that agenda. Report that agenda. Be able to write the sentence that explains how you know what you know. And if you can't write that sentence, don't report it.
Courage indeed.
6. Is this a lecture or a dialogue? How can I use interactive technology to involve my audience in my journalism? Do I solicit ideas, content, and feedback from readers? How do I determine what my audience needs to know or better understand?
Important: It ain't about the technology; it's about the discourse. It's about what the technology makes possible. The technology is teaching citizens they have the right, duty, and ability to talk back to the media. In other words: You don't get to lecture anymore because the technology is the bit of grit around which the crystal of a new noetic field is forming.
Using the technology in interactive ways is a perfectly fine thing to do. But the journalistic establishment won't understand technology, or use it to its full potential, until it understands the lesson of all technological advancements in human communication: the discourse changes.
Posted
on
Thursday, June 21st, 2007 at 4:14 pm under
