E-Media Tidbits

Polandeze, via Flickr (CC license) People (even journalists) are conversational creatures.

Poynter's ethics group leader Kelly McBride assembled this event and invited the participants. She also gave us some homework to do in preparation. We're to answer this question:

"Journalism, even the definition of journalism, is changing. That we know for sure. Our traditional role of telling people the facts is still crucial. Yet it's becoming more important to be part of the conversation in which the community discusses and creates meaning out of the facts. What's our responsibility as journalists (broadly defined), working in a democracy, when it comes to dialogue and debate?"

The increasing role of community and public conversation in journalism is a major passion of mine. I've often covered that sprawling, controversial issue here on Tidbits and on my own blog Contentious. So I'm looking forward to this event.

I'm also glad that Poynter has allowed me to post my homework assignment here on Tidbits, since I want to not so much answer Kelly's question as toss out some new ones to the Tidbits audience. In other words, rather than pontificate about conversation, let's just do it, right here.

Here are some ideas I've been pondering, and the questions they raise. Please comment below with your views -- and your own issues and questions, too.

Journalists are people. However, the journalistic ethic of objectivity forces an uncomfortable bit of cognitive dissonance into every journalist's life. We're supposed to report the news while abstaining from personal bias and involvement. But we're human, too. Humans always have a point of view -- and they always have personal connections, assumptions and beliefs, preferences, and emotions. That's just how humans work.

In a sense, clinging to objectivity as an achievable goal denies our humanity. That puts us in awkward situations almost daily. And don't think our audiences and communities don't recognize that. Often, they're laughing at us for it.

Conversation is a fundamentally human activity -- whether it's face to face, on the phone, online, or by carrier pigeon. If you doubt that, just try having a conversation using only the third person. It's all about "I" and "you" -- that is, people. Our brains evolved to be wired for conversation. I'd wager that the first communicative grunts of our primeval ancestors were not monologues.

Might opening up to more conversation in our work -- especially public conversation -- help journalists gain credibility through transparency? I think so, and I've seen some examples to this effect. That said, I know many journalists fear loss of status or credibility from engaging in public conversation -- especially publicly discussing controversies, errors, oversights, or news judgement. What do you think?

Right now, most journalism occurs within the news industry. Yep, we're a business, too -- and a troubled one, at that. Ultimately, what we have to sell is our credibility. And community loyalty is our ultimate cash cow. The two go hand in hand.

Personally, I think one key to saving news organizations (or at least professional journalism) is to strengthen community ties. When it comes to relationship-building tools, you can't beat conversation. Our communities (stop thinking of them as "readers" or "audiences) are human, too. It's really hard to build a relationship with someone who's only "on send," who doesn't appear to listen or engage. Conversation is always more compelling than monologues.

At least, that's how I see it. What do you think? Please comment below. I've just gotten the ball rolling here, I may post more on this topic before the seminar, time permitting. In the meantime, let's talk.

(Here's my other post for this seminar, on conversational journalism.)