Political Parallelism (and other ideas): Saving Grace or Wasted Effort?

I feel very much at home on the Web and with technology. How did we all survive without Google to answer life's many questions? The Internet is evolving all the time; it's a dragon hoard of constant ideas, opinions, business, and social networks. The Web has it all for a journalist: video, text and all the information you would care to know (as well as plenty you'd be plenty happy never knowing). As media go, the Internet is a great one which journalists may channel their efforts and broaden their audience.

However, as one who would like to be working a job in print journalism ten or twenty years from now- specifically a job writing for a newspaper or magazine- I can't help but be a little concerned about the way my career is sliding downhill before I've even had a chance to get on board.

Traditionally, the United States has exemplified the liberal journalistic model, where journalists are obligated to neutral reporting (or as close to it as they can come.) Our idea of an ideal newspaper is unbiased. It tells all sides of the story, reflects more than one political opinion, and tells the truth.

Truth. One would think it would be easy to define, but The Elements of Journalism by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel calls it "The First and Most Confusing Principle [of Journalism]" (35). But truth can be manipulated, or misunderstood, or misrepresented, even locked away under lock and key. An easy example of this (also used in Elements) is the Pentagon Papers. Following JFK's assassination, President Lyndon Johnson sent his secretary of defense McNamara to Vietnam to ascertain how the war was going. Following three days spent in Vietnam, McNamara told the press in two public press conferences the war in Vietnam was going fine. Presumably, following these outright lies, he in private told Mr. Johnson the truth, that the war was going badly. Eight years later, the New York Times and the Washington Post found and published the Pentagon Papers, which revealed McNamara's lies and the truth of what was happening in Vietnam. Moral of the story (one at least): even though every paper at the press conferences accurately reported what McNamara said about Vietnam, it wasn't the truth.

A journalist's first obligation is the truth. But, ironically, in this present-day Information Age, it's getting harder all the time to sort through all the facts to get at the real story underneath. In addition, even if you have a story ready, there's no guarantee you'll see it in print. Are there times when it is beneficial or even necessary to withhold the truth from the public? What if, say, you gained an exclusive interview with the top general over the war in Afghanistan and learned all about his distaste for dinner parties as well as his superiors? Are the truths of what he said worth showing to the world? What does the public gain?

A harder one: if you had information that could save people's lives but somebody threatened to slap you with an ugly lawsuit if you published, would you do it? (see plot summary of 1999 The Insider) Even harder: in times of war, what do you publish? When? Do you report the whole truth and nothing but the truth? If the government asks or suggests you hold back on something, how seriously do you consider their request?

Short answer? It depends. It all depends.

Onward to the rather boggling question How Can We Save Our Newspapers? As I said, the U.S.A. has traditionally been the poster child for the journalistic "liberal model." The liberal model is characterized by unbiased writing, low political parallelism (don't take sides in politics) and minimal government involvement.

The times are changing. Newspapers are trying everything to stay alive. Consolidation, non-profit, "ProPublica"... And journalistic models from around the world are merging.

Did it begin with openly conservative Fox News? Who cares? It's happening: some U.S. journalists are beginning to write more for a "niche", a select group of people, than for everybody. Political parallelism is rising. Could it work? It seems to be going okay for Fox as well as folks at the Deseret News, which has expanded its Mormon readership.

As with everything, this new shift in writing has its pros and cons; all debatable, of course. Pro: writing to a niche may actually increase readership (case in point with Deseret) and therefore profits. Con: people tend to read, watch, and listen to people with their similar opinions and ideas. If journalists are always telling people what they want to hear, how beneficial is their paper really to society?