What is virtuous journalism? Who working today is, to your mind, a virtuous journalist? If a journalist isn't "virtuous," as Kirkhorn defines the term, what is he or she?
Your response is due Wed., Nov 28, by 4 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I believe that virtuous journalism is a mix of characteristics that the journalist has instilled in them. I do not think that virtue can be taught as it is something natural. If the journalist is adhering to a network agenda and not putting forth "good work" than that journalist is not virtuous. It is a sad thing to say, but i do not think that there are many virtuous journalists in the mainstream flow of network news. I believe that stations are agenda driven, the rarity of a well known virtuous reporter is disheartening. I do think someone like Anderson Cooper is relatively virtuous just in his pursuit of truth from political leaders as well as his time spent in warzones reporting. Most news is agenda driven political-banter that has no purpose aside from dividing the nation on issues. I think if the reporter is not following his or her own set of virtues and values than they are more of a puppet than they realize. If the main goal is not the pursuit of truth and preservation of our society than the reporter is using the press as an entirely different vehicle than it was intended. To use the press in the political machine is common practice but the saturation within the field of journalism has almost turned some journalists into lobbyists serving to only sway the people as oppose to inform them.
I have to agree with Darcy. The first journalist I thought of who could be considered virtuous was Anderson Cooper because of his social activism and wartime reporting. Most other reporters just seem to be talking heads that follow the agenda written out by company policy and lean stories to whatever political affiliation the network has. I wouldn't say that the press was made with the intention to pursue truth, but I do feel that that is it's higher function and what all virtuous journalists should try and aim for. Without this goal, you just create more people who get payed to yell at each other and divide the nation further.
If a journalist isn't virtuous, then he/she contributes to the "greater danger" of the press that Kirkhorn describes in his essay, that "spreads crumbs and tidbits, which sharpens, by simplifying, the deceptive appearance of things and fails to nourish the penetrating or creative imagination."
The "crumbs and tidbits" part explains why people have lost faith in the press. People cannot trust in something they feel is not telling them the whole truth.
The virtuous journalist possess great "analytic power," and is
"more interested in the explanation than the event," as
Bill Bolitho is said to have been.
One of the most distinguishable rewards for the virtuous journalists Kirkhorn describes is that the "the practice of attention leaves them knowledgeable and increases their immunity to deception and illusion."
This sounds to me a lot like a verse in the bible that states: "when wisdom enters your heart and knowledge itself becomes pleasant to your very soul, thinking ability itself will guard over you." The virtuous journalist most of all, feels an obligation to be truthful, or better yet, present the news in a way that allows the public to make up their own minds.
In this case, I agree with Kirkhorn that "journalistic virtue implies a clear-sighted expansion of outlook" and that a "democratic journalism must find ways to feed the imagination of readers and viewers, and to prompt them to understand change and to perceive what is enduring," acquainting them with the "valuable members of society--so often overlooked by the press--who can enlarge their understanding." Kirkhorn refers to virtuous journalism as a "weedy growth,' in that it is "nourished by great events and by everyday life anywhere."
The virtuous journalists should possess the "qualities of inquiry, observation, and understanding," as Heywood Broun and Bolitho did.
I associate the "press" with commercialism because our culture places a huge significance on "good" or "bad" press. I've heard the saying that all press is good, even if it translates a negative message of its subject. This to me implies that the main function of the press is to bring attention to or make a spectacle of people and events that otherwise wouldn't capture public attention, which is in some respect, the function of the press. However, in today's culture where everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame, this is how the press is manipulated.
I can think of some journalists that do great and exciting work (Nicholas Kristof is one name that comes to mind), but not many off bat as being entirely virtuous. I honestly don't pay enough attention to answer this question. But I would say that pretty much all of today's journalist have the same face, especially in broadcast. Most of them appeal to what society says a journalist should be, and as the two comments before me states, work for news organizations that are agenda driven.
Most journalists today seem as lost as in the chaos as the viewers, except they are in a better position to speak on it.
I think a “virtuous” journalist is someone who has a moral code, someone who approaches their work seriously and with the knowledge that they impact people’s thoughts. A “virtuous” journalist is someone who sticks to their convictions even if it means losing their job or reputation. Unfortunately, I do not think there are many journalists in our modern world who practice this type of journalism—Kirkborn would call it “counter-journalism.” As we’ve mentioned in class, our most trusted American journalist is Jon Stewart, and he is one of the only modern names that I can think of who could be considered a “virtuous” journalist, if only because he definitely isn’t a part of any major network and therefore can’t be just a mouthpiece for their beliefs. That’s not to say he doesn’t have a political or social agenda, but he approaches it in a different manner than his contemporaries. If a reporter stops following their own moral code, stops following their conviction, that is when they stop being a “virtuous journalist.” They become little more than a political or social mouthpiece for the people who write their paycheck.
A sentence from Kirkhorn’s piece that resonated with me when I considered the question “What is virtuous journalism” is the sentence, “We prefer jeopardy to censorship.” A virtuous journalist won’t let the threat of comfort, reputation, income, and in some cases, their lives, prevent them from exposing the truth to readers. To me, a journalist who isn’t virtuous is complacent, lazy or selfish. Selfish because they refuse to jeopardize their comfort at the risk of thorough reporting, or don’t want to publish a story that has the potential to put them in an uncomfortable situation; lazy because they don’t feel like going the extra mile, whether it be investigating, reporting, writing, or thinking critically about the moral decisions they're making; and complacent because they are easily satisfied with what they produce and aren’t constantly looking for ways to better their story, better themselves as reporters, and better cater to their audience.
When I think about a virtuous reporter, I think immediately of Edward Murrow or Walter Cronkite. As far as present-day virtuous journalists, nothing comes to mind as easily. I agree with previous posts saying Anderson Cooper is one of the most virtuous reporters today. Also something to note is that with the exception of Tanique’s suggestion of print journalist Nicholas Kristof, everyone so far (including myself) mentioned a television reporter. I think the image of a reporter running around a dangerous war zone looking for answers will always gain more audience respect and be considered more virtuous than a print reporter doing the same thing because of how visual our society has become. Seeing Anderson Cooper speaking into camera in a war-torn area, wearing a bulletproof vest is so much visually powerful than reading well written text about that war zone, the writer virtually invisible.
Virtuous journalism, according to Michael J. Kirkhorn, is “a weedy growth.”
“It is nourished by great events, and by everyday life anywhere,” he writes. “It tends to be weedily unsystematic: Virtuous journalists are much more likely to hang around… than to practice ‘precision journalism.’ … They choose their subjects carefully, and the practice of attention leaves them knowledgeable and increases their immunity to deception and illusion.”
Kirkhorn differentiates between two categories of virtuous traits: “Reflexes” of fairness, independence, skepticism, vigilance, and detachment; and “Character”–– defined by an integrity fortified by authentic respect for the audience, a true sense of identity as journalist, an acute sensitivity to the presence of figments, and the virtuous traits of collaboration, sympathy, attention, imagination, wandering, adventure, surprise, and pluralism.
Some examples of virtuous journalists today that come to mind include the investigative reporters Radley Balko, Charlie Savage and Charles Duhigg. They choose their subjects carefully, and their knowledge of their subjects allows for a depth of understanding that is clear in their virtuous reporting. Their reporting is not beautiful, like the prose of Joan Didion or Michael Herr, but it is honest, thorough, contextual, historic and passionate.
Virtuous means moral, so if you are not virtuous, it may mean you are immoral. But when Kirkhorn is saying is that if you are not a virtuous journalist, you are like every one else. You are objective, barely scraping the surface. A tourist. He seems to think Dan Rather is rather un-virtuous, because he reported from for a mere few days rather than for three months, as Kirkhorn would have preferred for true depth of reporting and understanding. A virtuous journalists, according to Kirkhorn, is untraditional, because, “The traditional journalistic outlook, learned perforce by all young reporters and editors, is an accumulation of practical wisdom, calculation, and stifling prejudice.”
A "virtuous journalist" is someone who creates an established identity that can be trusted and looked to for accuracy. This identity is earned as you continue report, use credible sources, and build a strong readership. One sentence that struck me was when Kirkhorn compared a journalist to being an actor.
"Essentially, he is an actor. He can mingle with millionaires and talk about billion-dollar deals when he doesn't have rent money in his pocket." He's living the life of the people he writes about and his own life is altogether out of the picture."
A virtuous journalist has to figure out what are their values and how to separate personal life and business. They have to look beyond the story and realize how it is going to affect the source, the readers and the publication before writing it up and sending the finished piece in.
I can't think of journalist that would be considered virtuous today. I feel like in society today it is hard to think of one due to the abundance of news that people have access to. The work of a virtuous journalist is overshadowed by mundane news and amateur writing.
Virtuous journalism goes beyond the simple statements of facts and is able to convey a story creatively. This often leads to controversial stories that the public may not want to hear but on this issue I have to agree with Hannah. A virtuous journalist wont let the consequences of doing a story like this deter him or her from exposing the truth. It is the journalists who settle for objectively regurgitating word for word what they hear from politicians, corporations and PR firms that fall into the category of what Kirkhorn calls "graybeards." When I think of virtuous journalism the first example that comes to mind is Hunter S. Thompson's style of experimental journalism he called "Gonzo." By fully involving himself with each story he was able to live the life of a Hells Angel instead of simply stating the facts.
I can't think of any truly virtuous journalists reporting today. Todays news media is so involved with entertaining and not pissing anyone off that there is no room for virtuous journalists in the newsroom.
Virtuous journalism is imaginative, independent, creative, and a "weedy growth." In order for journalism to be virtuous a journalist has to not be afraid. He has to not be afraid of backlash, of harm, of standing out, of making a difference. All the people Kirkhorn listed at the beginning of his essay were people who were not afraid to dig deep and uncover the terrible truths of our society. A virtuous journal likewise has to not be afraid to publish things that the public may not want to read. It is not about circulation, it about truth and spreading the word. Journalism has to act like a weedy growth in order to help society. It should spread like a weed in the public's mind, but a weed that spreads truth. Any of the journalists that Kirkhorn listed I think would be considered virtuous, however, they are dead now and I do not know of any journalists today that would be considered virtuous. I do think that Jon Stewart is virtuous but I do not know if he is considered to be a journalist in the truest sense.
I think W. Eugene Smith defined virtuous journalism when he said "My only editor would be my conscience and my conscience would be of my responsibilities." We talked about the responsibilities of a citizen in a democratic society and I think it is the role of the virtuous journalist to provide citizens with information to fulfill those responsibilities. Kirkhorn elaborates on this when he explains integrity: "Integrity requires the existence of a personal obligation to the reader--and not to the reader's (or viewer's) "needs" or "interests", but to the reader's responsibilities. I also think a virtuous journalist gets as close to the subject or topic he or she is covering as possible. Remaining completely objective does not allow a journalist to discover the truth. Standing for away doesn't allow for understanding, but forces the journalist to merely spit out facts. Journalists are story tellers and to tell a good story one needs to get inside the heads of the people he or she is writing about. Kirkhorn mentions Adrienne Rich when she talks about pluralism and Rich points out that "men have not been expected to talk about feelings at all." I think if a journalist contains the qualities that Kirhorn discussed--wandering ,adventure, surprise, feelings have to be included with the facts. When smith listened to his conscience, it told him to took pictures that held the reader "in serious thought." His imagination and adventure allowed him to pursue the truth no matter the consequences and he mixed facts with feeling to accomplish this goal. A journalist who isn't virtuous "is unwilling to tell a story that its public would prefer not to hear." He or she is more concerned about the story that will earn large profits and treats their audience as a market. The journalist does not use his conscience to make decisions but follows the money. I'm not sure that I know of many virtuous journalists today. I also thought of Anderson Cooper because of his wartime reporting but it's difficult to think of many reporters who have spent more than a few days or weeks to cover complex stories. Kirkhorn mentions Dan Rather's broadcast about Afghanistan but Rather only spent a few days in Afghanistan to try to deliver a complex issue to the American audience. Virtuous journalism cannot be done in this type of environment because characteristics such as integrity, pluralism, imagination, sympathy, and attention are difficult to cultivate in a few days. Sadly, many news organizations and journalists, whether it's the lack of resources or commitment practice the journalism that caters to the public's "interests" rather than their responsibilities.
I think a virtuous journalist is one who is able to learn and recognize all of the basic ethics involved in reporting but who is able to extend beyond them and also stay true to being a writer. Part of the craft of journalism is seeking truth, but the second half of that is telling a story in a way that respects the events and tries to make all audiences feel connected to and interested in the story. It’s one thing to do your reporting and adhere to all the rigid standards of journalism and AP style, etc., but I think, especially after you’ve had some time to hone in on your skill set, it’s more important to be able to give a story justice by writing about the look of grief on the crowds face as a building burnt down or the tears of joy seen when covering a simple feature. Journalism shouldn’t be flashy for the sake of money, but the virtuous journalist should be able to marry news and good writing.
A virtuous journalist, as described by Kirkhorn, is someone who “helps us to remember, or remember for us, what we need to know to understand the workings of the world; they educate, first themselves and one another, then the rest of us.” Kirkhorn lists a list of traits that he feels the purpose of journalism should be. Some of these include offend, appease, and investigate. A virtuous journalist is someone who is accurate with their reporting and someone who Kirkhorn says goes against the journalistic stereotypes. A virtuous journalist is not afraid to cross boundaries and deliver the truth to the public, to stand out and make a difference in the journalistic world. It is a “weedy growth,”-- A weed that spreads the truth to the public. Kirkhorn listed a number of virtuous journalists in his essay. Being a virtuous journalist is something that someone is born with; it is not something that you can make or force yourself to be. I agree with everyone else in the fact that I am having a hard time thinking of a virtuous journalist in today’s world. I do not think I would consider John Stewert as a virtuous journalist but I guess he is the closest that I could think of.
A virtuous journalist, according to Kirkhorn, is a journalist that contributes to societies education by informing us on the truth about certain events that take place. A virtuous journalist also makes an identity for his or herself that is trustworthy. Kirkhorn describes such a successful style as “weedy growth”. This means that great journalists are aware of what takes place in their surroundings, and “are much more likely to hang around, in the manner of, say, John Gregory Dunne, than to practice any form of ‘precision journalism’”. In other words, if journalists want to be considered virtuous then they should have characteristics such as, integrity, a true sense of identity, sympathy, attention, and imagination.
I have to agree with Tanique in the sense that I really can’t think of one specific journalist that sticks out to me. While I do read the news, there’s never been one specific individual that I tend to follow on a daily basis. But, I do feel that there are two different categories for journalists today, ones that report for the public good, and others that do it for the good of themselves.
Virtuous journalism, as described by Kirkhorn, is when journalists perform “counter-journalism,” or detecting and avoiding the “assumption of chaos,” while contributing “to our education and fortify[ing] our convictions” and resisting “stereotyping which compounds fabrication.” To me, virtuous journalism exists outside the cesspool of news organizations that rely on “narrative fidelity,” or stereotypes and preconceptions, that interfere with ethical news gathering, and attempts, above all else, to educate — not scare — the public.
The following idea, above all else, speaks to how different virtuous journalism is to typical journalism: “Reporting and interpreting offered by such journalists is unsparing— neither we nor they are spared; their understanding is hard won — won from facts and not confined to them, and clarified by rigorous and sometimes painful and discouraging reflection.” Virtuous journalism demands a presence. A journalist that understands the information they provide is not meaningless— it is charged, important, and can sway and influence public discourse. That type of responsibility is only assumed when the journalist participates in that “sometimes painful and discouraging reflection.” With reflection comes self-awareness, and I think it’s through self-awareness that we can understand the impact we make on the world.
Similar to Tanique, I immediately thought of Nicholas Kristof when prompted about virtuous journalists working today. Kristof, a columnist for The New York Times, travels all over the world to bring the countries on the edge of the world into a greater spotlight. It’s hard to make people care about such remote places, but Kristof manages to do that bi-weekly. He’s a name that is recognized (not just because he works at the Times), but because he’s reliable. He makes a difference not only in our national, but international, discussion. He’s also a columnist which allows him to not only reflect on his work, but to voice those reflections as well.
Unfortunately, as much as I love journalism, I can't say that I associate it with virtue in today's world. Modern journalism is for entertainment purposes because that is what will make it sell. Virtuous journalism is when a journalist puts the truth before themselves. It is when a journalist understands that their job is about more than just making money or ensuring security; it is about being honest with the readers because there are still people out there who look to journalism for the truth. Another component of being a virtuous journalist is respecting what you are writing, and staying true to the facts. A virtuous journalist earns the publics trust in a respectable and honest way, not through catering to the need for entertainment or dishonesty. A truly virtuous reporter would not let anything scare them away from the truth. It is sad to me that I can't think of a truly virtuous journalist, but it's probably because a lot of the well-known journalists aren't well-known for their hard-hitting reporting. I think that there are a lot of people who desire to be virtuous to the craft and have every intent to, but the world makes it difficult to be so.
Virtous journalism is journalism that isn't a mere recitation of fact. A virtuous journalist "needs to be imprecise and tentative in its approach-- especially at the outset." This defies the knee-jerk response most people have to the question of what honest journalism has. To most people "honest journalism" is very deliberately unbiased, reporting sheer facts with absolutely no spin. However, news without analysis isn't all that useful to its audience. A virtuous journalist can approach a story imprecisely as they gather facts and build analysis simultaneously. Ultimately, a journalist should have a goal beyond mere reporting of names and locations.
By remaining imprecise at the outset, Kirkhorn says, journalists can direct their attention on their subject and "increase their immunity to deception."
When Kirkhorn talks about journalism being "weedy," he relates it to "termite art." My interpretation of termite art is art that is so unconscious of it's audience that it becomes an entirely self-conscious entity and therefore totally amorphous. This isn't to say that journalisms should abandon the goal of relating to their audience, but that all art forms (if you can call journalism an art form) or disciplines can benefit from an amorphousness can eliminate the potential of falling into specific ideologies that cloud a journalists ability to perceive truth.
If a journalist is not virtuous, this doesn't necessarily mean that he or she is a malicious fact-twisting liar. In fact, Kirkhorn says several times that it is the job of a virtuous journalist to eliminate the possibility of being deceived or disillusioned into reporting bad, incorrect information (or information provided with ulterior motives). A non-virtuous journalist may just be someone who lacks the discipline and fine tuning to adhere to the journalistic reflexes Kirkhorn describes. I think the most important ones on the topic of virtuousness are independence and detachment. Non-virtuous journalists are those who fall victim to adherence to particular ideologies (so they lack independence), who cannot detach themselves without being disconnected from the material they're reporting on.
From Kirkhorn's essay, I gather that lack of virtue isn't a result of deviousness, but a result of lack of journalistic discipline. Essentially, being a journalist carries a certain responsibility to the public, and to not recognize this is to lack journalistic virtue.
Post a Comment