Rethinking the Public

Ch. 9: Rethinking the Public

In chapter 9, we are given new ways to categorize and better understand the audience that we are supposedly trying to reach. I use the word supposedly because my major understanding of this chapter was that the audience really isn’t that important. But I’ll get to that later. First, Schudson makes a distinction between intensive and extensive reading. Intensive, as the name implies, is when a person reads the same book, genre, or media over and over to the point of near religious devotion. Extensive reading is when a person dabbles here and there in all different kinds of media. The shift from intensive to extensive coincides with the advance of the newspaper and the novel in the 18th century. Now readers are both intensive and extensive according to Schudson.

The next issue I found extremely upsetting as a journalist. For a bit of background, Schudson mentions just how important newspapers are and all their functions (assist in daily life, escape boring lives, resource for conversation, etc.). Schudson then tries to make the case that it is better if journalists don’t know what their readers want and operate solely on their “own intuitive judgments” and their desire to impress and not distress their editors. Because journalists don’t face the audience every day, they operate by trying to cater to their colleagues and their editors.

I realize the reality of the business angle that is present in all areas of the Media; however, we just spent a considerable amount of time talking about the audience. The book goes on to give statistics about the readers and their qualities, however, after what was just announced, it seemed irrelevant and irreverent. Finally, Schudson mentions how the lack or decrease of readers and citizens that are active in public life is disturbing. My opinion on this is that if journalists are writing worthless and self-indulgent stories, then what reason does the audience have to get excited or involved about it? This kind of journalism only detracts from true discourse between the news-makers, the journalists, and the public.

Do you see blogging as a way to make journalists “face” the audience?

Is it right that journalists disregard the audience in order to please their editors and colleagues? Can you justify or accept this reality?

Here's a site that discusses the role of bloggers in the media.

Ch. 10: News as Literature and Narrative

Schudson defines a “news story” as both news (faithful and truthful rendering of news) and a story (literary convention). By this token, a journalist must be a skilled story-teller and gatherer of facts. The points I found most interesting in this chapter were how journalists determine if a story is newsworthy or not, if it has legs (possibility for continuation), and how journalists wait in anticipation for the holy grail of news stories: the mighty “Holy Shit!” story.

Once this story has come out, the journalist hopes that readers will be scandalized rather than enlightened. In my opinion, knowledge and enlightenment should be just as awesome as scandal. I think I’m one of the few people in the world who yells, “Holy shit!” when I see a story about stem cells on the front page of the science section, but wouldn’t it be a huge improvement in our society if we all cared about learning rather than gossiping?
The elusive and beautiful “Holy Shit” (H.S.) story is organic, not synthetic, according to Schudson. He argues that you cannot create your own H.S. story; you must wait and be prepared for when it occurs. Again, Schudson and I had a little disagreement. I believe that if you do enough research beyond the standard work of a journalist, then you’ll find things that people truly care about (but according to the previous chapter, journalists don’t really care about the public anyway).

I am allowed about 70 more words and I have 4 more pages of notes on the reading in the book. I’ll try to keep these last few major points brief. I was especially drawn to the section where Schudson talked about when journalists are either “neutral interpreters of news” or “guardians of social consensus.” In news, we are sometimes forced to be balanced and near-objective; however, other times we are obligated to enforce social norms.

The last point in this chapter was especially interesting to me. Schudson brought up how journalists have to adhere to cultural presuppositions and in every different situation; they have to play a different role. The different voices they use help the audience understand the story. My favorite point he makes is: if journalists fail at their role, it’s not a just a professional mistake, but “cultural sacrilege.” These journalists who don’t don the correct journalistic hat are “rebels or mavericks – or, if they get away with it, innovators.”

Do you think you have to stumble upon H.S. stories? Or do you think you can go out and find them?

Ch. 11: Law, Democracy, and News

Schudson begins this chapter by arguing that news exists even where democracy does not. He continues to say that news has little to do with democracy, but press is important for democracy to function. Under the First Amendment, the United State’s media is free of government and should therefore be the freest media there is. Unfortunately, that’s not how it works. The limitations of the government make the media very susceptible to censorship created by the marketplace (the publisher’s need to make money). Discussing the economy of the media prior to this chapter was very helpful in making sense of the anomaly. Marketplace censorship happens with less frequency when the government plays a role in the media. It seems that is comes down to this: you can have either a free or fair press, not both.

What is your opinion on the “right to reply” issue?

In terms of the government involvement in fixing the media’s financial problem, is the remedy worse than the disease?

This site discusses the role of government in broadcast journalism.