The Absence of "Why?"

I found this fantastic short documentary by Adam Curtis, aired on Charlie Brooker’s Newswipe on the BBC, on “The Rise and Fall of the TV Journalist.”  It was so poignant that, as a former TV reporter, it scared the daylights out of me:

Curtis makes a fantastic point about how TV journalists “had been patronizing and elitist when they had lectured us about corruption in high places.  Instead, all stories in the future should reflect our experience, and attempts to explain why things happened were abandoned.”

There’s a reason for this: TV is not built to tell us why things happened – that’s boring (I don’t agree with that sentiment, but it’s true).  It’s built to show us what happened, in all its visually spectacular glory.

That brings me to my next point – that it wasn’t the fall of the Berlin Wall that changed TV journalism, so much as it was 9/11.  On that day, news organizations scrambled to get video shot by passers-by, looking for that stunning footage of a second plane slicing through the South Tower.  It was so morbid, and we couldn’t take our eyes off of it.  But that day was the beginning of the end of TV journalism, because the networks, in the scramble to get the most incredible, Stallone-action-movie-esque video, cut out the middle man.  Plus, the story was so big and obvious, there really was little “reporting” to be done.  The planes crashed, the towers fell, and that was about it.  No one cared much about finding out why al Qaeda did what it did – we just wanted to get them for doing it and blast the rest.  Journalism, in the sense of explaining why something happened, suffered.

So the question is, how can we get back to doing our job – finding out and explaining why things happen? How do we answer those all-important questions – how and why – in a way that grabs and holds eyeballs?  Those are the questions we’re answering in this program.

Good Journalism - Trust Us!

I recently stumbled across this new site called NewsTrust.  NewsTrust is a content aggregator/social media site that touts itself as a filter for good journalism.  Users are allowed to post links and rate stories based on their accuracy and fairness.  There are several ways of doing this, but all stories promoted on the site are subject to this crowdsourced review process.  They have several tutorials and guides to help new users understand exactly what the site portends to do.

In addition, NewsTrust users are asked to go on NewsHunts to find the best stories in given topics and sniff out bad news.  The site also has a TruthSquad, where users look at claims made by sources or the media and are allowed to vote on the statement's accuracy.

I'm glad to see a news site that prides itself on the quality of the news, rather than the quantity of hits they're going to get.  It looks very new, since they seem to be trying out a local version in Baltimore, but nowhere else.  I, for one, plan on giving it a shot, having already signed up as a user, and I encourage you to do the same.  Hopefully the folks at NewsTrust have provided us the right platform so we can strike a blow for good journalism.

Pilot

Welcome to the Feed Room!

Now that we're on board, this is where I will post my thoughts on issues in journalism today, interesting stories, examples of great reporting and research, and just about anything else that comes to mind.  Once you are in (and I know you will be, because I have to invite you to subscribe), you are free to comment on every post.

I'm a big believer in the marketplace of ideas, so there's no such thing as a right or wrong opinion.  But you better bring your facts and back up what you have to say.

So, off we go!