USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education)
by Joe Saltzman
One sure-fire way to polish up the tarnished image of the journalist has been to launch a public crusade against the bad guys. Whenever circulation was down or the newspaper's image was in trouble, it was time to wage a campaign against society's traditional enemies: drink, gambling, prize fighting, and prostitution. More serious editors would go after political corruption, consumer fraud, and prison reform.
Readers loved a good crusade because they felt the newspaper was representing them against the rich and powerful, protecting their interests against corrupt political or business forces. Occasionally, the paper even would perform an important public service and become the court of last resort for the poor, sick, and unrepresented. But more often than not, it was business as usual; newspapers tended to reflect a white, male, middle-class morality, defend the status quo, and support those running government and big business. Journalists were expected not to rock the boat, simply to report the facts made available to them and let the chips fall where they may. Still, the occasional crusade, with positive results plastered across the front page, was trotted out at regular intervals to increase circulation and goodwill.
The same thing took place in television. News broadcasts, documentaries, and, later, news magazines knew that the public responded to crusades that exposed evil and brought the corrupt to justice. So, it's no surprise that many of the new TV reality shows have followed this dependable path to higher ratings and favorable public response.
"America's Most Wanted" asks everyday citizens to bring criminals to justice. An exposed on "20/20," "60 Minutes," or "Dateline" reveals injustice and wins applause. Front Page" reporters claim to be the people's champions. "The Crusaders" and "Case Closed" market themselves as exposing wrongdoers and bringing them to justice.
This kind of crusading journalism may help an individual and may even result in a permanent change or two for the public good. But usually there's more smoke than fire, more hyperbole than substance, more shouting than reason, more bark than bite.
One of the problems in doing responsible, thorough crusades is that they take a lot of research, investigative reporting, time, and money. They also offer a nasty problem to the newspaper or broadcast management supporting the crusade-they sometimes step on sensitive toes. Major advertisers, powerful politicians, and influential businessmen may end up being the ultimate targets of journalism investigations, and this can cause big trouble for the sponsoring media.
So, generally, small fish are under attack (diamond sellers palming off fake stones) or the expose is so general and across-the-board ("Hospitals are wasting money") that no one in power is hurt in the process. Get close to the truly powerful as network reporters tried to do during the Watergate or Iran-contra scandals, and management will start worrying about balanced coverage, fairness, and "objective" journalism. When a crusade gets too close to the power source or a major advertiser, no one in media management cares much for it. Get the clerks and leave the boss alone.
This kind of crusading, advocacy journalism has other problems. Journalists who seize the bit and go after someone accused of wrongdoing sometimes forget that they are not policeman, prosecutor, judge, and jury. Sometimes, in their zeal for justice, fair play and fair trials are corrupted. A burglar arrested on a reality police show or a person running a nursery who is accused of child molestation seldom are perceived innocent until proven guilty.
Sometimes, the rush to judgment swallows up the innocent as well as the guilty as deadlines must be met and the sensational is played up. There is something offensive about advocacy journalism to many since journalists are not supposed to be advocates. They are supposed to be fair and accurate reporters and editors. Even advocacy for an apparently good cause is suspect to many who worry about media responsibility to air all sides of every issue and to print all the pieces of a complicated story. Many believe it is not the journalist's job to take sides, even in the best of causes. Taking sides may be a popular way to win support, but media run a risk when advocacy journalism overwhelms fairness and a detachment from the passions and causes of the day.
Few issues are ever black and white. Yet, the entire appeal of this new form of crusading journalism is just that - the good guys beating up the bad guys. One reason "60 Minutes" has been so successful is that, each week, the reporters in white hats bring the black-hatted villains to account for their sins.
One can expect most TV reality crusaders to continue to go after the obvious targets. It's one thing to complain about violence in America, quite another to get at the source of the problem, one that involves some of the most powerful organizations in America. It's one thing to crusade against graffiti in the cities, quite another to tackle the poverty and hopelessness of inner-city life. It's easy to expose a false insurance scam for truckers, rather than examine the accepted, if suspect, practices of an entire industry. It's a good idea to teach people how to protect themselves from mugging, but an even better one to get at the root causes of crime and suggest some possible solutions. It helps to tell the story of one woman's search for her runaway daughter, but it would help even more to explore the reasons for the demise of the American family.
Easy, simplistic crusades mean money in the bank. Don't expect anything beyond that. The price tag for true crusading journalism is too high a price for most media to pay.
COPYRIGHT 1994 Society for the Advancement of Education
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group
No comments:
Post a Comment