G6 Group Assignment
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of California, Berkeley *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
104
Subject
Arts Humanities
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
Pages
3
Uploaded by GrandUniverse4734
John Street, 2021. Watchdogs and Lapdogs: The Politics of Journalism
1. How has the expansion of the public relations industry, spin doctoring, and the politics of
churnalism impacted journalists? What are the three models of conceptualizing Journalism so
that we can analyze the problems more critically?
The expansion of the public relations industry, spin doctoring, and the politics of churnalism
impacted journalists due to the shift in power dynamics, the manipulation of information, the
rise of churnalism and the pressure on journalists. Shift in power dynamics influenced
individuals to become control and shaping the narratives that reach the public. PR professionals
want the information that reaches the public to paint their clients in the best possible light
making it almost impossible for journalists to access unbiased information. Spin
doctoring/manipulation of information involves framing information in a particular way that
benefits a certain audience or perspective. Churnalism is a practice by journalists where they rely
heavily on press releases and other forms of media that creates the reproduction of already
released news. This creates compromising and careless reporting. Time constraints have also
impacted journalists to a great degree. The three models of conceptualizing journalism so that we
can analyze the problems more critically are the Authoritarian, Libertarian and Social
Responsibility model. The authoritarian model sees journalism as a tool for a government or
ruling group. This means that journalism is used in the interest of the state and not the people as
it is heavily censored. Problems can arise when journalists are not watchdogs as they are not able
to hold the ones in power accountable to the public. The Libertarian model emphasizes an
independent journalism that can be used to keep the government in check and accountable. This
model believes that the people's interest is important and publicizing real news that can inform
the public and is not censored by the government. A problem that can arise is the lack of
accountability of journalists as they are able to publish what they feel. The last model is the
social responsibility model. It recognizes that free press and free speech is important, but also
prioritizes the balance of holding the journalists accountable, so essentially it is a balance
between both of the other two models!
Stephen Ward,2018. the role of Journalism in the polluted and divisive public sphere
2. How is the contemporary public sphere corrupted? What are the ideals of democracy that
Ward wants to train and guide Journalists into? What material and psychological conditions have
caused the nasty nature of the public discourse that has resulted in a polluted public sphere?
According to Stephen Ward, his main premise is that extreme populism is eroding
democracy and only journalists can detoxify the polluted sphere. He discusses “Trumpism” and
attacks on democratic institutions. He explains that although we have undergone a digital
revolution, the public sphere is corrupted. He discusses the several reasons why democracy is
threatened and highlights three large factors: (1) the rise of a global public sphere; (2) the rise of
extremism populism, and its shift to mainstream politics; and (3) the rise of information
technologies that can be used to spread misinformation, division, and hatred.
He argues that to strengthen democracy, journalism, and news organizations need journalism
ethics, which he defines as the norms that should guide the social practice of journalism. He
defines the ideals or the principles of an ideal democracy as egalitarian, dialogic, and pluralistic.
He provides practical guidelines for Journalists to promote democracy and how to become
democratically engaged public informers. His guidelines explain how journalists can advance the
flourishing of citizens in a democracy. He discusses the fact that traditionally journalists have
played two roles, being neutral observers by reporting the facts or admitting that they are biased
interpreters espousing a partisan agenda. He suggests that journalism needs to embrace a third
path and adopt an ethical journalism approach of democratically engaged journalism.
Various factors have contributed to a decline in public discourse and a polluted public
sphere. The changing media landscape, specifically social media, has led to the spread of
misinformation. For example, media outlets prioritizing sensationalism at the risk of spreading
misinformation. Political polarization has also led to the amplification of extreme viewpoints
within public discourse. Media outlets are also allowed to prioritize profit over factual
journalism, which is a main contributor to a polluted public sphere, as it’s hard to trust the
credibility of media outlets. Additionally, psychological factors including confirmation bias
contribute to a polluted public sphere. People often seek out information that confirms their
existing beliefs, so existing bias is just reinforced rather than formed authentically through public
discourse. The online aspect of social media also gives a sense of online anonymity. When
individuals can remain anonymous, there appears to be less consequence, and this can lead to
aggressive behavior through words and actions. Overall, if one is lacking in media literacy, it will
be challenging to actively engage in public discourse, and difficulty sorting out misleading
information from credible sources will also contribute to a polluted public sphere.
Journalism's Professional codes and the debate on objectivity
3. Why are scholars such as Ward, Street, and Croteau et al., problematize the traditional
Journalistic codes of objectivity as outdated? Is neutrality an impossible measure of Journalistic
value? How has the traditional Journalistic professional code of objectivity been challenged and
replaced with newer values? What are your thoughts on this debate?
There are several reasons as to why scholars such as Ward, Street, and Croteau
problematize the traditional journalistic codes of objectivity as outdated. For instance, although
journalism is intended to present factual information without bias, there are cultural and social
influences that impact journalists’ objectivity. This also plays into neutrality and how it factors
into the measure of journalistic value. Due to the limited scope of impartialness– limited by both
conscious and unconscious biases– the traditional objective codes of journalism relays a false
equivalency. Journalists may try to imply that the materials that they are presenting have given
equal weight to all sides of the issue despite the facts may not be equal. As such, critics have
implored that journalism strive for fairness and accuracy when neutrality may not be easily
upheld. Others advocate for a more inclusive and diverse representation in the field of
journalism. Although journalism possesses traditional values of objectivity, those practices may
have not included all perspectives, so modern journalists support addressing the biases presented
in certain situations and working on diversifying the field of journalism to better provide a voice
for those these journalists are writing on behalf of. With the age of a globalized, digital
community, I think that transparency as well as accountability have become bigger forces in
journalism. In the instances where true objectivity cannot be reached, it could be beneficial to
audiences to understand the backgrounds of the journalists so that they can make better, educated
judgements about the information presented. As mentioned early, the backgrounds of various
journalists does have an influence on their journalistic values of objectivity even if the biases are
unconscious. As such, journalism today has become more polarizing despite its traditional values
of serving as an impartial deliverer of information. Although objectivity might be difficult to
implement in practice, we can hold journalists accountable by emphasizing fairness, accuracy,
and transparency.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help