Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Do you think journalism/the press is essential to democracy?

By Howard B. Owens
Daniel Jones

Of course journalism is essential to democracy. Are physical newspapers? No. That's not to say that I don't appreciate newspaper companies, I read the Daily News and the Buffalo News daily (in addition to The Batavian while listening to WBTA)....but I read them online. I normally don't touch a newspaper unless it's the Sunday funnies or every once in a while when I'm on the front porch. I'm much more comfortable with my laptop.

Jun 9, 2011, 8:10am Permalink
Daniel Jones

When I was in Albany, as part of the internship program, we had a class on New York Politics that went with it. My Professor told us all that we needed to subscribe to The Albany Times Union, the newspaper of choice for the politicians, lobbyists and political staffers alike in Albany. She also said that reading it online was not a good enough substitute because you could take the newspaper with you and read it, totally ignoring the fact that most of us have laptops and although there is no public wifi in the capitol (some are working on that), wifi is never hard to find.

I never subscribed to the ATU, I read it online every morning before I went to work. She never knew the difference. That's the difference between my generation and my parents generation and that's why newspaper companies need to find a different model for the next 30-40 years.

Jun 9, 2011, 8:14am Permalink
Loy Gross

Ah, but if the PROTECT IP bill passes into law, it gives internet companies and federal agencies the right to filter your internet results. You will never see the articles they don't want you to see. It isn't that easy to censor newspapers...

Jun 9, 2011, 8:17am Permalink
Mike Weaver

Print journalism will go the way of the dinosaurs. By the time printed news reaches me it is already old news. Compnaies that deal in news need to find ways to make the internet and wireless communication work profitably for them or they will slowly die off.

Jun 9, 2011, 9:21am Permalink
Randy Smart

Maybe the people voting no feel that FREE press is essential to democracy...remember the former Soviet Union had a press, as do a number of oppressive regimes.

Jun 9, 2011, 10:00am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I'd just like to know what the "no" people think.

Keep in mind, the people voting no are almost certainly regular readers of The Batavian, which puts them in the category of 50 or 60 percent of the population that has at least a slight concern about what's going on around them.

If we did a scientific survey of all of Genesee County and 25 percent answered no, I'd be like, "ok, well those don't follow the news anyway." But 25 percent of a segment of people who do follow news -- what's their rationale for their vote?

Jun 9, 2011, 10:08am Permalink
Loy Gross

I just happened to find this: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJzhJpbSxYIYhrS0j8efM… which got me thinking even more about the issue. How many reporters actually care about the GLOW region? Can we really hold business & government leaders accountable without local reporters? CNN certainly isn't going to give us the time of day (unless we foster a serial killer or something). Print news may be irrelevant, but democracy requires local reporting.

Jun 9, 2011, 10:51am Permalink
Brandon Burger

It's too late, Sam; "The Liberals" have already infiltrated every branch of government, the military, and the local schools - they are now beginning to infiltrate the minds of the general population!

Perhaps it is even too late for you, Sam. In November of 2012, you and millions of others who have been turned into "Liberal" sleeper agents will be activated. Upon being activated, you will conduct yourself to the local polling place and cast your ballot - thoughtlessly - for Barack Obama.

May God have Mercy on your Soul.

Jun 9, 2011, 10:58am Permalink
Doug Yeomans

Most of the journalism turned loose on the public is inaccurate anyway. I still believe journalism is essential, however. Somewhere in all the BS that's reported is also a bit of truth. Sometimes it's just tough to cut the diamond from the rough.

Jun 9, 2011, 11:28am Permalink
Chris Charvella

Loy, we do have local reporting. Howard does it here, we have the Daily News, I write about GLOW for WNYMedia and WBTA has been around since Christ was a toddler.

Everyone has a different style and focus, but the job is getting done. The local paper is straight news without much editorializing, Howard does straight news but engages readers by sharing opinions and engaging readers in this comments section, WBTA is...well, WBTA is WBTA and I'm the evil liberal media that people like Sam fear so much.

GLOW isn't relevant nationally until somebody important starts shedding articles of clothing. Honestly, I could do without seeing teh CNN cameras around here for a while :)

Jun 9, 2011, 11:32am Permalink
Loy Gross

Chris, I never said we didn't have local reporting and I do appreciate the news sources we have around Batavia.

I meant to imply that we don't have enough local coverage. It seems like the local board meetings, events and public forums get covered - after the fact. But there is a lack of in-depth coverage on issues beforehand, which is a killer for any kind of individual activism. Either people get that information (sometimes inaccurately) from friends and family or they don't find out about it. I'll also note that coverage of any events decreases in direct proportion with distance from the city. These would seem to stem from the number of hours required to write the pieces - it is easy enough to cover an event after the fact, but far more time-consuming to research and detail the reasons for that event beforehand, thus it happens less frequently.

I'm not finding fault - there are only so many reporters and so many hours in a day. Just stating what I see. As local news continues to decline (as predicted in the AP article), fewer and fewer meetings and public forums will be covered and fewer in-depth pieces will be created. I find that trend disturbing.

Jun 9, 2011, 11:47am Permalink
Chris Charvella

Loy, I hear you and you're right, there are only so many reporters available. News outlets cater to their audience, so I wouldn't expect the Daily News to be sending someone to cover say Bergen Town Board meeting any time soon, there's just not that much interest.

I do know that people who cover news out here work pretty hard. Here's an example:

A couple months ago I was at one of the STAMP meetings in Alabama. I had considered writing about the project because I'd been covering the shenanigans at the GCEDC. The meeting had just started and Howard walked in. The meeting went on until almost 9pm and, when I left, I called a friend of mine who was interested in what had happened. I told her I saw Howard there and she sort of gasped.

"Wow," she said, "I was in Bergen a little earlier in the evening at a function and I saw him there too."

So there's Howard, driving from one end of the county to the other at night when most folks are sitting at home watching American Idol. He had pieces up on both of the events he had covered by the next morning. I'm fairly certain he put in 16+ hours that day, and I respect the hell out of that.

Jun 9, 2011, 12:04pm Permalink
Doug Yeomans

Chris, you just emphasized exactly what I was talking about, inaccurate journalism. If a report is slanted to the left or to the right, it isn't accurate. News should be unbiased and all about the raw story.

Jun 9, 2011, 12:05pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Doug, I'm not Walter Cronkite, I'm a blogger. I stick to the truth, i verify sources and I only write factual material. Then I express my opinions about said material.

Jun 9, 2011, 12:30pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Lots to chew on here, not sure I can get to all of it now.

Chris, thanks for the recognition.

Doug, there's no such thing as unbiased coverage. It's impossible. All reporters come to a story with a view point shaped by all they've experienced, studied, discussed, peer group pressure, etc. etc. You just can't escape having a view point, and that shapes how you choose to order facts, what quotes you find the most interesting and newsworthy.

Any story beyond a police blotter-like recitation of "just the facts ma'am" is going to reflect some sort of bias.

That's why I've always been very open about who I am and what I believe. You as a reader have a right to know what sort of filter my news reports are passing through.

In my younger days, I was aware that what facts I was consciously deciding to share and what quotes to use I always had this note in the back of my head, "this is kind of reflecting my own bias here," but I would tell myself and others I was an "objective reporter."

As I learned and studied more, I decided to embrace my own biases. Now when I write a story I'm very much aware, this is my interpretation of things. If readers disagree, they're free to leave comments, ask questions, challenge assumptions or do some of their own additional reporting for a different perspective.

The ironic thing is all the praise I get when I'm out in the community for being such an objective, unbiased reporter.

As for local news, what Loy talks about is a need for more enterprise reporting. I do enterprise pieces when I can, but they do take time. It's the most expensive part of journalism.

One thing worth noting about enterprise reporting is it is especially difficult to do in a "just the facts" fashion. Any time you really dig into a subject you're going to arrive at a point of providing an interpretation. If such a report was truly "just the fact" objectively selected, the resulting report would be so long and so scientifically dry that nobody would read it. Also, facts require context to be meaningful. And context is always subjective.

As for actually doing the work, we have to make decisions all the time about what to cover and not. When the Daily beats us on a story, there's alway a decision to be made about whether to follow the Daily (because some of our readers tell me they don't read the Daily, we're their only source of news, they may not know about the story if we don't tell them), or spend my time going after a story the Daily hasn't done yet. If we concentrate our time on stories that haven't been covered yet, I feel like we're providing a service of bringing more news to the community than might otherwise be reported. But I also feel a responsibility to the people who rely on The Batavian has their primary source of news.

I've always maintained the well-informed local resident would subscribe to the Daily, tune into WBTA and log into The Batavian for the most complete picture of what's going on in the community.

But even then, I know there are stories we're all missing. And I think the towns and villages deserve and need more coverage than they're getting.

A primary reason The Batavian exists is that I believe local community is the foundation of democracy. Everything begins at the local level and across America, people are less engaged in their local communities. I'd like to find a way to change that.

As for the AP article, it goes back to the book Tom Turnbull talked about yesterday and something I realized years ago. The thing that is killing local journalism isn't the Internet or aging readership. It's corporate greed. In the book David Simon is quoted (creator of the HBO series The Wire). He was laid off by the Baltimore Sun (owned by the Tribune Co.) in 1995, well before the web really was a factor. Years later, it came out that the Sun's profit margin at the time was 35 percent.

Conglomerate owners have always taken the position that profits are more important than journalism, so newsrooms always get cut first when more profits are demanded.

Even in 2009, when 15,000 newspaper employees lost their jobs, most newspapers were running at least 20 percent profit margins.

The other factor is what I call the professionalization of journalism. The idea that he-said/she said reporting is a later 20th century invention and its rise coincides with circulation declines. This so-called "objective" and "unbiased" reporting isn't interesting to readers. It's boring. But publishers prefer it because it makes reporters widgets in a factory, completely interchangeable, and there's less chance of offending advertisers.

So take fewer reporters and reporters that are less engaging and interesting and you have a recipe for circulation declines, especially among younger readers.

Jun 9, 2011, 12:44pm Permalink
JoAnne Rock

Democracy depends on unrestricted access to accurate information. While journalists have access to people and places that most ordinary citizens do not, the end result is not always accurate information. Be it human nature, time constraints, profit motives or something more insidious, the press has taken a trust given it by the people and damaged it.

The truth must be told and journalists are in the best position to do the telling. So, yes, I would say that journalism is as essential to democracy as truth is to journalism. But, the truth has to be more important than the priviledge of arguing about ideas and complex issues. The less truthful journalism becomes, the less essential it is for democracy. Citizens must also do their part by questioning the veracity of stories and their sources.

“If I lie in a lawsuit involving the fate of my neighbor's cow, I can go to jail. But if I lie to a million readers in a matter involving war and peace, I can lie my head off and, if I choose the right series of lies, be entirely irresponsible. Nobody will punish me. . . ....Walter Lippmann (Liberty and the News, p24)

I'm certain Walter Lippmann never laid eyes on a personal computer or ever imagined an Internet that would provide a way for amateur journalists to set up blogs to "revolt" against mainstream journalism. In my opinion, if journalism doesn't become more accurate and truthful, it will cease to be relevant and do more harm than good to democracy.

Over 90 years ago, Mr. Lippman asked the question: "what verdict will history lay upon a nation that, professing a belief in government by the will of the people, was content to make decisions about government on the basis of 'facts' reported by a class of people who were notorious, professional liars. (Liberty and the News,p 8 )

I think the question is still relevant today.

Jun 9, 2011, 12:48pm Permalink
Ed Gentner

The news that is reported is more often than not factual with some exceptions. Readers often allow their own biases to infer the writers intent or fundemental philosophy. News reporters simply observe and write about what they have seen, journalists write what they feel or think about what they observe and columnists simply write whatever opinion they hold on any given subject, that is the fundemental difference.

Our first amendment is important because it not only allows any individual to report to the public what has happened and publish a record that allows us to look back, but that it accords that same individual the right to voice and publish his or her opinion without restriction or reservations. The question of an article being accurate or slanted is a matter of ethics that is born by the writer or publisher.

Jun 9, 2011, 1:00pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

I also must point out that most of the people I know among my age group (18-30) all read The Batavian, almost all daily and some twice-daily. I think that Howard's style of journalism and his focus on otherwise overlooked happenings have something to do with that. The site is also clean and easy to navigate. It works for someone who's 20 and it works for someone who's 80.

Jun 9, 2011, 1:33pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

There's also the consideration of what makes a person want to read a news item.

I don't agree with Howard about the impossibility of objective journalism. Not because he's wrong, but because, in my mind, it's readership that drives the way a story is reported. In essence, 'just the fact's ma'am' is possible, but you don't expand your readership/listenership/viewership by doing it. With no audience, you have no advertising and with no advertising you have no job.

Example: The John Edwards haircut story.

You remember during the 2008 presidential primary when John Edwards got his hair cut on an airport tarmac right? Doing a pure fact piece on it would look something like this:

Today, Presidential hopeful John Edwards got his hair cut on the airport tarmac while waiting for his flight to leave. A local barber drove to the airport to perform the service and charged Edwards $400. Edwards then boarded his plane to continue campaigning in another city.

There's the straight story. Many editors wouldn't even consider it newsworthy. Now let's say we need to sell some newspapers or bump our web hits. Just by adding an attention grabbing headline, we can turn a non event into a real story:

Just the facts headline: <b>John Edwards Gets a Haircut</b> (who cares, right?

Let's make it a story headline: <b>Well Coiffed Presidential Candidate Imports Barber For $400 Haircut</b> (Now we're getting somewhere)

New York Post headline: <b>The Would-Be Emperor's New 'Do</b> (and...scene)

The headline changes the way you read the story, but that's not the end of the work. If we really want this to go viral (which it did) we have to add a few (accurate) adjectives and make minor changes to how certain facts in the story are framed.

Example:

<b>Well Coiffed Presidential Candidate Imports Barber For $400 Haircut</b>

Today, Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards received a $400 haircut while waiting for his private campaign jet to leave town. Edwards brought a high-end hair stylist directly onto the airport tarmac do the job. Edwards then boarded his plane to continue campaigning in another city. When asked about the high price of the trim, Edwards responded, "Well, My hair was getting a little long and I was pressed for time."

See how the story changes by moving the facts ever so slightly and adding a couple accurate and reasonable adjectives? When I attribute the $400 price tag to Edwards rather than the barber, Edwards becomes a guy who gets expensive haircuts rather than the barber being a guy who charges top dollar to haul his tools to the airport to service a client. I characterize the airplane as a 'private campaign jet' instead of just calling it Edward's plane adding to the not-so-subtle inference that Edwards is a wealthy and possibly elitist sort of guy.

I also added a quote from the candidate, but imagine if I only used the first phrase in his sentence:

Edwards responded, "Well, My hair was getting a little long." Eliminating the idea of a time constraint from the original quote would make Edwards sound detached and out of touch with people who can't afford that kind of money for grooming. Using the shortened quote would not technically be out of context and would be a perfectly acceptable form of reporting.

No facts are changed, journalistic integrity is maintained, but what was once a non-story is suddenly on the front page.

Jun 9, 2011, 1:58pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Chris, what you describe -- and you say journalistic integrity is maintained -- is what many of my colleagues would consider factual, objective reporting.

"Edwards brought a high-end hair stylist directly onto the airport tarmac do the job."

First, let's stipulate that "high-end" is factual (since I don't actually know the facts of the story all these years later).

If I wrote that, I could argue it's a truthful and accurate statement. Completely objective. It's also good writing.

It would not be good writing to say "Edwards hired a stylist who typically charges $400 for appointments away from his shop." Kind of a boring sentence.

Using something punchy like "high end" grabs more attention, the essence of good writing. The point of writing, after all, is to be read, not put people to sleep.

When I worked for a politician in California, we found out he owed a substantial amount of back taxes. He was making all of his payments and as long as he maintained his payment schedule, the tax bill would be paid by 2001. The reporter who covered the story wrote, "he won't pay off his back taxes before the end of the century."

A completely accurate turn of the phrase, but also loaded with bias. The reporter defended its accuracy, even though it mislead the reader with a phrase we had all grown using as "a long, long way off." The phrase was loaded and the reporter was disingenuous in claiming it was objective reporting (the reporter would be promoted a couple of years later to "writing coach" at the Union-Tribune in San Diego).

It was that incident that really opened my eyes to how objective reporting can be used to shade the truth.

I would rather aim at truth rather than try to fool myself, and readers, into thinking I'm objective and unbiased. Granted, it's the truth as I see it, but I can't see any way except through my own eyes.

It's kind of ironic to talk about this in light of what's happened to Edwards since. The $400 haircut, however spun, proved to be more truthful about the character of the man than probably even the reporters who made it into a big story could have imagined at the time.

Jun 9, 2011, 2:23pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Exactly, all of the examples I put out there are examples of factual reporting. Objective? Well, once you start adding adjectives and coloring up the verbs, I think you leave objective behind. That's actually where I start to agree with you, Howard, because what you describe as 'good writing' can only be accomplished by coloring a story. Even the most fair reporter can unintentionally skew a story while just coloring it up. An unfair one can do real damage.

Jun 9, 2011, 2:30pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

The selection of a news source is based on trust- trust in the integrity or slant of the source. A newspaper (by nature or tradition) presumes a level of trust. Any dope with an internet connection can pretend to be a digital news source. Hell- a 50-year-old guy can pretend to be a 14-year-old girl.

There is a difference between what one grabs to accessorize a trip to the bathroom, and a newspaper.

For those who argue that digital media will replace newsprint: bull. The difference is as clear as the difference between LP records and CDs. Size matters!

I defy anyone to eat lunch and 'read' news on their mobile device. If I spill something on my newspaper, the newspaper just absorbs it- harmlessly. May I drizzle some orange juice on your laptop, blackberry or iPad?

The kicker: cell-phone related cancers will rid the world of the anti-newsprint generation in a decade or so.

Jun 9, 2011, 2:34pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

C.M., the issue isn't online vs. print.

It's, can print survive?

Print was dying before online came along, but online and a recession accelerated the cycle.

There will always be an audience for print newspapers. The question is, how big of an audience? Will the audience be big enough to keep a print product profitable?

At some point, market penetration drops too much to make the print product viable (which is exceptionally expensive to produce, especially as a fully staffed daily, especially in a major metro market).

Take a market like San Diego. If the U-T has a market penetration of 35 percent, it can make money. But can it at 20 percent? 18 percent? At some point, there is an inflection point where revenue simply can't meet expense.

That inflection point has been looming for 40 or 50 years.

Jun 9, 2011, 2:55pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Also, the ancillary to the question of can print survive, and the point of the poll question, is what happens to journalism if print doesn't.

I'd like to think I'm running a commercially viable journalistic business that will survive and grow for many many years if not decades.

But there are very few examples of successful online-only news sites, and none in a market significantly bigger than Batavia/Genesee County.

Many cynics believe there is just no possible way to make journalism pay in an online world.

And the same audience and price pressures facing print are also hitting the broadcast news world.

So the issue becomes, what happens to democracy if journalism dies? Will that be a bad thing, though maybe some think it would be a good thing?

Jun 9, 2011, 3:06pm Permalink
Ed Gentner

Printed newspapers have survived even after they became no longer viable as a profitable business models because they have those readers who can't start their day without reading the morning paper, but their days are numbered.

However, journalism as a working profession will survive and grow in the years to come, it has become a vehicle for democracy from the bottom up allowing an ever increasing number of voices and opinions to be heard and made more accessable thanks to the internet. Just as recording history went from paintings on cave walls, to clay tablets, to stone carving....you get the picture.

As we evolve as social creatures so will our methods and means of communication with others at large. The practice of journalism from small articles reporting the mundane, to the colosal media that delivers the news of the day its message to the masses will survive.

Jun 9, 2011, 4:16pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Here is an issue Chris and I can agree on. A lot can be said about media bias, and it's there. That, however does not excuse the reader from the responsibility of using critical thinking skills in determining what is objective and what is not. We will always have slants in journalism, it's human nature and a direct result of the filters through which we observe life and in a few cases, a flat out agenda push. To let journalism go by the wayside would be to surrender our ability to have an informed voice on issues. Again, it is the responsibility of the end consumer(reader/subscriber) to ferret out the truth amidst the static. Alas, this is a tall order, since as already mentioned here, our attention has been hijacked by entertainment instead of information.

Jun 9, 2011, 4:12pm Permalink
Sam Tambe Jr.

GREAT POLL SUBJECT HOWARD...Great responses everyone that's why I read the Batavian every day :o) Thanks!!

Jun 10, 2011, 8:18am Permalink

Authentically Local