Matt Thompson, co-creator of the video wake-up calls EPIC 2014 and EPIC 2015, has a knack for posing basic, provocative questions. Recently he asked on his Newsless blog a question sure to test the faith of the journalistic priesthood: “Does following the news work?”
I’m intrigued by this article because it questions the efficacy of the story approach to journalism. News stories are, after all, nothing more than carefully composed snapshots in time. They may have internal coherence and be externally verifiable — but often key context gets lost. Life (and news) doesn’t happen in snapshots; it happens on a continuum, and in context.
Here’s what Thompson, who is a member of The Poynter Institute’s National Advisory Board, had to say about this quandary:
I’ve long assumed that if you followed the news, the stories behind the headlines would become plain. By reading your newspaper over time, you’d develop a high-level understanding of the issues. You’d have an idea of the characters involved, the dilemmas at hand, the consensus facts, etc. You’ll be armed with the information you need to make decisions on how to advance your society.
But as I immerse myself in this coverage, I’m starting to suspect it’s not so. I’m taking the most linear approach possible to following the news: reading years of relevant stories strung end-to-end in order. I should be the Platonic ideal of the well-informed citizen. Yet many vital questions remain unanswered.
I can tell you the names, affiliations and positions of all the key players. I can cite a number of City Council ordinances and infrastructure financing studies. I’ve taken more than 30 pages of notes on my Kindle. But all this knowledge only amounts to an awareness of the events that have transpired in growth and development in Columbia. To feel truly and properly informed, I need to understand what these events mean. But I can’t tell you that at all.”
Playing devil’s advocate solitaire, Thompson then questioned himself: “Maybe what [I’m] talking about is just bad journalism. If the reporters and editors were doing their jobs, [I’d] feel like a properly-informed citizen after all that reading.”
But Thompson counters this argument with:
Perhaps, but I have a strong suspicion that the coverage in the [local papers] meets all the standards by which we typically evaluate journalism. The individual articles balance the claims of advocates on all sides and bring in independent testimony where appropriate. At an article-by-article level, the papers do a perfectly respectable job of encapsulating the relevant context.
The real questions seep in at a higher level. Fundamental claims, positions and assumptions remain untested, persisting after all the city council ordinances and the bond elections. The consequences of the events in the headlines seem to go unexamined.
What do you think? Does the traditional story approach to journalism hinder broader understanding of deeper context, including power relationships, competing agendas, and creeping trends? If so, how could we adapt journalism to compensate for this? Could new opportunities for media technology and community engagement or collaboration help? Is there a role for a context editor in your newsroom?
