History's record and public's perception of the press role differ over events like the Brown shooting

Carl Bernstein, modern reporter of the Watergate fame

Carl Bernstein has said that the media has more difficulty in being objective in the modern world, given the strong emotions surrounding events and the widespread use of the Internet. Journalists in a traditional mold followed the dictum to educate, inform and hold power to account. There is a history and a practice to help consumers decide if the modern media measures up to that traditional mold.  But in the midst of major happenings, opposing factions often blame the media for violence or confrontations, including events related to the shooting of Michael Brown and its aftermath.

Michael Brown, an African American youth, was shot and killed by Officer Darren Wilson who shot and killed the unarmed teenager some months ago.  The media reported many of the eyewitness remarks made regarding the shooting as well as information received from the businesses, ordinary citizens and politicians of Ferguson, Missouri, where the events took place.  When the media released a video showing someone reported to be Michael Brown stealing from a convenience store in the hours before his death, many maintained the media was one-sided and trying to disparage the victim. After the grand jury announced its decision that Officer Wilson would not be standing trial in criminal court for the killing of Brown, Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch indicted the media for its reporting, hinting at its bias toward Brown as opposed to objectively reporting the events and details in order to present an unbiased account of what happened.

As criticism is consistently aimed at the media during times of heightened emotions, the perspective of history offers us a view of the media's responsibility and its role when bad things happen, or even when good things happen or any time people need to know something of consequence to themselves and others.

The history of journalism in the United States and the notions of the special place of newspapers was best stated by two of America's great statesmen and founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. They believed the press had supreme value in the functioning of a democracy, a need to give voice to the people's need to know and desire to learn, grow and develop through reading, understanding and discussing common concerns and ideas with their peers. Jefferson and Washington had somewhat different accents on what they considered to be the essential role of a free press, but both valued it highly. The following quotes demonstrate their beliefs:
"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."-Thomas Jefferson, 1787.

"For my part I entertain a high idea of the utility of periodical publications; insomuch as I could heartily desire, copies of ... magazines, as well as common Gazettes, might be spread through every city, town, and village in the United States. I consider such vehicles of knowledge more happily calculated than any other to preserve the liberty, stimulate the industry, and ameliorate the morals of a free and enlightened people".- George Washington, 1788.

Both Jefferson and Washington saw in newspapers the notion of enlightenment and the preservation of freedom provided by the press. Could they ever have anticipated the 24/7 nature of newspapers and the notion that anybody can in terms of reporting the news? Of course, we don't know for sure, since they aren't here to tell us; but we can examine their opinions and look through the prism of present experience to determine for ourselves whether or not newspapers today meet the obligations set forth by the framers of the Constitution as being essential in a free country. In short do newspapers benefit democracy as the founding fathers wanted or has news become something other than what was conceived?

Newspapers go back much further than the founding of America, with the first newspapers having been initiated by Julius Caesar with what historians say was the Roman Acta Diurna, which appeared approximately 59 B.C. This was the emperor's method of keeping his subjects informed about political and social events. News was written on large white boards then posted in popular places like the Baths. The Acta was said to have kept the Roman citizens informed about government scandals, military campaigns, trails and executions.

The Gutenberg Press, invented to Johann Gutenberg in 1447, brought modernization of methods in informing the public, allowing the spread of knowledge during the Renaissance. Newsletters were exchanged among the merchant class informing them of relevant news concerning commerce and trade. In the 15th century manuscript newssheets were widely circulated in Germany. These were often filled with sensational ritings. As an example, one of them reported on the abuse of Germans in Transylvania at the hands of Vlad Tsepes Drakul, also known as Count Dracula. It was also in this era that readers began paying a small coin to receive these pamphlets.

Media expanded in the 17th century to include local news in different parts of Europe. With the advent of the telegraph, the ability to transmit information made communication more capable, efficient and faster than it had been before, allowing news to travel to many places.

The "Golden Age" of newspapers occurred between 1890 to 1920, when the titans of print media built huge empires. These individuals included such prominent names as William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer, and Lord Northcliffe. The power of the press became in fact real in this era, as the owners of newspapers wielded considerable influence on the political and social landscape. The advent of radio and television brought decline in readership of print media, but not its absolute demise, as the ratio of readership of one newspaper for every two persons dropped to one for every three.

The valiant, the intrepid, the dedicated, the earnest and the tireless reporters are chronicled in a timeline of stories and names of those who have contributed to information in the best of the tradition of news. These are the folks against whom modern media might check to determine if they measure up.

Walter Cronkite was one of those finest journalists in the history of the news media. He was old school, in the tradition of looking good, sounding good, relaying news crisply and writing and speaking with clarity and facts. This was the impression of his peers and his readers over the years. His was the style of straight-talk news. The feature man of media news, Edward R. Murrow, relied on his investigative skills, his ability to deliver information in a dramatic but carefully toned and detailed way so public trust was engendered as a result. These were two journalists most experts consider to be the best in the tradition of news reporting. Both presided over major events in a fashion that folks saw as calm and competent, Cronkite with his reporting of the Kennedy assassination and Murrow his dissection, digesting and disseminating information about Joseph McCarthy and exposure the hysteria in the Senate over communism.

Today the Internet is fast becoming one of the major sources of news for millions of people. In reviewing the history and tradition of journalism, one might look through that prism of information and understanding and ask if name-calling, abbreviated speech, and trash talk that sometimes goes on would be embraced by the greats in the newspaper industry. It is also useful to examine present news from the Internet, including that done by "civilian" reporters, against the demands in a democracy as outlined by Jefferson and Washington, to be fair, balanced and focused on the good of the nation's interests.

It is what the founding fathers maintained their best hope for the country, for the media to be maintained as the hallmark of maintaining freedom for everyone.  However, in the midst of controversy, as has occurred surrounding the killing of Michael Brown, it will be difficult for many people to accept the media's neutrality or even its efforts to maintain it.

Who is a journalist and who should you trust with the news?

Carol Forsloff - An article a few years ago in SFGate addressed government's new strategies for defining and restricting who is a journalist.  One of the biggest issues has to do with bloggers vs. journalists.  How do you tell which is which?  Is it just the format they use?What does the law say?

The issue, folks say, has both ethical and legal complications.

It is possible, for an example, as one writer observed, for a 16-year-old to have a press pass and have at it, even on major stories.  Is it reasonable to restrict such an individual who may be able to accurately report an incident very well.

Then there is long-distance, armchair journalism, a writer penning information about something in France, a Frenchman reporting on American politics.  Is that reasonable and is it fair?

There are also legal questions that have been addressed in some recent decisions regarding defamation.  If a blogger claims protection for presenting negative information about an individual, and that same individual loses business or stature, some courts, like recently in New Jersey, will maintain a blogger isn't a journalist and is therefore not protected.

In the history of journalism, the original journalists were pamphleteers who provided local communities information they needed, often for survival itself.  They helped to raise militia during times of crises and warned folks of impending dangers.  They also criticized government itself, leading Thomas Jefferson to maintain that he would rather have a free press than any other freedom, since this alone would impact government and how it did its work.

Therefore the value of journalism has long been entrenched in most countries, but with the advent of the Internet has brought complications as well.

James Kunstler is a journalist who has written for Rolling Stone and the New York Times, among many other publications listed on his resume.  He is a man of strong opinions on the environment and America's dependency on cars and is known in some circles for that.

He writes a blog; his articles are there for people to read now and then, and are passed along on email chains for those who want the best of opinion and news.

The construct of a blog allows Kunstler and other journalists the ease of posting stories wthout the intricacies required by websites where pages have to interrelate in a specific fashion or can't be read.  Most writers aren't webmasters, but writers, they complain.  The blog is a tool for that reason.

These are the ethical and practical issues facing journalists today.

The notions are left to present and debate, as they are in journalism schools and in media departments everywhere.

In the meantime, Bob Woodward, an investigative reporter, has a definition that can give folks pause, given his story that brought down the government of Richard Nixon, thus impact on history itself.  He asserts that for the most part people are attached to what he calls celebrity journalism, either making celebrities through stories and covering celebrities with the same energy, verve and level of importance as serious news stories.  He refers to this as the "Paris Hilton - Kim Kardashian factor."  

At the same round table discussion about the definitions and tasks of journalism, Carl Bernstein challenged the idea of giving equal time to differing political agendas.  He said there are difficult consequences when folks give the same amount of time to Donald Trump's question about the Obama birth certificate and what Hillary Clinton might have said as Secretary of State.  Theme and level of importance of that theme for the news is part of how newsrooms select what to publish.  That issue is wrapped up in the choices of offering what readers want or what they need, especially when those wants and needs conflict.

Bloggers and journalists make mistakes in reporting. When can they be sued? Challenges are often made about defamation, however the complainant must demonstrate harm, usually in monetary terms.  Bloggers, who may offer information in the form of advice, if they portray themselves as experts and an individual is harmed by taking that advice, they may open themselves up to liability.

His is one of the opinions journalists examine themselves, as they wrestle with bloggers, citizen journalists, their colleagues, themselves and sort out who is a journalist now and .  How will that definition impact the dissemination of information in the ways defined by Jefferson or Woodward?

Jefferson's definition was this:  education, information and holding power to account, which with Woodward's appraisal gives parameters perhaps for courts, the federal government and for journalists themselves to examine.

And the courts have decided that bloggers are held to the same standards in the courts when they report news and portray themselves with the same expertise to do it as journalists.  So ethics become a deciding factor in establishing the boundaries, as those boundaries merge and become one when it comes to fairness and balance in reporting.

Carl Bernstein: Not much reporting any more

Carl Bernstein

         
Carol Forsloff---Margaret B sat at a table nearby, peering up at the television set in the back of the restaurant and exclaimed, "Not much on television these days except people saying there's breaking news, but then it isn't new at all, do you think?  And there's lots of just conversation back and forth, with young folks laughing as they are talking.  Doesn't sound like what I remember newscasts used to be."  Her observation mirrors that of Carl Bernstein reporter of the Washington Post and Watergate fame.

Bernstein was on the show Reliable Sources today, observing what others have often said about the media.  Too much of the news is of the armchair type and too little is news.

Hillary Clinton was the top of discussion on many of the news channels this weekend.  But for the most part the articles were speculation on how the new revelations about her personal life was going to impact her future possibilities as a Presidential candidate.  Bernstein offers the observation that it is often this type of news that dominates the air waves and the print form of the news as well.

The woman at a restaurant takes a moment to say out loud what she believes has happened with the news and offers her observation, albeit "no real names, please" to a reporter sitting nearby.  "I just don't watch much television anymore because I hear the same things repeated over and over.  And they say it's breaking news.  I mostly read the Portland Oregonian because at least I get some news about what's going on around here.

Local is what counts to many people.  But even local news is invaded by online "newspapers" that don't report the news but instead offer a series of canned articles that are cut and pasted from somewhere else.  So that's why people say they get tired of repetitions, the same formats in the same way, by armchair writers who don't go out and cover news on foot.

A casual conversation becomes the news of the moment, reaffirmed by Carl Bernstein, a reminder of what even people in the news media have said about themselves and expressing the concerns of many, that the old-style method of going out into the public arena and gathering information is a value many hope won't fade away.  In fact it is that style of reporting that leads to good investigative journalism.