Pranking the New York Times -- and the point is what, exactly?

A marvelous statement. I'm glad you pointed it out to me.  Yes, I agree that when the Times does in-depth reportage objectively, no one can touch them. I think the work they did on 9/11 was spectacular.

But, these examples have become fewer and fewer.  And, the Times no longer sets the standard it used to. It's too bad. But, I'd let it go without a qualm.  Again, I never thought I'd say or feel this way.

Hope you make your students work as hard as the old crew at Medill made us work. It was fun.

First, thanks, Norma, for reading my work.

I teach journalism, as you probably know. I don't think you would find a discontinuty between what students in reputable journalism programs are taught today and what you learned at Medill. It's true that there is some discussion of the problems that inhere in trying to achieve the ideals of objective journalism, but no one is abandoning truth-telling, independence and the other ideals of journalism. Specifically, I refer you to this statement ( http://journalism.org/resources/principles ) from the Project for Excellence in Journalism:

A Statement of Purpose

After extended
examination by journalists themselves of the character of journalism at
the end of the twentieth century, we offer this common understanding of
what defines our work. The central purpose of journalism is to provide
citizens with accurate and reliable information they need to function
in a free society.

This encompasses myriad roles--helping
define community, creating common language and common knowledge,
identifying a community's goals, heros and villains, and pushing people
beyond complacency. This purpose also involves other requirements, such
as being entertaining, serving as watchdog and offering voice to the
voiceless.

Over time journalists have developed nine core
principles to meet the task. They comprise what might be described as
the theory of journalism:

1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth

Democracy
depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful
context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or
philosophical sense, but it can--and must--pursue it in a practical
sense. This "journalistic truth" is a process that begins with the
professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then
journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning,
valid for now, subject to further investigation. Journalists should be
as transparent as possible about sources and methods so audiences can
make their own assessment of the information. Even in a world of
expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything else
is built--context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and
debate. The truth, over time, emerges from this forum. As citizens
encounter an ever greater flow of data, they have more need--not
less--for identifiable sources dedicated to verifying that information
and putting it in context.

2. Its first loyalty is to citizens

While
news organizations answer to many constituencies, including advertisers
and shareholders, the journalists in those organizations must maintain
allegiance to citizens and the larger public interest above any other
if they are to provide the news without fear or favor. This commitment
to citizens first is the basis of a news organization's credibility,
the implied covenant that tells the audience the coverage is not
slanted for friends or advertisers. Commitment to citizens also means
journalism should present a representative picture of all constituent
groups in society. Ignoring certain citizens has the effect of
disenfranchising them. The theory underlying the modern news industry
has been the belief that credibility builds a broad and loyal audience,
and that economic success follows in turn. In that regard, the business
people in a news organization also must nurture--not exploit--their
allegiance to the audience ahead of other considerations.

3. Its essence is a discipline of verification

Journalists
rely on a professional discipline for verifying information. When the
concept of objectivity originally evolved, it did not imply that
journalists are free of bias. It called, rather, for a consistent
method of testing information--a transparent approach to
evidence--precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not
undermine the accuracy of their work. The method is objective, not the
journalist. Seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as
possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment, all signal
such standards. This discipline of verification is what separates
journalism from other modes of communication, such as propaganda,
fiction or entertainment. But the need for professional method is not
always fully recognized or refined. While journalism has developed
various techniques for determining facts, for instance, it has done
less to develop a system for testing the reliability of journalistic
interpretation.

4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover

Independence
is an underlying requirement of journalism, a cornerstone of its
reliability. Independence of spirit and mind, rather than neutrality,
is the principle journalists must keep in focus. While editorialists
and commentators are not neutral, the source of their credibility is
still their accuracy, intellectual fairness and ability to inform--not
their devotion to a certain group or outcome. In our independence,
however, we must avoid any tendency to stray into arrogance, elitism,
isolation or nihilism.

5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power

Journalism
has an unusual capacity to serve as watchdog over those whose power and
position most affect citizens. The Founders recognized this to be a
rampart against despotism when they ensured an independent press;
courts have affirmed it; citizens rely on it. As journalists, we have
an obligation to protect this watchdog freedom by not demeaning it in
frivolous use or exploiting it for commercial gain.

6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise

The
news media are the common carriers of public discussion, and this
responsibility forms a basis for our special privileges. This
discussion serves society best when it is informed by facts rather than
prejudice and supposition. It also should strive to fairly represent
the varied viewpoints and interests in society, and to place them in
context rather than highlight only the conflicting fringes of debate.
Accuracy and truthfulness require that as framers of the public
discussion we not neglect the points of common ground where problem
solving occurs.

7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant

Journalism
is storytelling with a purpose. It should do more than gather an
audience or catalogue the important. For its own survival, it must
balance what readers know they want with what they cannot anticipate
but need. In short, it must strive to make the significant interesting
and relevant. The effectiveness of a piece of journalism is measured
both by how much a work engages its audience and enlightens it. This
means journalists must continually ask what information has most value
to citizens and in what form. While journalism should reach beyond such
topics as government and public safety, a journalism overwhelmed by
trivia and false significance ultimately engenders a trivial society.

8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional

Keeping news in proportion and not leaving important things out are
also cornerstones of truthfulness. Journalism is a form of cartography:
it creates a map for citizens to navigate society. Inflating events for
sensation, neglecting others, stereotyping or being disproportionately
negative all make a less reliable map. The map also should include news
of all our communities, not just those with attractive demographics.
This is best achieved by newsrooms with a diversity of backgrounds and
perspectives. The map is only an analogy; proportion and
comprehensiveness are subjective, yet their elusiveness does not lessen
their significance.

9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience

Every
journalist must have a personal sense of ethics and responsibility--a
moral compass. Each of us must be willing, if fairness and accuracy
require, to voice differences with our colleagues, whether in the
newsroom or the executive suite. News organizations do well to nurture
this independence by encouraging individuals to speak their minds. This
stimulates the intellectual diversity necessary to understand and
accurately cover an increasingly diverse society. It is this diversity
of minds and voices, not just numbers, that matters.

As for your question about what we lose, let's start with the loss of investigative reporting firepower. Yes, the Times gave us Judith Miller's flawed WMD reporting, Jayson Blair and Wen Ho Lee, but it also gave us the reporting on warrantless surveillance. They also do great explanatory reporting -- the series on the financial crisis with NPR is wonderful.

 More soon -- I've got to chase a deadline. But thanks for the conversation.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

is another (dead serious) topic. I can't imagine a world without newspapers, but their death knell has been sounding for a decade or so now... I remember in '97 my employer, a huge media conglomerate, launching their online division which scared all the print people... ironically the online endeavor went under (re-emerged later in a different guise) while the print news went on, and continues today.. but for how long?

Kim wrote: 

Spoofing a daily newspaper, even a big one like the New York Times,
just feels like beating up on someone who is not in much of a position
to fight back any more,

 Kim, I don't think the spoof was an attack at all... I viewed it as a visionary exercise, a spreading of a meme, you know? Like, "imagine this!" And the use of the newspaper, instead of an online outlet, felt like a tribute, in a way; like it was decided that was the best, most fitting medium (a classic! newspapers on a train!) for helping folks envision what's possible. I loved that.

KeegsMom blogs at:
KIDSFLIX ( http://kidsflix.blogspot.com )

Kim,

I've read your columns about the health of American newspapers with interest. And, maybe as little as five-to-eight years ago, I, too, might have been more concerned than I am now.

The New York Times, which to me (and many others) used to be the model of solid journalism, has failed its readers in so many ways since its heyday as "the grey lady."  (Please bear in mind that I'm talking about news coverage, not the editorial side although the failures there have been grotesque as well.)

There are still some things the Times does better than almost anyone else. Its science coverage, for example, is marvelous. But its political news is so freighted with bias, it has lost all the respect I once had for it.

I understand from a good friend who teaches in a journalism school that kids today aren't even taught to try to be objective. That goal, once paramount in the profession, has been tossed aside. Why, I wonder? And, if so, what are they being taught? This is a serious question.

Back when I attended the Medill School at Northwestern as a graduate student, we were taught...I should say, whipped, into gathering information that to the best of our ability fairly represented both sides of an issue with adequate story sourcing.

Another young woman studying journalism at the University of Texas at Austin tells me her professors are squarely behind the "Fairness Doctrine." This is something we might have discussed with our professors over drinks (and since we were smart, we bought them for our professors early and often). But never, ever would the school or its professors take a classroom position on an issue like this.

I never thought I'd say this, but the decline in these once trustworthy institutions doesn't bother me in the least (although we still subscribe to the Times). Any serious reader of news today has to rely on multiple sources and constantly evaluate them.

So, I guess my question is: what do we lose if the Times goes under? My answer today is not much.

I do appreciate the fact that a lot of energy went into creating the prank issue, and I suppose the  fact that we are talking about it is something. Like many, I would love to see real headlines announcing the end of the war and the advent of universal health care. But it's hard for me to see it as a model of political empowerment, unless they were preaching to the choir of people who are already active in ways that the group endorsed. 

 It may be that my anxiety about the state of the news industry is getting in the way of my sense of humor. Spoofing a daily newspaper, even a big one like the New York Times, just feels like beating up on someone who is not in much of a position to fight back any more,

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

I thought it was one of the best things I had seen in ages!  I can only imagine the work that went into it. 

Kate

I blog at http://www.aftercancernowwhat.wordpress.com 

... of all things possible, post-election. Imagine waking up to a newspaper with headlines like those! I loved the idea of helping people visualize....

KeegsMom blogs at:
KIDSFLIX ( http://kidsflix.blogspot.com )