Can We Please Reinvent this Wheel?
Eight years ago, it would have confounded me to think that someone would leave a career in journalism only to head back to graduate school to get a second degree in journalism. But then, here I am. Confounded no longer. For one very simple reason. In a non-linear world, it does not pay to be linear sources of information gatherers and distributors. I used to be a part of the latter.
Prior to pursuing this degree in social journalism, I’ve been both an assistant producer and a reporter in India. This is what a typical day looks like minus the minutiae — We meet, we pitch story ideas that reporters discover, talk to “sides”, gather information and we report and produce. The cycle repeats with gaps for breaking news.
It isn’t enough. Sure, we awaken public interest temporarily. Until it’s replaced with other more pressing matters. In an age where Governments across the globe are steeped in corruption and bureaucracy, does conventional reportage and production make a difference to the average person or community affected? Also, can a centralized editorial team working in one corner of the country really decide what makes news in other parts? In India, for example, the country is too vast and diverse for this to work. What is news in New Delhi, where most editorial teams make decisions, is barely of concern to the rest of the country. The result is a disconnect between news outlets and consumers. Where even the most well-meaning of journalists are labeled “presstitutes” a word invented by the public to describe paid news. That is the extent of mistrust.
More importantly, does traditional journalism produce consistent change today, even if slow? Or are we as journalists today just going through the motions? These are some of the questions I grapple with as I begin the social journalism program. A program that will teach us to put communities first, listen to their needs, discover what’s news and help them connect the dots to create tangible change.
Journalism Vs Advocacy
One could argue that it’s not a journalist’s job to do this. That we shouldn’t indulge in advocacy. That our jobs are merely to be the relayers of information. In fact, this was one of the discussions we had in our community engagement class earlier this week. Where do you draw the line between advocacy and journalism?
We had some interesting insights from our colleagues and professors in class.
First, journalists have always been advocates of sorts as Jeff Jarvis had put it earlier during our orientation session. We’ve always intended on bettering society and it ought to be apparent through every choice we make.
Second, as Allen Arthur, an alum, says, it isn’t all out advocacy if all you are doing is connecting different parties and alerting them to an issue. What decision they ultimately take to solve the problem is up to them. Yet, it’s important to connect these people, inform them and empower communities to do that. To me, this is journalism 101. This is why journalists exist, right?
Finally, if you still have a problem with being seen as advocates, my colleague Alexa Beyer offered this gold in class — “You won’t be seen as an advocate if you do NOT withhold inconvenient facts to further your cause.”
Personally, I think the lines need to be blurred the slightest for journalism to evolve. It really doesn’t help anyone today to be puritanical and not take a stand. It may have worked even up until two decades ago when the internet and social media were absent and our divisions not so apparent. However, not today. There really is no other way to bridge gaps with the public and regain trust.
