Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

That journalism is important in American life is evident in the large amount of criticism that news media have always received. The country's early newspapers were hotly criticized for the stories they included or ignored, perceived political bias, cronyism with advertisers, and paying too much attention to the social and political elites rather than common people. And those were merely the highlights. Critics have varied from those who feel themselves mistreated (or their views given little attention) to organizations focused on trying to improve journalism. Some criticism has come from within—-as with the relatively recent appointment of newspaper ombudsmen at a handful of major newspapers—-but most comes from outside the journalistic fraternity. The complaints have probably politically balanced out over time—with sharp attacks coming from both the right and the left.

Journalism Standards

By definition, to critique is to speak of mistakes, flawed processes, or unmet expectations. In so doing, one is applying (if only implicitly) specific standards and norms. While American news media (let alone those elsewhere) are not a monolith, they do tend to operate with shared presumptions of purpose and quality. Perhaps as a result of rapid globalization, more journalists throughout the world are adopting a Western conception of the media as a country's “Fourth Estate.” The term is said to have originated with Irish philosopher Edmund Burke when considering journalists of late-eighteenth-century Western Europe to be as important as the nobles, clergy, and commoners (the other three “estates”) that made up a country's parliament. The reason for such privileging of unelected individuals has to do with Burke's recognition that, in all human societies, those who possess “knowledge” have power. Since in a representative political system such as the United States, power is supposed to lie with “the people,” it follows that those people need access to truthful information. Enter the journalists, whose central role is to provide precisely such information (ideally complete, objective, and carefully researched) to all citizens.

In identifying the fundamental freedoms of all Americans, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly safeguards press freedom. In addition to striving to fulfill the central role of informing the citizenry, contemporary American journalists also hold that those who wield political and economic power should be accountable for their actions. This function of news media, often called the “watchdog role,” is accomplished, with various degrees of efficacy, largely by investigative journalists. Many critiques of journalism, therefore, speak either of the journalists' failure to provide quality information, or of their failure to keep a check on those in power—or both.

Selective Coverage

Most journalists in the Western world consider the providing of quality information to be their most important responsibility. This agreement, however, does not extend to the question of exactly what constitutes “quality” information, as media practitioners have different journalistic standards and procedures. Predictably this diversity has led to ideological conflict in the media, one issue being the tension between the so-called elitists and populists. The former expect journalists to be highly educated people able to decide which of the plethora of daily events are worth reporting. Furthermore, since issues that have the most impact are often complicated, difficult-to-explain affairs, journalists can't expect their relevant products (such as in-depth newspaper feature stories or television documentaries) to be very popular with average citizens. Indeed, the elitists argue, journalists should not seek popularity to the detriment of providing important information. “Populists,” on the other hand, perceive journalists to be the servants of the people in a more literal sense: whatever information people ask for (or seem to enjoy the most) is what should be provided. And, if that means journalists should spend more time reporting “soft” rather than “hard” news, then so be it. Those agreeing with the elitists bemoan the media's lapse into sensationalism and “infotainment.” Conversely, populist sympathizers might argue that journalists are “losing touch” with common folk, as they become closer to political and business elites.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading