An Evolution in Journalism

Traditional journalism has long been synonymous with neutral journalism. Neutral journalism is seen as objective, fair, and balanced. Neutral journalism does not voice bias and serves to provide true, accessible facts to the public. In other words, traditional journalism can be trusted without a doubt.

On the other hand, the introduction of transparent journalism introduces the person behind the words. The works of transparent journalists are questioned because the writers' personal views and thus, potential biases, are called into play. If a reporter is a known to be an avid Obama supporter, should we question whether her article on McCain's VP pick is biased? In Mayhill Fowler's case, her questionable journalistic ethics and actions of transparent journalism acted as the catalyst for intense controversy. 

First of all, it has been public knowledge that that Fowler writes for "Off The Bus." And of the 350 people present at the fundraiser, anyone could have caught Obama's words on tape or heard his talk and blogged about it back at home. However, if it had been blatant that Fowler would put her journalistic endeavors ahead of her support for the campaign at the outset, there probably would have been no story, and therefore no controversy. Is that fair to the public? And how blatant does the "press hat" need to be?

Veteran journalists may be nowhere near that news - because, as journalists, they had not been allowed in the door - but they will depend on such reporting and witnessing, call it what you will. It will still add up to journalism in the end." - Jeff Jarvis

Ethics are called into question far less in regards to traditional journalism than in transparent journalism. Should "citizen journalists" be stripped of all traditional journalistic responsibility simply because the word "citizen" (and not "professional) stands in front of "journalist"? Should we, the public, be privy to every thought a presidential candidate voices? (My answer: Yes. He's running for President, after all.) What about the fact that Obama was not asked to re-iterate or defend the controversial statement or explain it further? Is that considered to be the responsibility of a journalist? Is that "sleazy" reporting? Or is it just transparent, open reporting?

I see Mayhill Fowler's decision to publish her report as a journalistic act. I believe that everything a public figure or official says in public is fair game. However, I also believe that even "citizen journalists" should have certain responsibilities; for example, if someone distinctly says something is "off-the-record," and you consent beforehand, it should stay off-the-record.

 "The public may have turned against traditional media but it doesn't mean they don't want news and information." - G.W. Miller III

Journalism is evolving towards a hybrid of traditional and transparent journalism. People are getting bored with the same-old inverted pyramid style of writing being the only option for "honest" news. Journalists need to prepare themselves for this evolution by indulging in different types of reporting and new forms of presentation. New rules for journalists are beginning to form as the old ones are breaking down. Questions concerning journalism are being born and discussed faster than ever before. Journalists of all shape and form must find a way to integrate their various actions and pieces of information into the currently evolving news design in a way that ultimately benefits the people.

[Update 9/6/08: The evolution towards a hybrid form of traditional and transparent journalism is moving faster than many people expected. The chief creative officer of SpinSpotter, a new start-up that scans news stories for signs of bias and will be ready for use on September 8, declared to the New York Times: "Our mission is to make news media transparent."]