Some news organizations have decided that more must be done. They are trying to change the basic journalism culture, converting cynicism into civic exploration. The Wichita Eagle and Charlotte Observer have been on the cutting edge of this more systematic change, drawing diverse citizens into public discussions about community life. This new approach, called "public" or "civic" journalism, covers the news from the citizen up, not from the expert down. It takes ordinary people seriously, addressing some of the issues they think are important, instead of relying solely on experts and insiders to set the agenda. Because it permits diverse viewpoints to be heard and respected, regardless of their dramatic value, it seems to go a long way toward breaking down the strategy, negativity, and insider barriers that now distance audiences from the news.
At the Charlotte Observer in 1993, for example, editors learned of police concerns that a race riot was brewing. White families who lived around the downtown Freedom Park were unhappy because minority youths were drag racing and cruising in and out of the park at night, creating disturbances. When the park was closed because of the tension, black citizens were outraged, claiming that the park belonged to everyone and minority youths had nowhere else to go.
Many local news organizations would see this as a great story, full of
controversy and drama. However, instead of inflaming the situation by
deliberately seeking the most incendiary quotes from polarized sides, the
newspaper tried something different. It had experimented with public journalism
during the 1992 election, convening town hall meetings and roaming throughout
the community to obtain citizens' views. Using the same approach,
Observer reporters sought thoughtful suggestions from all sides, including
people in area neighborhoods, the youths whose behavior was under question, and
the white families. A range of suggestions was published on the op-ed page,
where these diverse views were presented with respect and authority. Citizens
formed a commission to develop solutions for all sides: a small entry fee that
would cut down on the cruising and an alternative site for drag racing.
Although the situation hasn't been completely resolved yet, a racial standoff
was averted through civic discourse. The Charlotte Observer helped the
community begin to work through its problems, instead of aggravating them with
sensationalized coverage.
Many public journalism projects involve partnerships among news organizations that normally compete with each other. For example, in summer 1994, the Charlotte Observer teamed up with competitors WSOC-TV, the local ABC affiliate, and two local radio stations, WPEG and WBAV, on the project "Taking Back our Neighbor-hoods/Carolina Crime Solutions." After using crime statistics to identify five neighborhoods that had been especially hard-hit, the news organizations held joint town hall meetings and produced special supplements and broadcasts, featuring residents' proposed solutions and reporting "success stories" about citizens fighting crime.
The effort prompted a burst of civic activity: about 500 people volunteered to
help out in targeted neighborhoods, 18 law firms offered to file pro bono
public nuisance suits to close down crack houses, and a local bank donated
$50,000 to build a recreation center, according to Ed Fouhy, a former network
news executive who now heads a center devoted to promoting civic
journalism.
Editors and reporters from the Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk, Virginia, at
a recent seminar described how they have become "public journalists" by
changing the culture of journalism in their newsroom:
Public journalists believe that the news is more than a spectator sport.
"There's a difference between what the audience wants and what the public
wants," observes New York University Professor Jay Rosen, who has been working
with news organizations to develop a form of public journalism that focuses on
serious public issues raised by citizens in their local communities. Treating
people as an audience makes them passive voyeurs, random visitors seeking
entertainment. Rosen further explains, "Treating people as citizens is asking
them about the problems in their lives, the things that concern them for the
future, and trying to structure your coverage around that. Inevitably there are
going to be conflicts between the entertainment function of the media and the
news function, but public journalism is about trying to get the news function
right so it can compete better against entertainment and
pleasure."
What news organizations don't do--if they're practicing good public
journalism--is endorse specific solutions in their reporting. This would
invalidate journalists' ability to monitor the community's public life.
Nevertheless, public journalism is controversial among news professionals
because some feel it weakens their hard-fought independence and objectivity. Ed
Turner of CNN, Len Downie of The Washington Post, Max King of the
Philadelphia Inquirer, and editors at The New York Times are
among the most skeptical.
Ed Turner of CNN reacted negatively to a discussion about public journalism
during the Program's conference CHANGING THE NEWS: "I am not a historian. I am
not a playwright. I am not a poet. I am not a psychiatrist. I can just barely
manage to fill the newscasts that we have. And I am proud of that," he said.
"We are chroniclers of events. It is our responsibility, first and above all,
to try to explain to our viewers what happened today, why it happened, and what
maybe it will mean for tomorrow."
Properly practiced, public journalism is simply good journalism without bad
habits. "Have these [public] news outlets lost their objectivity? Is their
agreement to try the techniques of civic journalism a thinly disguised form of
community boosterism? No.... Their willingness to bring citizens into the
process rather than keep them out is simply smart business as well as good
journalism. They are finding that some of the 'ancient' and `sacred' practices
of journalism are simply habits best done without. Their core values--accuracy,
seriousness, context, independence--remain. Giving the public a voice, they
found, does not mean they lose theirs," says Ed Fouhy.


