Abstract
Much has been written about newspapers’ digital-era economic freefall, with ad revenue usurped by Google and Facebook and readers refusing to pay for paywall subscriptions. In The Journalism Manifesto, authors Barbie Zelizer, Pablo J. Boczkowski and C. W. Anderson argue that journalism suffers from much deeper problems: It faces dwindling social, political and cultural relevance that could drive it to extinction.
The solution, according to these communication scholars, is for news organizations to stop taking audiences for granted, to pivot away from near-exclusive relationships with elite sources and readers and to engage with previously ignored audiences.
In hoping for a future in which journalism showcases the voices, perspectives and experiences of the many who have been historically relegated to the narratives of the few, this manifesto charts a way for journalism to begin grappling with the importance of its own relevance for those variously marginalized by a now-fading golden age of news. (p. 24)
Their advice? News organizations should follow four criteria when connecting with audiences. One is that audiences are motivated by local rather than impersonal issues. A second is that audience members use their hearts as well as minds to interpret news. A third is that audiences want to communicate about news that matters to them. A fourth is that audiences’ trust in journalism is not a given but must be earned.
A recurring theme of The Journalism Manifesto is that news organizations have failed to keep up with global changes. As a corrective, newsrooms need to recognize that they are interdependent with other institutions. They need to see that news is now decentralized; the internet and social media have “humbled news enterprises and cast serious doubt about journalism’s role as the ultimate gatekeeper between events and the public” (p. 15). They need to recognize that democratic backsliding in countries worldwide “suggests that, for many, cohesion and stability are a faraway dream” (p. 11). And they need to see change rather than stasis as an inherent quality of institutions.
By rethinking their mission, the authors say, journalists can avoid the deep chasm between what they want to believe and what they see—a disconnect that previously led to the New York Times’s botched 2002–2003 coverage about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, as well as the failure to anticipate public sentiment that led up to the 2016 presidential election in which Donald Trump was elected. Such flawed reporting, as well as vicious attacks by political leaders at both ends of the political spectrum, has helped contribute to journalism’s plummeting credibility.
The authors give examples of ways in which journalism should reframe its mission. One suggestion is to urge journalists to replace reliance on elite sources and readers with those who have historically been marginalized, dismissed and oppressed. “Journalism’s functioning is premised on a relationship between the political and cultural elite—those who know what is ‘really happening’—and the ordinary people who use insider information to make informed political decisions” (p. 37). However, many readers now tend to distrust elites and experts. The authors hope journalism will begin to challenge its reliance on elites more broadly and understand that the oppressed—women, persons of color, ethnic groups, LGBTQIA people and others—have never been well served by an elite-oriented journalism, even one that embraces liberal norms . . . (p. 44)
“Journalism is faced with a stark choice: reform or revolution” (p. 68), the authors say. Under reform—a more incremental approach—journalists would respect alternative points of view “rather than the processes of electoral democracy only” (p. 95). They would also cover historically marginalized and underrepresented communities as legitimate constituencies, which would turn “media institutions into platforms for reform rather than for the maintenance of a status quo” (p. 98). In this reformist scenario, “journalism has to seek out the kind of transformation that will support social justice, the bedrock from which trust is earned” (p. 100).
A more revolutionary—and activist—path would mean getting rid of elites in the newsroom and replacing them with an inclusive, equitable and diverse newsroom; refusing to rely just on elites as sources, so that, for instance, protesters on the ground would have as much voice as police officers; and providing news coverage that is “not hampered by moderation, balance or objectivity” (pp. 106–107). The authors cite Watergate coverage and the Panama Papers collaboration as examples of journalists challenging long-held norms.
The proposed solutions in The Journalism Manifesto represent a radical departure from much of current news coverage. But many of the book’s ideas are in sync with a growing global movement in which community members are launching nonprofit news outlets. These nascent news organizations are asking prospective audience members what topics should be covered, a grassroots approach to journalism that may replace the current top-down corporate model that is now decimating local news.