Media institutions and their public obligations

Edmund Lambeth

Leo Bogart and Jim Carey both have given us an understanding of the sense in which commercial culture and our unexamined occupational conventions make contemporary journalism problematic. But to find our way forward, I think we have to make an even firmer distinction between journalism as a social practice, with its own distinct obligations to itself and the public, and the commercial institution of the media, which carries so much of journalism financially.

This distinction was at the heart of the argument Alasdair MacIntyre made in After Virtue, arguably the most important work on moral philosophy of the 1980s. Although this often technical and arcane book said nothing about journalism, its definition of social practices and their relationship to institutions turned on lights, at least for me.

To MacIntyre, social practices are complex, interactive human activities that pursue certain "goods." In medicine, the central good is health; in jurisprudence, justice; in religion, spiritual wholeness, a right relationship to our Creator; and in free journalism, the good of telling, for a democratic public, as much of the truth as circumstances and the talent of our practice can discover.

Yet, in all these social practices, counterpressures against the achievement of those goods are exerted by the institutions that are economic hosts of the practices-hospitals and insurance companies, court systems and law offices, religious denominations and congregations, and, most certainly, the commercial media's pressures against excellence in journalism's public role. These take the form-to name a few-of disproportionately high profit margins, inadequate investment in the human capital of the newsroom, and low morale.

It would be fallacious and disingenuous to argue that all the external goods institutions bestow-money, power, prestige, attention, position-are negative influences. Handled wisely, these can enhance the practice of journalism. The trouble begins when these gain the upper hand over the internal goods that give our practice integrity and direction. We all know what these internal goods are-truth telling, devotion to accuracy, fairness, and a respect for language, among others.

MacIntyre argues that courage, justice, honesty, and a sense of history are required for a practice to achieve standards of excellence. Over time, this combination of virtues and virtuosity can create a dynamic by which standards are elevated and systematically extended. Journalism then stands a chance to contribute to the goods of a free society: healthy public deliberation, plentiful access to relevant public information, an equitable system of justice, checks on the most powerful, plus a civic tradition of free expression and strong social values. The journalistic performance that can help deliver these goods requires adequate corporate investment. When such goods deteriorate or are lost, corporate media should accept its share of responsibility. Moreover, the public needs to know which particular corporations do and do not invest adequately in the goods that journalism seeks to deliver.

But journalists cannot export all the blame. We need to look to our own internal mechanisms of protection against institutional intrusions and to our own failures, including the failures of journalism education. Do we-journalists and teachers-adequately discuss and define standards of excellence, standards that are not static? Or do we rely on unexamined habits? Do we cultivate virtuosity in the craft? Or do we stick with the attitudes, techniques, or routines with which we are comfortable? Do we have the courage to experiment with new ideas and approaches? Or do we cry heresy when they appear to threaten the status quo?

Many of our strides forward occur when journalists form their own working groups to build excellence by improving journalistic specialties. Thus we have the National Association of Science Writers, Investigative Reporters and Editors, and the Education Writers Association. At their best, they cultivate talent, nurture the requisite virtues and establish standards of excellence.

Appropriately, I think, Leo Bogart found it curious that the terms "civic journalism" or "public journalism" have lately become a subject of debate; he asked how journalism could exist without a commitment to civic betterment and to the public good.

In my judgment, the coverage of civic journalism by the elite press and journalism reviews has fallen short of the needs of both working journalists and the public for an understanding of this attempt at making news more democratic. For decades, daily journalism has ignored the research that shows the heavy reliance on establishment and elite sources. When a movement comes along that seeks to reverse or reduce that dependence, it catches hell for allegedly forsaking journalistic independence.

Not that all or even most experiments in civic journalism are outstanding or praiseworthy. Many have been unexceptional or ineffectual. But a number of them have shown the reportorial power of a unique combination of polling, focus group interviews, community conversations, computer-assisted reporting, and good old-fashioned shoe leather. Journalism reviews and the elite press have seldom explored how these projects contributed to the development of new standards of excellence in our field, particularly the work of the Charlotte Observer, the Wichita Eagle, and the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot.

Some responsibility for this must be assumed by those of us who want to work with these eclectic forms of reporting but who thus far have been insufficiently skilled in communicating their benefits. We also need to do better in showing how they can be practiced without losing journalistic independence or detachment.

As we move toward a new century, journalists, educators, media executives, critics, and citizens need to develop better working relationships. Making the right distinctions and appropriate connections between the media as an economic institution and journalism as a social practice may be a good place to start.