Very good piece, and rings true. But there's another variable to how journalists are perceived and treated online that you touched upon but I think deserves more consideration. You acknowledge it can be problematic when journalists themselves become the story by entering the fray of this or that cultural skirmish. You can't be a soldier one moment and a referee the next. When someone develops a reputation as a partisan, no one thinks of them as an impartial messenger of news.
So, in this messy discourse, where does professionalism come in? What does it even consist of? What does it mean to be "professional" vs. "unprofessional" in fulfilling one's role as a journalist when the dynamics and incentives of the platforms, personal careerism, the media business model, etc. all align to incentivize an incredibly sectarian mode of engagement?
If an organization wants to have a reputation for accuracy and impartiality, (not for its own sake, but because being a trusted source of information based on verifiable knowledge is a worthy project) representatives MUST adhere to a very constrained code of conduct, or that reputation will collapse. Is that even a realistic goal in today's media environment?
I have complicated feelings about this because I think the determination of whether a journalist is “partisan” is often being made in bad faith by the hostile audience, as a way of discrediting the person. It’s hard to imagine a code of conduct restrictive enough to avoid these bad faith attacks. Instead it has the potential to just hamstring the reporters’ work further, by forcing them to overcompensate with both-sides-ism that obfuscates, rather than reveals, the true story. It makes me sympathetic to the argument (can’t remember now which journalist made it) that you’re often better off abandoning the pretense of falsely constructed impartiality and just seeking truth in your reporting and writing.
Good stuff. I think newsrooms are certainly not the only institution that doesn't quite understand how to interpret twitter (or email, or other low-barriers-to-entry way to give input). For example, here in Denver if City Council members get a bunch of negative emails or electronically filed comments about a project, they interpret that as "oh my constituents hate this." It's the most motivated and venomous who tend to dominate the discussion, and if the decision-makers wrongly interpret that as actual public opinion, we're all the poorer for it.
Yes to all this and it's not limited to the right. The chattering journalism class scared the NYT into firing Quinn Norton in less than a day, effectively ending her career.
I'm curious as to how the definition of this style of harassment differs from the Reddit phenomena of "brigading." If there is much of a difference, those two sets of behaviors are certainly kissing cousins.
I wonder how you feel about those of us who have worked as citizen journalists who have been completely blocked out of the conversations of the day because we provide an economic threat to those who own the media?
And as for safety issues for journalists and protection from haters. When your children get terrorized by the goons hired to stalk mom the activist, give me a call.
really provocative and insightful piece, wonder if these editors should look at their organization structure and consider adding some skills that raise the awareness of the editors and their news rooms.....keep thinking out of the box Charlie!
This is a very helpful analysis. Great context for an area that I interface with as a reader but don't spend enough time on: the news room and their process.
I keep trying to see the origin story of galaxy brain... What is it about humans that makes networked harassment, online outrage so easy to achieve? My guess is that it's the standard in-group/out-group "survival fitness" traits that we are hard-wired for, but that have outlasted their prehistoric survival design and now are actually sociopathic in a modern world. That original design asset is now a liability like how craving salt, fat, and sweets was a good idea when calories were harder to come by.
It seems that a fundamental problem/hurdle is not recognizing this design flaw and dealing with it. But unfortunately, all the diet research, books, clubs, etc in the works haven't made a difference in a downward health trajectory. Warning labels, PSA's, calorie counts on menus haven't worked very well. Would à soda ban do it?
Very good piece, and rings true. But there's another variable to how journalists are perceived and treated online that you touched upon but I think deserves more consideration. You acknowledge it can be problematic when journalists themselves become the story by entering the fray of this or that cultural skirmish. You can't be a soldier one moment and a referee the next. When someone develops a reputation as a partisan, no one thinks of them as an impartial messenger of news.
So, in this messy discourse, where does professionalism come in? What does it even consist of? What does it mean to be "professional" vs. "unprofessional" in fulfilling one's role as a journalist when the dynamics and incentives of the platforms, personal careerism, the media business model, etc. all align to incentivize an incredibly sectarian mode of engagement?
If an organization wants to have a reputation for accuracy and impartiality, (not for its own sake, but because being a trusted source of information based on verifiable knowledge is a worthy project) representatives MUST adhere to a very constrained code of conduct, or that reputation will collapse. Is that even a realistic goal in today's media environment?
I have complicated feelings about this because I think the determination of whether a journalist is “partisan” is often being made in bad faith by the hostile audience, as a way of discrediting the person. It’s hard to imagine a code of conduct restrictive enough to avoid these bad faith attacks. Instead it has the potential to just hamstring the reporters’ work further, by forcing them to overcompensate with both-sides-ism that obfuscates, rather than reveals, the true story. It makes me sympathetic to the argument (can’t remember now which journalist made it) that you’re often better off abandoning the pretense of falsely constructed impartiality and just seeking truth in your reporting and writing.
It was Wesley Lowery! I probably butchered the thesis tbh.
Good stuff. I think newsrooms are certainly not the only institution that doesn't quite understand how to interpret twitter (or email, or other low-barriers-to-entry way to give input). For example, here in Denver if City Council members get a bunch of negative emails or electronically filed comments about a project, they interpret that as "oh my constituents hate this." It's the most motivated and venomous who tend to dominate the discussion, and if the decision-makers wrongly interpret that as actual public opinion, we're all the poorer for it.
Yes to all this and it's not limited to the right. The chattering journalism class scared the NYT into firing Quinn Norton in less than a day, effectively ending her career.
I'm curious as to how the definition of this style of harassment differs from the Reddit phenomena of "brigading." If there is much of a difference, those two sets of behaviors are certainly kissing cousins.
I wonder how you feel about those of us who have worked as citizen journalists who have been completely blocked out of the conversations of the day because we provide an economic threat to those who own the media?
And as for safety issues for journalists and protection from haters. When your children get terrorized by the goons hired to stalk mom the activist, give me a call.
https://www.blogtalkradio.com/jennyhatchradio/2013/09/26/the-barbara-hartwell-story#
really provocative and insightful piece, wonder if these editors should look at their organization structure and consider adding some skills that raise the awareness of the editors and their news rooms.....keep thinking out of the box Charlie!
This is a very helpful analysis. Great context for an area that I interface with as a reader but don't spend enough time on: the news room and their process.
I keep trying to see the origin story of galaxy brain... What is it about humans that makes networked harassment, online outrage so easy to achieve? My guess is that it's the standard in-group/out-group "survival fitness" traits that we are hard-wired for, but that have outlasted their prehistoric survival design and now are actually sociopathic in a modern world. That original design asset is now a liability like how craving salt, fat, and sweets was a good idea when calories were harder to come by.
It seems that a fundamental problem/hurdle is not recognizing this design flaw and dealing with it. But unfortunately, all the diet research, books, clubs, etc in the works haven't made a difference in a downward health trajectory. Warning labels, PSA's, calorie counts on menus haven't worked very well. Would à soda ban do it?
Your thoughts?