I often recall how frequently people said the Internet would be the end of journalism and how they’re still looking at the wrong issue. I’m in a journalism course called Social Media in the Newsroom and last week, while cross-referencing social media policies between major news outlets, I noticed a disturbing similarity.
If you work for a big-time news outlet, it’s absolutely prohibited to post any content that could damage the credibility of said outlet. While this may sound like common sense, it’s turning into a ?detriment on our democracy.
Chances are you get your news from the Wal-Mart and Target equivalents of news outlets; they work closely with top companies who take no issue in paying journalists to write customized op-eds in their name. That’s not so much a problem (yet), and these news outlets can’t take all the credit for their stunning uniformity. We, the public, are just as responsible.
We’ve become so nitpicky and spoiled on information, as soon as an institution or anchor admits some kind of error, people are ready to turn their backs on them by the hundreds. Journalism, like other professions, is not without its shortcomings, but fewer people are willing to give journalists the benefit of the doubt, or look at what the takeaway may be outside of all the controversy.
The weird thing about Brian Williams’s case was how all that media attention orbited him. The misinformation he spread wasn’t so inaccurate that it misled one to believe anything other than Brian Williams must be a) dramatic or b) stupid. But it wasn’t as if Williams deceived the public at large on, say, a bombing that didn’t occur. Whether he had intentions of that sort isn’t the point: his hiccup was ?inconsequential and trivial.
Maybe Williams is a bad example with his semi-celebrity status, but if journalists get crucified for even minor details, suddenly the appeal to approach issues on the fringes of public awareness and understanding diminishes exponentially. If journalists are systematically discouraged to address the more complex and convoluted issues, the unnecessary pressure on journalists will force most of them to recede and acquiesce to the masses. It will, and arguably has, become common practice to simply stay away from the stories of ?opaque controversy.
While this isn’t such a bad thing, it’s distracting the public from ever considering seeking out an alternative, independent media outlet. These are the outlets that report on the fringes of veracity — stories perhaps too palpable or raw for most — that the mainstream media has become too proud to address. Being wrong some of the time is worth damaging the ego. It’s worth the risk if you hope to trailblaze or bust open a story no one saw coming. There are professions like journalism, which depends on the public’s support and engagement, that can’t mature without being given room for error.
Waiting to be absolutely right and secure about an issue is more a pretentious act than a noble deed. Stop letting news outlets coddle you.
michoman@indiana.edu
