Truth on the brink

Over the last week, I've had the opportunity to spend time with a variety of journalists. Some are working journalists, some formers and some departing. In addition, there's been quite a bit of analysis of the journalism profession printed recently.

All together, it's left me both encouraged and discouraged. And even if your not a journalist yourself, it has a direct effect on you.

On the positive side are the journalists themselves. Most are young, in their 20s. This is almost a given anymore as the industry has viewed cost-cutting as eliminating anyone with much tenure and therefore a higher salary. Plus, it's a demanding business, putting a physical and emotional strain on people much more than most industries.

It's listening to those people that engenders hope. Journalists have always been odd characters. They quite often know that's what they'll be at a very young age. They are quickly reminded they'll never make much of a wage and they'll endure those previously noted challenges. And it doesn't deter them. Sometimes they'll say it's all they know how to do. I think that is their talent, hardwired into them somehow at a preschool age. But there's another common theme that seems to drive them all forward and sustain them. They say they want to change the world.

Despite some stereotyping, politically based screaming, they don't want to make it more liberal. The media isn't really liberal, it's cynical. Its members spend a lot of time with a much closer view of government and crime and life than the typical person. They see day-to-day city government move, they view with their own eyes gunshot and burned people and they see and listen to the suffering of people more than the common person.

What they consistently say is they want to make it fair. They want to watchdog government and be the conduit to tell the masses what government is really doing to allow the general public to speak up with facts and not spin. They want to follow business not just as a conduit for information, but an analysis of what that means in a bigger picture. They see business not just as a money-making enterprise, but a key factor in our society. They want to report on things because they have an impact on you and I, and believe we have a right to know and speak back. They want to do right.

And that leads to my discouragement - and I believe the place where media is today.

Because for all the good intentions, journalists really don't have a choice. The top level of media will tell you it's about the readers. It's not. It's about the money. And fear of losing the money keeps journalists from being the best they can be, probably keeps them from even being good.

There is no such thing as objective reporting. It's performed by humans and they bring some level of themselves into every move. Being conscious of that truth helps them "do right" and avoid any bias, but it's there. Objectivity is even removed by what is covered and what is not. It's a purely subjective decision. It can be based on community knowledge and feedback, history and an understanding of a bigger picture of how individual events affect a bigger societal situation.

But I can't say that's why things are chosen for coverage or how they are covered. For some time now, those choices are greatly influenced by who advertises and puts their money into the business of journalism. It is transmitted into newsrooms by publication leaders who use their own agendas and have their ears filled with too many advertisers and too few ground level readers. To get a community consensus of need, it takes a village, not an executive committee. And when egos close ears to voices "down" the ladder and only open them to equal and up, it narrows the truth.

Those publication leaders will shout loudly that it's a business and that income is required to publish any news and pay all levels. But it's all about how decisions are made and the courage to believe truth has value to the many. Realtors may not like to hear that sales are down double-digit percentages, but if your publication has enough value and veracity and focuses on the things that really matter to the most people, those Realtors would still buy into your publication even if you admitted those double-digit numbers. And publications try not to go there many times. They don't lie, they just avoid the subject.

I still have enough faith in the general public to believe it sees that quick step and it is a key reason for the fading heartbeat of journalism.

The leading local publication has recently been criticized for its "wussification," fear to offend anyone with its writings. One-time subscribers are fleeing papers across the United States because as the content gets softer, simpler, less immediate and generally less analytical. Marketers will tell you surveys show readers say those are good attributes. If newspapers followed reader surveys, they would be dominated with comics and photos of topless women and dogs. Of course people say they like those things. People also say they like ice cream. But they need meat and potatoes to fuel themselves too.

There is a need for mass appeal papers in this world. There is a need - and a desire - for independent, non-advertiser influenced, gutsy reporting too. I think there's a generation who wants to provide such reporting, and they have peers who want to read it. But there's a generation with a grip on journalism which is in lock step with Countrywide Mortgage, AIG, and a big portion of Wall Street that has manipulated the system to grab quick profits without any view of a bigger picture.

It's a struggle that means a great deal to our society.