Walter Lippmann’s theory that the newspaper office is “one of the truly sacred and priestly offices in a democracy” depends heavily on the idea that consumers trust the newspapers. To view something as sacred or priestly is to hold it above reproach. And while in Lippmann’s day anything printed in a newspaper might have gone unquestioned, today’s readers are a little more cynical and therefore unlikely to see the newspapers as sacred or priestly.
My 91 year-old grandfather puts great trust in The Wall Street Journal. He always says that whatever is printed on the front page of The Wall Street Journal this morning will be everyone else’s top story tomorrow. He believes in his paper, and has never had reason to doubt the truth of their stories. He has also read this paper nearly every day for most of his adult life, which helped to build a trust and a faith in its truth. It is this faith that I believe is necessary to have a “sacred and priestly” press. It is this faith that I think is missing in most people’s relationship with today’s press.
Today’s readers face an over abundance of newspapers, network news reports, talk radio shows, 24-hour cable news channels and constant Internet news sources. With so many options how do you even begin to know which to trust? With news outlets vying for consumers to increase revenues, news stories can become more and more sensational. With the news becoming more sensationalized, consumers become more calloused. This hardened shell does not bide well for developing trust or faith.
While I don’t think that we’ll return to Lippmann’s idealistic view of the newsroom, I do think that the newsroom is an important part of democracy. It is up to each member of the newsroom to have a personal integrity in their reporting to help regain the consumer’s trust.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Good post. I wonder if your grandfather feels different about the WSJ now that it’s a Murdoch property? Always a fun conversation …
You raise several good thoughts. I’m not sure that Lippmann thought that the newsroom WAS priestly in the sense of sweeping idealism. I think he argued for what the newsroom SHOULD be. If he were writing about the Catholic Church today, I would think he would argue without a hint or irony that the priestly orders have a certain responsibility to their flock. Whether they live up to those ideals and responsibilities is immaterial to the design or purpose of the institution.
I’m not sure contemporary journalists WANT Lippmann’s idealistic purpose, but that’s precisely what makes this such an interesting topic for discussion.
Thanks for your contribution. I appreciate the personal anecdotes. You might want to include a bit more identity for the sake of context, but that will probably come with additional posts.
Keep up the good work.
Post a Comment