{"id":1996,"date":"2014-10-27T22:18:32","date_gmt":"2014-10-27T22:18:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=1996"},"modified":"2014-10-27T22:18:32","modified_gmt":"2014-10-27T22:18:32","slug":"journalists-need-a-point-of-view-if-they-want-to-stay-relevant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/journalists-need-a-point-of-view-if-they-want-to-stay-relevant\/","title":{"rendered":"Journalists need a point of view if they want to stay relevant"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Jay Rosen<\/a>, New York University<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Foundation essay:<\/strong> This article is part of a series marking the launch of The Conversation in the US. Our foundation essays are longer than our usual comment and analysis articles and take a wider look at key issues affecting society.<\/em><\/p>\n

If extreme polarization is now an enduring feature of American politics \u2014 not just a bug \u2014 how does that change the game for journalists? I have some ideas, but mainly I want to put that question on the table. \u201cConflict makes news,\u201d it is often said. But when gridlock becomes the norm the conflicts are endless, infinite, predictable and just plain dull: in a way, the opposite of news. This dynamic has already ruined the Sunday talk shows. Who can stand that spectacle<\/a> anymore?<\/p>\n

A recent task force<\/a> of American Political Science Association put it this way:<\/p>\n

\n

The United States used to be viewed as a land of broad consensus and pragmatic politics in which sharp ideological differences were largely absent; yet, today, politics is dominated by intense party polarization and limited agreement among representatives on policy problems and solutions.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In a fascinating paper<\/a> on \u201cphilanthropy in a time of polarization,\u201d three authors \u2014 Steven Teles, Heather Hurlburt and Mark Schmitt \u2014 take up the question. They point out that leaders in these grantmaking foundations operate from assumptions that extreme polarization can be overpowered by \u201cstrong ideas and persuasive research\u2026[that] will motivate elected officials\u201d to act. They believe in the message of bipartisanship and urge foundations to \u201cstay above the political fray.\u201d<\/p>\n

The way Obama\u2019s health care reform became law shredded that script. Elites in Washington believed that a compromise would emerge by \u201ccombining a broad goal favored by liberals with ideas traditionally supported by conservatives.\u201d Nothing like that went down. One side passed the bill. The other demonized it and continues the fight to this day. Teles, Hurlburt and Schmitt write:<\/p>\n

\n

Foundations have traditionally seen themselves as part of civil society \u2013 as mediating institutions that form a bridge between dispassionate knowledge and political advocacy. Their resources, many in the sector have hoped, could fund objective, nonpartisan research that would take the edge off partisan conflicts and pave the way for broadly accepted social progress.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That view of American politics no longer makes sense. Nothing has taken the edge off partisan warfare, least of all \u201cobjective, nonpartisan research.”<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
The battle over the Affordable Care Act showcased American\u2019s deep ideological divide, which nonpartisan research has done nothing to lessen.<\/span>
\n dbking\/Flickr, CC BY-SA<\/a>, CC BY-NC-SA<\/a><\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>\n

Is \u2018objectivity\u2019 in journalism dead ?<\/h2>\n

It\u2019s tricky to compare foundation officers and journalists because officially the mainstream press has no theory of change, no policy agenda \u2013 indeed, no politics at all. Officially, journalists are merely out to get the story, tell the truth, inform us about what\u2019s going on, and in special circumstances share their opinion.<\/p>\n

But anyone who observes its work cannot help but notice that the Washington press corps shares a certain world view, analogous in many ways to the typical foundation officer\u2019s. (Steve Coll moved easily from the Washington Post to the New America Foundation and on to the deanship of Columbia Journalism School. Walter Isaacson editor of Time magazine, CEO of CNN, is now president of the Aspen Institute.)<\/p>\n

Here are some of the components of this shared world view. Recognize them?<\/p>\n