"Take a Stand" - Brent Cunningham

American journalism has not always strived to be objective. Some of the most progressive times in American history have been advocated by the media. During the Revolutionary War period and when America was first established as an independent nation, politicians and people in power used the press to promote partisan views. Objectivity didn’t become a characteristic of American journalism until the 20th century, and since then, journalists have occasionally crossed the line of objectivity to lead the country in the right direction. One example of this was Edward R. Murrow’s coverage of Senator McCarthy’s communist witch-hunt. American media has played an important role in shaping our history, from abolition to the election of George W. Bush.

As more people tended to get their news from television in the late 20th century, the news became more of an entertainment business than a public service. People basically yell back and forth at each other and progress is never made. In the article, “Take a Stand: How journalism can regain its relevance,” Brent Cunningham writes, “But the hard truth is that the press mostly amplifies the agendas of others –the prominent and the powerful—and tends to aggressively assume its adversarial role only when someone or something –a president, a CEO, a institution—is wounded and vulnerable.” Journalism should be working to set an agenda that fulfills the needs of the public. In order to do this, media outlets must develop a closer bond with their audiences. Digital technology, specifically the Internet, makes it possible for journalists to strengthen their relationship with the public, and at a very important time in history.

Cunningham explains that record keeping is an important part of journalism, but there are several other roles a journalist must perform in order to do justice for the public. Cunningham describes journalists as investigators, explainers, and arbiters of our national conversation. We talked about climate change in class. Cunningham quotes Yale economist Robert Shiller, from the Washington Post, 2008, “Whenever the public endures a crisis, ordinary citizens start to wonder how –and whether—our institutions really work. We no longer take things for granted. It is only then that real change becomes possible.” With something like global warming, the public cannot afford to wait too long to pressure the government to make important changes. It is the responsibility of journalists to educate the public about the importance of the issue. Climate change is scientifically supported fact, and the fact that the media do not report it as such, is worrisome. It makes you wonder about the motives behind the lack of reporting; whether the government is trying to prevent panic, or that global warming is simply bad for corporate business. Cunningham points out that when the public is economically content, they tend to ignore issues that still really matter. “Indeed, once the Dow begins nosing back toward ten thousand, the window of opportunity for fundamental change may close,” he writes. This is important to consider when defining the future role of journalists, because maybe it would be a good thing for people to have to confront these issues, rather than continue to avoid addressing major root problems of society.

Sometimes the public’s need to know outweighs the importance of trying to remain objective. Objectivity doesn’t necessarily mean giving equal time to two sides of an issue. Sometimes the facts support one side more than another. 21st century journalists must validate facts, and put them into the context of the big picture in order to illuminate the reality of situations.

Nobody does a better job of pointing out the problem with American media, than Jon Stewart. Here’s a link to an episode of the Daily Show, which illustrates what is wrong with the current mainstream media: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-12-2009/cnn-leaves-it-there ...Hilarious!