A return to practice: reclaiming journalism as public conversation

One of the first points made by Michael Meadows in his chapter, "A return to practice: reclaiming journalism as public conversation" (Tapsall and Varley, 2001), is, "With the expansion of communication and transport technologies, and the onset of the 'post-modern' age of information technology, journalism has been transformed into something else". Factors such as the internet, broadband, digital television, mobile phones, demanding deadlines, citizen journalists and faster transport options have all played a part in the transformation of journalism.

Meadows also makes note of another aspect of modern journalism, previously explored by Carey, "...public spaces were places where public opinion was formed, and the press that emerged at this time 'reflected and animated public conversation'. In contrast, modern journalism forms public opinion rather than reporting on it."

Do you agree with this stand point? Does modern journalism simply form, rather than report, public opinion in 2008?

But the most interesting part of Meadows reading was considering "journalism as a cultural practice and media as a cultural resource". Meadows quotes Italian journalist Antonio Gramsci who believes media to be the "most dynamic part" of the "ideological structure of society". Meadow adds, "The media and journalism are part of an array of institutions and practices that form culture." I tend to agree with this stand point.

Meadows continues by referring to Gramsci's notion of "good sense" and the Italians "ideal of journalism - integral journalism". This engages an active audience and satisfies the public, which "resonates with Carey's notion of journalism as a public conversation and, in turn, with Jay Rosen's idea of public, civic, or community journalism." In throy, this sounds like good practice, but how do we bring this into being?

Meadows also turns to the work of journalism educator, Adam, who states, "Journalism is a form of expression that is an invention" Furthermore, "...the more stories people read about crime, especially of events they can't control, the more likely they are inclined to think crime is out of control". Therefore, "Sources selected by journalists play a crucial role in giving rise to how society is imagined". This certainly highlights the power the media has upon society, which is quite scary in a way. But ultimately, predominately true.

Meadows then quotes the five principles of journalistic design, according to Adam:

1. news and news judgment
   
2. reporting or evidentiary method
3. linguistic technique
4. narrative technique
5. method of interpretation or meaning

It is a little deeper than the old inverted pyramid, and 5W and H theories, but I can see the merit in it. News and news judgment is what story you do, reporting method would be your sources, linguistics simply refers to the language and how it is used, how you tell the story comes under the banner of narrative, but I struggle to make sense of the method of interpretation or meaning.

Finally, Meadows concludes: "If journalists are intellectuals playing a critical role in applying a set of cultural practices in particular ways, then there seems much that could be achieved beyond the mundabe reporting of the everyday; beyond a routine reliance on institutional sources; beyond the shallow view that journalists merely 'reflect reality'; beyond a reliance on the flawed notion of the fourth estate and the limiting effects of objectivity and professionalism."

Is this something we should all be striving for? How realistic is Meadow's view?