Journalism In The Service Democracy:
A Summit Of Deans, Faculty, Students And Journalists

Introduction

The first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which famously includes the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” leaves no doubt about how strongly the Founding Fathers felt about freedom of expression and of the press as being intrinsic to the strength of democracy. But they also clearly understood that freedom of expression, without wide dissemination of the underlying ideas and knowledge, is insufficient to support or sustain the democratic process. As Thomas Jefferson noted in 1787, citizens need to have “…full information of their affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, and to connive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people.” The fact is that though Jefferson, relentlessly attacked by the press when he was president, probably often rued the day that newspapers and even muckrakers became prominent fixtures of the American scene, he remained a strong advocate of free, unfettered journalism throughout his life.

Jefferson must have been keenly aware of how the dichotomy inherent in the role of the press in American society—both to serve as a marketplace of ideas and to provide an opportunity for voicing opposition to even the most widely held beliefs—is one of its most critical and unique features. After all, the press is not a commodity. It does not exist solely to enrich the economy or to be a vehicle for advertising, though nowadays, based on the business model of some newspapers, which emphasize profit over the value of news, one might not be blamed for thinking the opposite. Certainly, we must appreciate that the press is powered by the dual engines of business and public service: the former supports its viability and the latter sustains its mission. But undergirding all its functions is the most foundational purpose of a free press, which is to hold us all accountable: government officials, policymakers, educators, philanthropists, business leaders and others, as well as political parties and the electorate itself. In the media, the daily discussion of the nation’s business and the world’s—which, with the advent of the Internet, cable television, and other means of instant access to the news is now on a 24/7 cycle—is the way we take the temperature of our lives, our culture, our society and even our civilization; it is the way we assess our direction and debate where we are going, or should be going, in the future.

Hence, in a democracy, the value of the press is inestimable. Certainly, its excesses must be spotlighted, its ability to damage as well as uplift must always be considered, and both journalism and journalists themselves must be held to very high standards that may not be compromised—but even with all those potential problems in mind, the weakening, or even absence of a free and vibrant press in our nation is unthinkable. The institution is irreplaceable.

But of course, with freedom comes great responsibility, and freedom of the press is no exception. Our society is built on a system of checks and balances that applies not only to the structure of government but to almost every other facet of the way our nation functions. Inherent in this system is a constant weighing of one idea against another that helps to ensure all voices are heard. Every day, in the United States, individuals and groups form picket lines, engage in demonstrations, pamphleteering, put up posters, write opinion columns, call in to talk radio, write blogs and in countless other ways air out the full spectrum of ideas from the political right to the left and everywhere in-between as well as vigorously debate each other on almost every imaginable subject. But the fact that we engage in these activities is part of what makes us responsible citizens. Without citizen participation in the civic life of our nation, we would likely be living in a society locked down by the kind of totalitarian regime depicted in George Orwell’s classic, 1984, in which it was so easy for facts to be denied and information rejiggered to suit those in power, or Arthur Koestler’s novel Darkness at Noon, in which reality was manipulated so that fiction easily replaced fact.

We are fortunate, in the United States, to have more than 2,000 television stations, over 200 cable television networks, around 14,000 radio stations, nearly 9,000 newspapers and over 100 million blogs—many of these, naturally, concerned in large part with local issues or, in the case of blogs, personal ones—but, amidst the great diversity of our nation, it is our national press and media that help to provide a national vocabulary for the discussion of the issues that most affect life in the United States as well as our national and international policies. Perhaps now more than ever, in this “age of anxiety,” of globalization, conflict, non-stop opinion and an overwhelming info-glut, we need objective observers and reporters to help us distill the onslaught of events, data and information into knowledge and wisdom. It is in that connection that we should be able to look to the press to assist us in answering the telling questions asked by T.S. Eliot: “Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?”

Eliot’s query speaks to the “Home Depot-ization” of so much of the news that we interact with these days. The proliferation of online sources of news and opinion along with cable stations and an extraordinary, seemingly depthless supply of print and electronic sources of specialized, compartmentalized information means that one can pick and choose among the issues one wishes to be exposed to. That may be fine, up to a point and certainly, it is everyone’s right to pursue their individual interests and concerns, but if all an individual chooses to know about or understand is tailored around his or her particular notions or points of view, such narrow vision may well leave them seriously under-informed about national and international affairs that deserve their attention in order to be a knowledgeable and active member of our participatory democracy. One of Carnegie Corporation’s early trustees noted that it was incumbent upon philanthropic foundations to have “glass pockets” in terms of how they carried out their work, and the same can be said of the democratic process: it needs to be transparent about how it functions but there also have to be educated, informed and responsible citizens watching what our elected leaders do in the name of our nation and discussing and debating the results.

We should ask the same of our journalists: that they be educated, steeped in expertise, deeply knowledgeable about the subjects they report on and, one hopes, even cultured individuals. It is not enough to simply turn out reams of reporting and then race on to the next story. To understand the underlying ideas and possible ramifications of important, even truly transformative events, requires that the individual conveying the story be trained and informed enough to deal with complex, nuanced information with a richness and depth that cannot simply be pulled out of the proverbial hat. Journalists must do their job with excellence, skill and understanding—and we must do ours, which is to both learn from what is reported to us and challenge it when necessary.

In that connection, journalism professor and columnist Eric Alterman reminds us about the various viewpoints that have been expressed over the course of this nation’s history about the relationship between journalism and democracy, including those of Walter Lippmann and John Dewey.* Lippmann lost faith in the idea that journalism could overcome what he thought of as the public’s susceptibility to manipulation, while Dewey believed the Fourth Estate was critical to keeping the public involved in the democratic process. Expanding on this idea, Alterman notes that “the ability to discuss, deliberate on and debate various perspectives” is how the citizenry moves toward consensus. And whether that consensus is yay or nay—or even maybe—about a particular issue or policy, we will only be trying to fight our way blindly through the fog of opinion, rhetoric and rumor if we don’t have the eyes of free, independent and excellent journalists to help us see the road ahead.

Vartan Gregorian
President, Carnegie Corporation of New York.

* “Out of Print: The death and life of the American newspaper,” The New Yorker, March 31, 2008.