On my once (and future?) profession, journalism

In one of my favorite blogs, er, forums, by Jim Romanesko, at the Poynter Institute, a thread was rolling along about whether the NY Times weddings page (and social section, for that matter) are "a closely guarded over-class preserve." After a few turns round the dance floor, David Johnston, of the Times, threw a grenade into the fire, expanding the debate far beyond the original parameters. I couldn't resist joining the fray.

David Johnston poses the "What's wrong" question about American journalism, and I would argue that the lists of 'what's right' and 'what's wrong' are long, but that at the heart of the issue are holistic issues, broad societal changes, paradigm shifts that threaten newspapers with the fate of other declining technologies like railroads to radio. And against the backdrop of the paradigm shifts are the faults journalists must shoulder: especially one: The fragile flame of public trust has not been sufficiently nurtured, and is damn near out. The public's skepticism and suspicion of institutions, corporate malfeasance, fraud, "sins" of personal and corporate ego, and malpractice have spilled over and become, forgive the analogy, a tsunami swamping the mainstream press. It's just not as simple as class heirarchy and egalitarianism.

First the societal changes around technology and community: The disintermediating force of the internet rolls along, throwing away middlemen in profession after profession, linking the public markets directly to whatever they want, directly. This force makes each of us and our blogs - and the aggregators of good blogs - as easy for the public to bond with as the NYT (my candidate for the world's greatest journalistic middleman).

And in the same way as people moved from small communities into cities because cities gave us easy access to the people and things and jobs we needed, people are now moving back into virtual communities - not city-centric - because these virtual communities give us access to the people and things and jobs we need. And newspapers as a core part of the "glue" of geographic cities are losing that role too.

Now back to trust:
The mainstream press may never win it back. It's not just the Janet Cooke and Jason Blair sagas. Not just the Rather mess. Not just the ever growing influence of paid media influencers who help businesses and organizations create the news, then spin the reporting of it. not just the Fox news bundled as objectivity ("32 more days til we re-elect the President headlines"). Not just the interplay of cost and quality where ratcheting down the former keeps eating away at the latter. Not just the conflicts of interest pay-to-play scandals. Not just the public breastbeating as we criticize ourselves and each other to pieces in public until no viewer/reader/listener can deduce what's true.

What's wrong, David asks. Why do even model reports come under fierce attack while sloppy ones are elevated? Why does no one act on dire facts once exposed? What has happened to the symbiotic relationship of audiences and media? From whence comes the deep suspicion?

My answer? From the drip drip drip of our own collective integrity leaching out of the profession. From the lack of an articulated, clear commitment to delivering reliable value to the public, expressed in a way that the public can hear that commitment. While we understand subtle distinctions between kinds of journalists and kinds of journalism organizations, to most of the public, the distinctions do not exist. Our concept that one public error is the work of a rogue is no more defensible than that position around Enron. We need to collectively raise standards again, preach them internally to the profession, defend them and speak them to the public, for they are the building blocks of trust.

I share these thoughts from a place that includes more perspectives than my pure journalism hat: Journalist for 20 years in radio, tv, magazines and mostly newspapers, executive of online publications, executive of a global pharmaceutical firm, and now executive of one of the nation's top non-profits. I've watched my peers in the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors interviewed, known the truths behind the stories, and watched what emerged in print. I've watched organizations strategize their approaches to the press and the press' response to those approaches. I understand why the trust is broken.

I still believe that the ethics and practices of journalism - generated in 100+ years of careful thought - if applied, enforced, enjoyed, taught, celebrated, articulated, and understood, could go a long way toward mitigating the crisis of trust. But probably not far enough. I fear the tipping point has passed.

To circle right back to the question that launched this thread, of the NYTimes weddings page, I would respond that out there in public, most people are forming their own communities of people like themselves, living with people like themselves, reading about people like themselves, socializing with people like themselves. Even those who cry, "No, I love diversity" are seeking out communities of like-minded people who love diversity. So why are we surprised if the NYTimes reflects and serves its readers, just as the Philadelphia Daily News or the Boston Herald does. Just as the printers of community gazette flyers in the 18th century did. Just as writers of blogs do. I think the challenge is not to reinvent the broadcast mentality but to serve the remaining broad- and and the ever-growing narrow-casting communities brilliantly. With integrity. And rules of engagement. And ethics. Earning trust. And for the love of getting it right.