An expert panel of journalists, educators, and national news political commentators spoke at a packed Union Chapel on Wednesday night on the future of objective news.
Part of the Charles Ogletree Public Forum series at the Chapel, the panel, titled “Truth Be Told: Democracy in Crisis,” discussed media misinformation, the current state of the news, and the future of journalism.
The event was presented by the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) and Report for America, part of Chilmark resident Charlie Sennott’s GroundTruth Project, a nonprofit news organization based in Boston.
A local presence, Senott was one of the organizing forces behind the panel.
“NABJ is a vitally important organization at a time when journalism is in crisis, and when we all need to work harder to be sure that newsrooms reflect the communities they cover,” Sennott said. “We have been proud to partner with NABJ in our efforts to grow Report for America since we launched five years ago, and now we are thrilled to have them here on the Island with an all-star lineup of speakers.”
Moderated by “CBS Saturday Morning” co-host Michelle Miller, panelists included senior political correspondent and anchor for CNN Abby Phillip, Dean of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism Jelani Cobb, owner of the Africa Channel and former NBC executive Paula Madison, and TV critic and media analyst for NPR Eric Deggans.
Much of Wednesday’s conversation revolved around the question, “What is journalism?”
The panel discussed the distinction between journalism as a truth-telling mission versus a moneymaking business, and the impact the Trump administration has had on journalism as an industry. As Madison said, “There is the business of news, and then there is journalism.” The panel also discussed the preservation of truth in journalism, particularly in relation to the upcoming 2024 presidential election cycle.
The news, the panel said, can be media, but is not, and should not be, considered content. Part of the modern challenge of reaching today’s audience, made more difficult by shortened attention spans, competing “fake news,” and confirmation bias, is that people are more apt to consume entertainment media over news, and more apt to read and believe stories they already agree with or believe. While the news can be media, the panelists agreed that not all media are news. The panelists commented on the normalization of hybridized “entertainment” news, laced with opinion, commentary, and spectacle, or news spread through bloggers, streamers, or social media. “You should all be screaming,” Madison said of the current state of journalism.
NPR’s Eric Deggans acknowledged the challenge of trying to tell the truth to an audience not open to hearing it. “We as mainstream journalists are trying to come to an audience where almost half of them will believe what they want to believe, regardless of what we tell them, and will not watch our news programs if we tell them something that conflicts with their point of view,” Deggans said. “So trying to make a profit or trying to tell the truth is going to become increasingly difficult.”
Cobb acknowledged the critical role of journalists in society, and the importance of having accountability. If the people don’t respect the news, all of the truth in the world will go over their heads: “It’s on us to earn the trust of the public,” Cobb said.
The panelists agreed it was their primary purpose as journalists to tell the truth, but whether the people believe them is a separate matter; it’s not a journalist’s job to make people believe the truth. However, in today’s age, not all journalists are out to tell the facts, which brings into question whether they should really be called “journalists” at all.
Phillip commented on the line between profit and sustainability for journalists and the business of journalism. “We have to pay people who want to do it well,” she said. “We have to tell people what is happening, but we also have to tell them why it matters.”
Phillip said the news is not just about generating the next clickable headline, it’s about helping people understand what is happening around them, and giving people the appropriate context to place the significance of the news being delivered.
As Madison put it, “Journalism doesn’t tell people what to think, we tell people what to think about.” The statement earned a round of applause.
Phillip described herself as coming up in the Trump era of journalism, as she called it, where the context was often omitted, and social media posts, like tweets on the app formerly known as Twitter, became headlines. But according to Phillip, the tweets were news.
Trump used Twitter to discuss real political matters, like foreign policy, sometimes at 6 am, according to Phillip. “He’s tweeting things, about policy, about foreign policy, domestic policy; things his aides didn’t even know about. Look, it’s news,” she said. Phillip added that the job is not just to report what is said, but to report everything behind those statements. She commented on these rapid-fire tweets as a way that Trump overwhelmed the news system, as he was constantly able to generate headlines. Phillip acknowledged the news outlets made mistakes in that era, and that it was a new kind of journalism being forged.
The future of journalism is one of diversity and equity, the panel hopes. They called for white journalists to cover Black news and racial stories, suggesting it be a requirement for all new journalists to cover diversity stories. “It always falls on us, but it really needs to fall on all of us in newsrooms,” said Phillip of Black people often covering Black stories.
The panelists concluded the discussion on the topic of artificial intelligence and its impact on the field. They spoke about the positive potential of AI and large language models to empower journalists to do in-depth investigative reporting, allowing humans to access information from large databases and documents faster than ever before. They suspected the use of AI would cut the time required to produce critically needed journalism, particularly investigative journalism. Investigative journalism is expensive, time-consuming, and takes a lot of training, said Phillip. She said we fundamentally need a lot more of that. The downside to AI, the panelists said, is the elimination of positions and tasks typically done by humans, which might mean fewer jobs.
Deggans also brought up “deep fakes” and the power of AI to mimic voices of public figures in text and audio clips, including influential broadcast journalists and public figures. Madison commented that as with most technology, AI can be used to help or harm; It is up to the humans wielding it and the choices they make with it.
The upside to AI, the panelists agreed, will be that humans will be able to get to the more advanced and interesting work more quickly. They also speculated that new, critically important roles in newsroom leadership will be created to manage the interplay between humans and AI.
Cobb spoke about AI producing first drafts of stories or research pieces, and human editors going through to fact-check before publication. “At the Columbia Journalism School, we are trying to keep pace with what our students need to know as they go out into the market,” Cobb said. Phillip called for more training to help new journalists and recent college grads get on a runway to a successful career in the field.
The diverse crowd at the chapel was lively and responsive to the panelists, often meeting their statements with applause. After about an hour of discussion, the panel took questions from the audience before closing the event. Audience members received free gifts, including Report for America notebooks and pens, and a water bottle.
Just imagine if you will an organization called the National Association of White Journalists. Think about it, let it sink in. Wouldn’t it be better to just have an association of journalists? We’ll never move forward in race relations until we recognize each other as just human.
Axel, whether it’s denial, ignorance, or naivity, educate yourself so that you can understand, to start, that there is a bias against people of color in journalism… and why there are organizations to combat it, organanizations which do not come from an unconsciously racist status quo. Your comment reflects the status quo, failing to recognize the reality of today.
“…We all need to work harder to be sure that newsrooms reflect the communities they cover”.
There are numerous articles available. Google “racial bias affects journalism”.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&as_vis=1&q=racial+bias+affects+journalism&btnG=
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/05/1137193397/missing-persons-of-color-news-coverage-disparities
When I was in a graduate program in journalism at Boston University back in the 1970s, on the first day of class the professor I respected most initiated this exercise. He simply asked each of us (about 20 students in his news reporting class) why we wanted to be journalists. Depending upon our answers, he positioned the students on opposite ends of the classroom. Only two students were on one side, and all the rest were on the other. The two students standing alone had more-or-less these two answers. One said he loved to travel to foreign countries and getting paid for it as a news correspondent was a bonus. The other said he simply wanted to tell others who were “not there” what happened. All the other students had answers in the same ballpark, such as “I want to make a difference,” or “I see injustice and want to help combat it.” When everyone had finished, and we were all standing in the respective places, the professor told the large group, the “advocacy” students, that they should not be in the Masters of Journalism program, but should rather transfer to the school of education or social work, where such goals were appropriate. None did, I am sad to report. And that is among the problems with journalism today that has rendered a once admirable profession into little more than a collection of paid public relations agents in costume.
Just imagine if you will an organization called the National Association of White Journalists, or the National Association of Black Journalists, or the National Association of Yellow Journalists, or or the National Association of Red Journalists Think about it, let it sink in.
Wouldn’t it be better to just have multiple associations of journalists?
Should we have just one political party?
Which one?
Oh, I missed this! But I will say, from what is said in this story — even Prof. Jelani Cobb, whose voice I respect as a public intellectual — how can I believe him when he is will to misrepresent the truth like in a New Yorker editorial piece he wrote in which he falsely insinuated that the majority of Americans supported affirmative action in college admissions (Pew, Gallup, NYT had and do repeatedly show a majority of Americans, including Democrats and Independents did not, before it was struck down and made illegal by SCOTUS)?
In his editorial, he cited a single statistic and warped the truth and then blamed Republicans, easy to find, read, and confirm. I can’t consider him much of truth teller, for those familiar, he’s a partisan and he specifically undermined the truth with his manipulation of statistic and fact! Would like to have asked him about it. Nothing personal, but seems hypocritical, especially for someone so highly placed.
Before people jump on me politically, I vote Democrat. But I am abreast of news to the degree that when I see inconsistency it is easy to spot.
You are being too kind. The kind of “inconsistency” you are talking about is better termed what it really is – lies.
Stanley and budrus:
Do you know what an editorial is? It is an opinion piece making an educated, informed conclusion or statement. Opinions are not “lies”. There is no “misrepresentation” or “insinuating” anything.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/07/10/the-end-of-affirmative-action
Below is the supporting NBC poll Professor Cobb cited when he wrote:
“As with abortion rights, this case [affirmative action decision] by the Supreme Court] deals with a policy that the majority of the public supports—in a recent poll, sixty-three per cent of Americans said that the Supreme Court should allow colleges to consider race and ethnicity in admissions—
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/majority-americans-favor-affirmative-action-colleges-rcna86853
There are plenty of polls, going all different ways, but you cite none. Glom onto an opinion or poll that fits your personal partisan bias and then slander the person, one of the panelists, who disagrees with your bias. That’s what you’ve done. You’ve cited nothing but your own ill-informed opinion that is personally defamatory to one of the panelists, and you know it.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-americans-think-about-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions
And yes, I know, polls are often wrong, as we all learned in the 2016 election.
Prof. Jelani Cobb cited the one poll that skewed the opinions of Americans. The majority of polls showed otherwise, like I said, the NYT showed a larger view with those conclusions. It discusses the bigger picture. Apologies that you needed this but the picture is very clear. The facts were misrepresented to present, yes, an opinion, an opinion based in part on a single poll that did not accurately capture what was set out to accomplish in that opinion article. The poll he cited existed, of course, but the granularity was unclear and the aggregates were omitted as was the larger context.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/affirmative-action-polls.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Tom, what you missed is the word editorial.
It is not facts, just opinion, yours may differ.
Al, you make a good point, and from now on, I will read Prof. Cobb’s opinion knowing that he is willing to specify details that twist the overall picture of the views of Americans on this topic in order to present his opinion. Opinion is just that, yes, so let us stop judging opinion pieces from sites like the Blaze and One America News, simply because they cite an accurate poll among – for example – the Rasmussen polls that always skew “conservative” despite being a major polling organization. Readers do not get an accurate picture of democracy in America in these cases to make judgements – that’s my opinion about the perspective of Columbia’s Dean of the Journalism School. Apparently when it comes to opinion, only take into account the facts you like, lesson offered from Columbia.
Several of the panelists spoke about the profit motive driving mainstream media and the role of the next generation in addressing the crisis of democracy.
True journalism matters when people are civically engaged and involved in local problem-solving, not looking for entertainment. To stem mistrust and raise the next generation of dedicated journalists, we must invest in high quality civics education that connects students to their communities.
Agreed. Teach the Constitution. The rest follows.
The Constitution allowed for slavery, segregation, and the denial of voting rights, to name a few.
The rest follows.
But sadly, most people DO their opinions based on what they read in the paper or what the guy on TV says.
The main stream media has far too much power and people just except being spoonfed what they are programmed to believe. Most Americans have no interest in the truth and have lost their critical thinking skills.
This is how corruption and evil perpetuates.
It’s hiding right there… in plain sight, if only people would look.
Who is the mainstream media?
Name names!!
Who do you trust?
Where are they hiding, in plain sight?