Further to my post earlier today about media and accountability I came across a piece which takes the issues and the arguments a bit further.
Titled Why can’t journalists handle public criticism it was written by Scott Rosenberg and orignally posted on a site called Mediashift Idea Lab.
It’s worth a read, but I thought this extract was interesting:
Reasonable criticism of news coverage can now be published as easily online as the original reports, and the public expects media outlets to respond. Many editors and reporters understand that a new approach to accountability simply makes sense.
So the institutions have begun, haltingly but significantly, to open up. But many individual journalists find themselves at sea when called upon to explain mistakes, defend choices and engage in discussions with their readers and critics. Nothing in their professional lives has prepared them for this.
In fact, a lot of their professional training explicitly taught them that all of this was dangerous, unprofessional, bad. They grew up thinking — and some still think — that the professional thing to do, when questioned in public, is (a) don’t respond at all; (b) respond with “no comment — we stand by our story”; or if things get really bad © your editor will do the talking.
Because it’s about American media it’s easier think about and discuss the underlying issues without being accused of sour grapes. Anyone who knows me or has read previous posts will know I care deeply about these issues and having a strong robust, independent media. Public and commerically driven.
I don’t think we’ve got that right now.
Found this on twitter. Sorry can’t hat tip because I’ve forgotten who I got it from.