Watchdog Journalism & Democracy

PART I
What is Meant by the Term ‘Watchdog” Journalism’?
Why is this Idealised Approach to Journalism Considered so Important and What are its Limitations?

The ‘journalist as investigator’ moniker arose when reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered the illegal activities in the Watergate debacle which led to President Nixon’s demise in office in the 1970s. Matheson stated recently that the Watergate chapter still has “enormous resonance around the world (as) it symbolises so successfully…the good that reporting can do, independently monitoring power and aligning itself with the interests of the people” (2010, p.82). Marder described watchdog journalism (WJ) as an “instrument of democracy” at the first Nieman Foundation Watchdog Conference in 1998, asserting that journalists be tasked to ask the hard questions at every level of public life on behalf of the populous (1999/2000). Gans confirmed that journalists still see themselves charged with exposing “corruption, malfeasance, dishonesty, hypocrisy, scandal and the violation of other mainstream rules of behaviour” (2010, p.96). WJ is important because the public are entitled to know what is really going on, why, and who is responsible – or not being responsible, as it were. Traditionally, there needed to be a facilitator between institutions and the public who lacked access.

Perplexingly, around the time of the Watchdog Conference, others were suggesting that such noble intentions were ideals, for could the news media really be expected to meet such challenges? There were attendant issues of commercial survival, questions of loyalty, and what actually constitutes the public interest (Schultz, 1998). Schultz further alleged the news media was a “flawed watchdog” because successes were random and the guardian role diminishing due to the emergence of agencies and legislation, nationally and internationally attending to societal ills. Ironically, the news media may have played a part in exposing the rot but now is more likely augmenting the bigger story via feedback from participants lower down the scale. Confounding this was a change in public attitude, exhibited in opinion polls, toward the media due to the latter’s surge for “political and economic power”, whilst avoiding “acting as a disinterested check on the abuse of such power by others” (Schultz, 1998, p.4). This decline in support of WJ was iterated not long after by the Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press, which maintained the public, had for some time, viewed news media as an “an ill-mannered watchdog that barks too often - one that is driven by its own interests rather than by a desire to protect the public interest” (Kohut, 2001, p. 52, cited in Poindexter, Heider, & McCombs, 2006).

Newspaper sales and circulation have been falling for some years despite news proprietors’ bids to overhaul paper profiles and recruit new readers (Poindexter, Heider, & McCombs, 2006). Decreasing funds meant that WJ became less of a priority for editors since it sapped resources compared to daily reporting. There are also questions as to how irregularities are pinpointed - who decides what topics reporters should pursue – and how can anybody know if journalists have been able to identify all, or enough of, pertinent issues. All these activities require commodities that are not so available in the on-going, globally depressed financial climate. It is also noticeable that news media were seduced by sensationalism and the cult of celebrity, perhaps believing this is what people wanted, however, it may have fuelled a growing lack of respect for what constituted news.

Schultz maintains that “the news media is at its most influential when it is local”’ (1998, p.7). At least one study has shown that “being a watchdog” was not a paramount expectation of readers compared with that of journalists: 49% and 70% respectively. It appeared that young and old wanted to see more “good neighbour” reporting – community projects – a move towards more public, or civic, journalism (Heider, McCombs, & Poindexter, 2005). It is possible that this preferred role for journalists is tied in with the aforementioned lack of respect for/interest in, news. The public’s taste for WJ topics may have changed too in line with trends. One such area is the environment where journalists may talk about “pollution problems” whilst carefully avoiding the causes and solutions such as over-population and consumerism. In the U.S. reporters and editors shy away from these topics because they are considered international problems; the U.S. is guilty of massive consumerism; and population discussions can lead into volatile areas such as abortion and immigration (Detjen, 2002).

As well as losing revenue and circulation, and being unable to finance investigations, newspapers today have the added competition posed by other forms of media, not the least of which is the increasing dominance of the Internet. Whilst hard copy papers also feature on the Internet there is also a vast array of news sites competing for prominence, professional and amateur. Many people stopped buying the paper daily because of the increasing expense, perceived drop in standards, and the accessibility of continuous electronic news. The broadband bill provides a one-stop shop to as many and varied (updating) news sites as required. Even sectors of the population who never use computers can have their news’ needs satisfied ‘anytime’ by television because of specialised news channels such as CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera. However, ideas about shifting WJ into other realms, i.e., away from the hard copy, is problematic as the issue of funding such projects has not disappeared (Hampton, 2004, cited in Hamilton, 2010).

As early as 1976, McQuail (1976, cited in Schultz, 1998) was contending that whilst WJ was a terrific ideal, it was difficult to achieve for a raft of reasons - economic, legal and political. Gans moderates the prognosis by suggesting ‘everyday’ WJ can still “make direct contributions to democracy (but) such contributions are rare and unpredictable, often accidental, and usually dependent on forces and agents other than the media alone” (Gans, 2010, p. 98). An example is Katie Couric revealing Sarah Palin’s shortcomings. Whilst the readership is not so in thrall to news media it may be possible to regain some measure of trust within the community by adopting a ‘good neighbour’ rationale.

PART II
Objective, Solutions and Citizens Journalism

Objective Journalism Jobless Young ‘Will Take Lives’
(Stylianou, 2011)
Objectivity is present when writing has been prepared in conjunction with a variety of expert sources, evidence and quotes. All viewpoints should get a fair hearing and the reporting be unemotional (Ward, 1998).

Anderton made the assessment in the headline using overseas data so we cannot say if it applies to New Zealand. The matter is put into context with the input from Fergusson who adds further balance by commenting on the topic of youth and mental health.

The large headline, the opening sentence and other phrases are written as if absolute certainties (when they are predictions) which is not being objective. The article could have been longer for such a serious subject. On a continuum, the article is highly, but not fully, objective. The writer has not imposed an opinion. “Objective journalists…report the truth” (Morrison, 2002, p.57). In this case true data has been recorded but it was not gleaned from the context in question.
Objective Journalism Teen Dads See Having Kids as a Cash Cow (Neale, 2011)
The second article also has a large, startling headline with predictions even less-well founded because they are just someone’s thoughts on the subject. There are several emotive phrases which serve to augment Sutherland’s perspective. The Minister did get equal space talking about the subject generally and acknowledged the Families Commission wanted to do research. This article was much nearer the subjective end of the scale based on Sutherland’s contribution and some edging towards objectivity was attempted by the Minister who was not the protagonist.

Solutions Journalism Saving Selwyn (Chisholm, 2011)
Benesch describes solutions journalism (SJ) as “reporting on efforts that seem to succeed at solving particular social problems” (1998, p.37) which others can copy. To avoid SJ becoming too sickly, the article should have a narrative around the reasons a programme worked. Ideally background will make the article have more impact with the codicil that no promises are being made.

Saving Selwyn is a type of SJ because it shows how a “once-divided and dysfunctional college” has been turned around within three years in physical and cultural terms. It discusses the background and details the practical steps that were taken which worked to “significantly improve the quality of teaching, learning and management.”

This article is not the best example of SJ since it revolves around the new Principal but that was balanced by citing other contributions. Stating boldly that “the philosophies underpinning Selwyn’s turnaround could work ‘without question’ in every school” may have been somewhat incautious.

This article is highly objective as it also addresses areas that still need attention or have been slower to reform. It also had many quotes from a variety of relevant parties including students.
Solutions Journalism Owners Unite to Create Central City Village (Williams, 2011)
This second article has been attached as it an example of a budding piece of SJ. The headline was positive which was affirmed by action that has already taken place. The photographs emphasised the ‘local initiative’. The article shows how the Christchurch Press is keeping in touch with its community. It was good that the 87 year-old woman added her perspective but the item overall was more subjective because no mention was made of pitfalls or other dissenting voices.

Citizen Journalism Alcohol Laws in New Zealand
(Gunasekara, 2011)
Citizen journalism (CJ) is derived from “the people formerly known as the audience” (Rosen, 2006). They can be a mixture of amateurs and professionals who contribute to Internet sites mainly on political and cultural subjects (Atton, 2008). Due to lack of hard sources, posts tend to be more subjective, however, it has been shown that readers appreciate these standpoints (Matheson & Allan, 2003 cited in Atton, 2008). Many sites moderate the information but others do not.

The first item (from Pundit) about problem alcohol consumption was written by a qualified, academic writer. This made for a very impressive posting on an equally notable site, edited by a group of creditable journalists. This is important as it adds a patina which could attract more professional contributors and impressive to governing bodies, for example. The author has striven to be as objective as possible by citing historical and local evidence and other experts.

Citizen Journalism Police Information Gathering (Buchanan, 2011)
The second warning item (from the Aotearoa Independent Media Centre) is included by way of contrast. Of note are the seven comments which quickly changed the nature of the original posting. The bad spelling, etc, does the site no favours and the contributors appear less than convincing. There is an editorial function performed by volunteers and the site has a more casual profile. The writing is very subjective but this does not mean the site does not have value for its contributors and subscribers.

PART III

What Should be the Media’s Role in a Democracy?
Consider how the Internet, the economic pressures on news media and the advent of citizen journalism have impacted on this role.
From your own media monitoring, how well do you think New Zealand journalists are fulfilling the role of informing and engaging citizens?

“I read it in the paper so it must be true”. Before television the paper was delivered six days per week and it was king as we compared kiwi openness with Communist bloc papers, e.g. Pravda, which were governed by the party line. Some early New Zealand papers were political but these died out (Du Fresne, 2007). The media in a democracy should be telling everyone what they need to know in a balanced, accurate, timely, two-way and accessible manner. The relationship should be ‘less king and a bit more Siamese twin’.

Originally U.S. papers were the “obedient press” before developing into the “adversarial press” (Jones, 2009). A major milestone was the publishing of the ‘Pentagon Papers’ in the New York Times (1971) detailing major irregularities over the U.S. engaging in Vietnam. The executive editor, against legal advice, felt duty-bound to tell readers “the truth about an issue of overwhelming importance” (Jones, 2009, p.29). U.S. journalism also played a crucial role in women’s and civil rights. However, papers were originally hostile over gays/AIDS and sided with the moral majority. By the mid-1980s however, the media was responsible for a positive shift in public opinion at a time when politicians were largely ignoring the health issue.

The variant slants reporters and editors chose to utilise regarding AIDS begs the question: how should information in a democracy be presented? The answer evolved to be “objectively” which entails balance, with all interests represented, expert input, and presented with integrity (Ward, 1998). While objectivity sounds like the first and last tenet for journalism I question it on the grounds that it is not natural to human beings. Commentators have also labelled objectivity as impractical and unfeasible because it could cause the media to fail in its democratic duty. Cunningham has said that “objectivity has persisted (because) nothing better has replaced it” (2003, p.26) which strikes me as glib when we also read that “few would argue that complete objectivity is possible” (2003, p.26). If information is ‘a little objective’ then overall it is probably subjective. It is human nature to have an opinion and want to express it as people are guided by their unique perception. A common example of this is found in business where perceptual differences continually cause costly communication problems (Dwyer, 2009). I would prefer to get variant perspectives as a starting point towards solutions.

As far back as 1993, Rosen called for the media to deliberately spark debate and participation since this would “do more to ensure democracy than…passive, neutral reporting” (1993, ¶1). Donsbach (2004) points out that whilst objectivity is central in a democracy, it is anything but simple to execute. This has been supported in the New Zealand setting where “the media damage democracy by trying to pursue the traditional objective approach” (Venables, 2002, p.260). Haas agrees about increased community participation while suggesting that “the purpose of journalism should be to promote and indeed to improve, and not merely to report on or complain about, the state of public life” (Haas, 2004, p.618).

McCombes (1972) said “the news media cannot tell us what to think, but they do tell us what to think about.” At first glance I agreed with this but, to iterate, think the media should have the courage to bring opinions to the table. As for the second half of the maxim, it too needs rehashing since the public in a democracy has the right to tell the media what they need information about. Courtesy of the Internet the public are already bypassing traditional channels. This ties in with the concept of public journalism which calls for journalists “to promote civic commitment and citizen participation in democratic processes” (Franklin, et al., 2005, p.214).

Whilst this has barely taken off in New Zealand (Comrie & Venables, 2009) there was a paper based on this precept in Wellington (1993-2001) called City Voice. This paper exercised public journalism by providing information and platforms for hoi polloi to take part in democratic issues, giving “a voice to many people who had never had a voice in the news media before” (Collins & Rose, 2004, p.36). Sadly the paper closed down for wont of funds, but lack of funds has also hit mainstream papers. Now papers appear to be competing with magazines judging by the space devoted to entertainment, cooking, gardening, etc, but they cannot compete with them or the Internet (Gans, 2010).

Gans also warns that the Internet option could contribute to a healthy democracy but it could go the other way since the phasing out of professional news bodies due to economics and the Internet: “if elected officials know that fewer journalists are monitoring them, they may also be somewhat freer to ignore the electorate, for bad and good” (2010, p. 100). It is also of note that due to corporate ownership and control of Internet infrastructure ‘free speech’ is under threat because of “the transformation of the internet 's architecture from an open, free space into a closed, controlled system” (Dahlberg, 2004, p.104).

Gans (2010) has suggested that media need to understand their audience and tailor output accordingly. When I was Manager of the Festival of Flowers, the Christchurch Press put on a preview of the famous floral carpet for 100 of their subscribers. The hope being the attendees would rush out and tell everyone who would immediately become subscribers. It was a lovely evening but does the Press think media status hinges on holding floral-themed cocktail parties? However, the Press has been outstanding in its coverage of post-earthquake information for Christchurch. This is the kind of role the media should be embarking on – find jobs that need to be done on behalf of the community – and provide an excellent service.

The advent of citizen journalism had demonstrated that the people expect a say. The media, especially newspapers in a democracy such as New Zealand have, in theory, the power to reinvent themselves especially when the future may lay in “participatory news: a time where…news is gathered, selected, edited and communicated by professionals and amateurs, and by producers and consumers alike” (Deuze, Bruns, & Neuberger, 2007, p.1)

(2,792 words minus titles)

REFERENCES
Atton, C. (2008). Citizen journalism. The International Encyclopaedia of Communication. Donsbach, W.(Ed). Retrieved from http://www.blackwellreference.com.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9781405131995_chunk_g97814051319958_ss28-1 on 5 August 2011.

Benesch, S. (1998). The rise of solutions journalism. Columbia Journalism Review, 36(6), 36-39.

Buchanan, S.F. (2011). Police information gathering. Retrieved from http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/79775/police-information-gathering on 15 August 2011.

Chisholm, D. (2011, Jul-Aug). Saving Selwyn. Metro, pp.58-62.

Collins, S., & Rose, J. (2004). City Voice, an alternative to the corporate model. Pacific Journalism Review, 10(2), 32-45.

Comrie, M., & Venables, D. (2009). Public journalism Kiwi style. In A. Romano (Ed.). International journalism and democracy: Civic engagement models from around the world (pp.75-90).

Cunningham. B. (2003). Re-thinking objectivity. Columbia Journalism Review, 42(2), 24-32.

Dahlberg, L. (2005). The corporate takeover of the online public sphere: A critical examination, with reference to the New Zealand case. Pacific Journalism Review, 11(1), 90-112.

Detjen, J. (2002). A new kind of environment reporting is needed. Nieman Reports, 56(4), 38-40.

Deuze, M., Bruns, A., & Neuberger, C. (2007). Preparing for an age of participatory news. Journalism Practice, 1(3), 322-338.

Donsbach, W. (2004). Objectivity in reporting. Encyclopaedia of International Media and Communications, Vol 3, 383-391.

Du Fresne, K. (2007, 19 September). Journalism versus social activism. Manawatu Standard, Ed.1, p.10.

Dwyer, J. (2009). Communication in business: strategies and skills (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.

Franklin, B., Hamer, M., Kinsey, M., & Richardson, J.E. (2005). Key concepts in journalism studies. London: Sage.

Gans, H.J. (2010). News and democracy in the United States: Current problems, future possibilities. In S.Allan (Ed.), The Routledge companion to news and journalism (pp.95-104). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Gunasekara, F.I. (2011). Alcohol laws in New Zealand – a chance to create an enduring legacy. Retrieved from http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/alcohol-laws-in-new-zealand-%E2%80%93-a-chance-to-create-an-enduring-legacy on 15 August 2011.

Hamilton, M. (2004). All the news that’s fit to sell: How the market transforms information into news. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hampton, M. (2010). The fourth estate ideal in journalism history. In S. Allan (Ed.), The Routledge companion to news and journalism (pp.3-12). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Haas, T. (2004). Public journalism. Encyclopaedia of international media and communications, Vol 3, 617-629.

Heider, D., McCombs, M., & Poindexter, M.P. (2005). What the public expects of local news: Views on public and traditional journalism. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(4), 952-967.

Jones, A.S. (2009). Losing the news: The future of the news that feeds democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kohut, A. (2001). Public support for the watchdog is fading. Columbia Journalism Review, 40(1), 52.

McCombs, M. Jr., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function of the mass media, Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.

McQuail, D. (1976). Review of sociological writing on the press. London: HMSO.

Marder, M. (1999/2000). This is watchdog journalism. Nieman Reports, 53/54(4/1), 78-79.

Matheson, D. (2010). The watchdog’s new bark: Changing forms of investigative reporting. In S. Allan (Ed.), The Routledge companion to news and journalism (pp.82-92). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Matheson, D., & Allan, S. (2003). Weblogs and the war in Iraq: Journalism for the network society? Paper presented at the Digital Dynamics Conference, Loughborough, UK, Nov. 6–9.

Morrison, A. (2002). In J.McGregor & M.Comrie (Eds.), What’s news? Reclaiming journalism in New Zealand (pp. 56-71). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.

Neale, I. (2011, August 7). Teen dads see having kids as a cash cow. Sunday Star Times, p.12

Poindexter, P.M., Heider, D., & McCombs, M. (2006). Watchdog or good neighbour? The public’s expectations of local news. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(1), 77-88.

Rosen, J. (1993). Beyond objectivity. Nieman Reports, 47(4), 48-53.

Rosen, J. (2006). The people formerly known as the audience. Press Think. Retrieved from http://archive.pressthink.org/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html on 15 August 2010.

Schultz, J. (1998). Reviving the fourth estate: Democracy, accountability and the media. (Selections from Introduction, pp.1-10; Chapter 3, pp.47-65). Cambridge: University Press.

Stylianou, G. (2011, August 10). Jobless young ‘will take lives’. Christchurch Press, p.6.

Venables, D. (2002). Public journalism. In J.McGregor & M.Comrie (Eds.), What’s news? Reclaiming journalism in New Zealand (pp.259-270). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.

Ward, S. (1998). An answer to Martin Bell. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 3(1), 121-125.

Williams, D. (2011, August 10). Owners unite to create central city village. Christchurch Press, p.24.

References: Benesch, S. (1998). The rise of solutions journalism. Columbia Journalism Review, 36(6), 36-39. Buchanan, S.F. (2011). Police information gathering. Retrieved from http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/79775/police-information-gathering on 15 August 2011. Chisholm, D. (2011, Jul-Aug). Saving Selwyn. Metro, pp.58-62. Collins, S., & Rose, J. (2004). City Voice, an alternative to the corporate model. Pacific Journalism Review, 10(2), 32-45. Comrie, M., & Venables, D. (2009). Public journalism Kiwi style. In A. Romano (Ed.). International journalism and democracy: Civic engagement models from around the world (pp.75-90). Cunningham. B. (2003). Re-thinking objectivity. Columbia Journalism Review, 42(2), 24-32. Dahlberg, L. (2005). The corporate takeover of the online public sphere: A critical examination, with reference to the New Zealand case. Pacific Journalism Review, 11(1), 90-112. Detjen, J. (2002). A new kind of environment reporting is needed. Nieman Reports, 56(4), 38-40. Deuze, M., Bruns, A., & Neuberger, C. (2007). Preparing for an age of participatory news. Journalism Practice, 1(3), 322-338. Donsbach, W. (2004). Objectivity in reporting. Encyclopaedia of International Media and Communications, Vol 3, 383-391. Du Fresne, K. (2007, 19 September). Journalism versus social activism. Manawatu Standard, Ed.1, p.10. Dwyer, J. (2009). Communication in business: strategies and skills (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia. Franklin, B., Hamer, M., Kinsey, M., & Richardson, J.E. (2005). Key concepts in journalism studies. London: Sage. Gans, H.J. (2010). News and democracy in the United States: Current problems, future possibilities. In S.Allan (Ed.), The Routledge companion to news and journalism (pp.95-104). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Gunasekara, F.I. (2011). Alcohol laws in New Zealand – a chance to create an enduring legacy. Retrieved from http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/alcohol-laws-in-new-zealand-%E2%80%93-a-chance-to-create-an-enduring-legacy Hamilton, M. (2004). All the news that’s fit to sell: How the market transforms information into news. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hampton, M. (2010). The fourth estate ideal in journalism history. In S. Allan (Ed.), The Routledge companion to news and journalism (pp.3-12). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Haas, T. (2004). Public journalism. Encyclopaedia of international media and communications, Vol 3, 617-629. Heider, D., McCombs, M., & Poindexter, M.P. (2005). What the public expects of local news: Views on public and traditional journalism. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(4), 952-967. Jones, A.S. (2009). Losing the news: The future of the news that feeds democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kohut, A. (2001). Public support for the watchdog is fading. Columbia Journalism Review, 40(1), 52. McCombs, M. Jr., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function of the mass media, Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187. McQuail, D. (1976). Review of sociological writing on the press. London: HMSO. Marder, M. (1999/2000). This is watchdog journalism. Nieman Reports, 53/54(4/1), 78-79. Matheson, D. (2010). The watchdog’s new bark: Changing forms of investigative reporting. In S. Allan (Ed.), The Routledge companion to news and journalism (pp.82-92). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Morrison, A. (2002). In J.McGregor & M.Comrie (Eds.), What’s news? Reclaiming journalism in New Zealand (pp. 56-71). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. Neale, I. (2011, August 7). Teen dads see having kids as a cash cow. Sunday Star Times, p.12 Poindexter, P.M., Heider, D., & McCombs, M Rosen, J. (1993). Beyond objectivity. Nieman Reports, 47(4), 48-53. Rosen, J. (2006). The people formerly known as the audience. Press Think. Retrieved from http://archive.pressthink.org/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html on 15 August 2010. Schultz, J. (1998). Reviving the fourth estate: Democracy, accountability and the media. (Selections from Introduction, pp.1-10; Chapter 3, pp.47-65). Cambridge: University Press. Stylianou, G. (2011, August 10). Jobless young ‘will take lives’. Christchurch Press, p.6. Venables, D. (2002). Public journalism. In J.McGregor & M.Comrie (Eds.), What’s news? Reclaiming journalism in New Zealand (pp.259-270). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. Ward, S. (1998). An answer to Martin Bell. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 3(1), 121-125. Williams, D. (2011, August 10). Owners unite to create central city village. Christchurch Press, p.24.