Reflection of New Rhetoric for News

 by K.C. Powers

A brand new approach to journalism, that’s what author Jack Fuller was expanding upon perpetually in his writing titled “New Rhetoric for News.” He highlighted the fact that today’s audience that we write for is growing and changing, something that we have to prepare for and, for the most part, aren’t properly educated to handle.

Fuller didn’t wish to discredit years of practiced and perfected methods, but he stated quite clearly that with today’s broader audience, development in communications skills was somewhat more relevant to journalism than the methods of “How to write”. It’s true that you need to learn the styling of journalistic writing as well as develop a keen filter for relevant and meaningful data,  becoming a terse and bland writer will find your hard work sitting idle and unobserved.

Fuller points out that there are two main audiences that we deal with now; our original audience that consists of the hard and fact oriented business. This was/is an enduring audience who use the news media in order to understand and influence their practices from daily life to work and even political decisions.  The new audience which Fuller speaks of is a far cry from the usual intellectual sorts, but rather your everyday sort who, by grace of accessibility, find themselves immersed in an ever growing educated world. 

With accessibility to the latest happenings in the form of television, radio, and internet, it becomes hard to compete with “interesting” stories when you’re only focusing on “important stories”. While the modern journalist must retain his or her filter for importance, they must now train themselves to be entertainers and to learn ways of catching the eye of the reader.

Although Fuller states the relevance of communicative skills and inventive imagery, he renounces tabloids as being “tasteless” and “trivial.” He criticizes their tendency of overlooking fact for the pursuit of entertaining and glamorous stories. Their methods of blasting what little content they have on the front page and then falling short of any real content beyond that. Jack does point out that they do have one thing right though, their ability to grab a reader’s interest by headline alone is impeccable. If there’s one thing that is necessary now, that attention-grabbing skill is a must-have in order to sell your stories.

Today’s audience is huge; we have so many outlets for news and so many eyes and ears waiting for the next big story. It comes as no surprise that with the internet being so readily accessible and school studies being so broad that our audience has grown. Though the angles may be different and your readers may have varying interests, one thing shall always remain clear; Do not underestimate your readers and do not sacrifice the meaningfulness of your stories. Instead, let them sell themselves, you just need to learn how to give them mouths.

Reflecting on McChesney's "The Problem of Journalism"

There was once a time when a journalist would do anything short of murder to get a story. This idea was made famous by His Girl Friday, a film set in 1940s Los Angeles depicting the fast-paced, investigative aspect of journalism, in which robbery, kidnapping, lies and illegal activities are undertaken to get to the bottom of the story. Times have certainly changed, and McChesney’s article, “The Problem of Journalism,” insists that the ideals which once flourished within the field of journalism have faded over time, leaving the industry changed by commercialization and influenced by political and business interests.

Today we live in an age where the integrity of journalism is undermined by the commercial interests of its investors. McChesney states that “society needs a journalism that is a rigorous watchdog of those in power and who want to be in power, can ferret out truth from lies, and can present a wide range of informed positions on the important issues of the day.”(1) Many journalists cannot pursue their original goals in entering the profession, as pressure to speak favorably of one interest over another keeps them from speaking their minds.

The value society has placed upon entertainment has also decreased the prevalence of hard, investigative journalism. Americans wish to hear about celebrities and “fluff” stories over more serious issues. Newspapers have declined in popularity, an event that shows a correlation with the rise of blogging. Blogs create a community where individuals can speak freely and openly about any variety of topics, revolutionizing the way that information is communicated and transformed. Though “conservative ideology and commercialized, depoliticized journalism have meshed,”(22) there is the potential of the blogging community to continue this evolution into the future of journalism. Anything can become possible through human ingenuity and creativity.

Response to Fuller's, "New Rhetoric for News"

"Time and again people arguing about the future of news have made the distinction between what people want to know and what they need to know," said Fuller. I believe this is one of the most difficult issues that journalists face, "what do people really care to know"? It has been within the last decade that information that the public doesn't necessarily need to hear, is really what they care to read and know about. People are turning to People Magazine and E news to find out the weekly news, rather than tuning into local or national news. From Fuller's article two things really stuck out to me; the fast-paced era we are in, and the need for scandal.

One reason that these sources of news have become so responded to is something that Fuller states in his article as, "cinema's use of jump-cut kinetic imagery". A lot of the substance that is written for these publications really have little substance. We hear how Kate Gosselin did this, and how the Kardashian sister's are at it again, but none of those stories require much in depth thought or much response at all from the audience. The reader simply reads it, and absorbs it without putting any thought into the subject matter. Within these past few years, this is what news audience's have become accustomed to and transitioning back to the so called torturous task of reading a three page Time Magazine article seems too not worth our time, and too much pressure to acquire whats being said. Fuller's jump-cut theory is exactly what is cutting-edge to us. We, as a literate population, would much rather read short snippets and get on our way, than dwell in the literary workings of a lengthy article.

This brings us to another point in Fuller's story; the switch to Tabloids. It is only common knowledge that a journalist for the New York Times differs from Perez Hilton, hollywood gossip writer. Both are popular writers for publications that people do indeed read, but what Hilton has over the journalist for the NYT is catchy and scandalous attention grabbers. Hilton has a much easier time bringing the reader in by using juicy and eye-catching words. It seems hard for serious journalists (not claiming that Hilton is not one) to turn to these non-traditional ways of journalism. It is a hard transition because how should a journalist come off as serious while trying to use phrases like, as Fuller uses, "Pornographic Pornography", to grab a reader into reading a serious article on archaeology.

I think all of these changes are relevant to time, and within that time journalists have not yet uncovered the best way for transition. I think it is a learning process for not only the journalists, but also the readers to find a happy medium in what we decide to write and read. Although it seems like we are on the downward slope to more unintelligent news, I do not think that is the case.

Response to McChesney "The Problem of Journalism"

If McChesney’s essay is to be believed the future of journalism is a very dark place and has been for some time now. Repeatedly the complaints arise that the old school journalism of investigative reporting and honorable reporters has been replaced by an industry concerned only with their bottom line. Journalism no longer centers on informing an audience about the news they need to know; but rather giving them the news that corporations have chosen. He claims that “the nature of what gets covered and how it gets covered, the meat and potatoes of journalism, have changed, and all for the worse.” (41) Audiences no longer dine on fulfilling stories but are treated to light weight desserts that don’t stay with them after the turn of the page or click of the remote.

With these dire assumptions many would assume journalism must act quickly to change their chosen path. James Carey wrote in his essay that “the reform of journalism will only occur when news organizations are disengaged from the global entertainment and information industries that increasingly contain them.” (56) Of course with the select few companies owning multiple media organizations it is difficult to escape this atmosphere. One alternative may be digital news or blogging. Bloggers and online writers often work for themselves and while they may have their own biases they are not held back by corporate backers. The internet allows for the freedom of journalists to report the stories they need to without interference.

Obviously this does not solve every problem McChesney brings up. The sources of the information may still be less trustworthy than in the past. Also, audiences can still choose to consume the fluff rather than the heavier meat and potatoes that journalists would prefer to cook up. But if traditional print publishing is already so far gone it may be time to look into alternatives that offer less restrictions on those with journalistic intentions. It took time for journalism to get to the point it is at today; blogging may also experience growing pains but has the potential to grow into a replacement for an evidently dwindling industry.

Response to "Blogging as a Form of Journalism" by J.D. Lasica

      There is no doubt that the profession of Journalism is changing right before our eyes. People anywhere can log onto the internet and publish a blog about their opinions on current events, health issues, politics or religion and be read by an audience. The way technology has transformed the way we get the news is absolutely amazing - and ever changing. Journalists must keep up to speed with the technology and it is essential that they learn what readers want in their publications - whether through broadcast media or newspapers.
      Dan Gillmor is one of the journalists Lasica spoke with about blogs and its significance in relation to journalism. In his interview, Gillmor says that he thinks journalists must be interacting with their readers - and I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with his suggestion. Gillmor says, "We're in the midst of a change, where journalism is changing from a lecture into something that resembles something between a conversation and a seminar, and that's pretty exciting to me"(175). Gillmor is touching on the fact that many blogs have turned into a discussion board of sorts - with readers interacting with journalists and giving journalists another point of view for a story. I believe this is a new journalism, and it's one that will stand strong in a more interactive, digital age. The internet has become a portal for interaction and it allows someone sitting in New York to share their opinions with someone in Los Angeles. It's a way for others to learn a differing viewpoint - and it can be especially valuable to journalists. With a wider more diverse audience, journalists will be able to get a more rounded story and to gain facts from a network of people who are more informed than a single journalist. As Gillmor says, "I doubt there is a beat at any newspaper or publication or program where it is not the case that the readers collectively know more than the reporter"  (175). If journalists join the blogging revolution instead of fight it, they are sure to broaden their scope of readers and hopefully create a more accurate and interesting story for them. The more they know, the more they can report. By allowing interaction between reader and journalist, they are welcoming more news, facts, and personalization into their publications - and we can only hope that this will snag the attention of readers.
      The new digital age is making a large amount of what is available in print accessible online, and it is important that we are growing with the technology. If journalists are unwilling to publish in a more public media (like blogs) they may miss out on an audience. More and more people are getting their news from the internet, whether it's because of convenience or accuracy, and its becoming a fact that is hard to ignore. If journalists are unable to put the news where their audience can read it they are only hurting themselves - as it's clear that blogging isn't going anywhere anytime soon!