A few thoughts on journalism.

An interesting thing happened.

The local television network called to ask us if we would comment on a topic, a subject with which was not our expertise. They were running a story, they explained, and wanted to hear our thoughts on the matter. Unable to answer the telephone, the reporter left a message and asked us to please return the call - that time was of the essence.

Feeling a little apprehensive about the topic, we decided to reach out just the same. Understanding the importance our local community plays, we thought it was the responsible thing to do: to see how we could help, even if it meant us going out an a limb. Ultimately, we convinced ourselves, “the reporter must be calling us for a very specific reason.” There must be an angle that we’re just not seeing.

Curiously enough, as we anxiously returned the phone call - no more than five minutes later - the reporter hurriedly answered. As we started to introduce ourselves, and say thanks for the message, this individual dismissively stated, “We’ve already called someone else.”

Click. That was it. The reporter had hung up.

Now, we were initially a bit disenchanted by the whole experience. After all, this person had called us. We didn’t need the publicity. We were just trying to help. Our visceral reaction was headed down the path of, “How dare, expletive, expletive,"…When, the encounter started to open itself up. We began to ask an entirely different set of questions. Questions about the nature of journalism.

Clearly, this news station already had the story. Actually, they probably already knew the precise response that they were after, otherwise they would have called in the experts. My dear friend calls this the "Family Feud” model. It’s about the percentages. Basically, they just needed to put quotes around opinions to offer credibility, or the semblance thereof. (As a side note, this topic was highly specialized and should have only been reserved for a medical professional, of which we are not.)

What does this tell us? Well, there are a number of factors at play, and a plethora of trajectories to pursue, a few of which we’ll attempt to articulate below. The others? Well, more on that later.

So, who is the audience to which the local television network responds? We write “responds” to indicate the passive mode of journalism that we see at work. A form of journalism that is less about discovering a story, than populating ready-made content. Maybe that’s a bit too harsh. But, you get the point. It’s second-rate work. On this model, stories are solicited under the guise of experts sharing their opinions. We need to ask, though, does knowledge always equate to expertise?

Which leads us to inquire further: What role does responsibility play in this formulae? Whose responsibility is it? What about trust? Where does that come from? Does that originate in identity, or brand equity, or something else entirely?

We realize that these are very basic questions, questions that every college journalism major experiences in their introductory classes. Yet, this particular encounter stayed with us. It lives with us still. It seems to indicate, at least to us, the massive rupture, or paradigm shift, within journalism itself. At least journalism branded as…

Interestingly enough, the very next day the parent network, to which this local channel is syndicated, called us for an interview on an altogether unrelated subject matter. The national news wanted to hear our thoughts. Wow! Needless to say, we were absolutely flattered and then, suddenly nervous. What insights would this experience yield? What were their motivations?

As it turns out, this set of exchanges was so radically, unrecognizably different. Not only was the journalist researching a topic that might be a story, she’d already done extensive background analysis on the potential piece. She was actively interviewing us, not for formulaic answers, but to explore if there was, in fact, something to be said.

While we’re highly aware of the discordant set of expectations between a local and national network - which is not to comment on the character or ability of the reporters or staff - we feel there’s something else at work here. There’s an alignment of values with a certain set of assumptions. Invariably, these assumptions are tied to identity, and it’s evil twin sisters, representation and authenticity. You know what they say about appearances.

While there are at least two current paths - not having anything to say, and finding something that needs to be said - they’re vastly disparate approaches to journalism. Or, are they? At the end of the day, we wonder, are these platforms and modes of communication ultimately configured in the exact same way? You see, they’re both predicated on the identification of credibility with consumption. I think there’s another path…