16 May 2006
Journalist Crocker Snow Discusses Future of Journalism
USINFO Webchat transcript, May 16
Crocker Snow Jr., director of the Edward R. Murrow Center for Public Diplomacy at the Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, discussed press freedom and the future of journalism in a World Press Freedom Day webchat.
Following is the transcript:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of International Information Program
USINFO Webchat Transcript
Journalism: From Murrow to Tomorrow
Guest: Crocker Snow, Jr.
Date: May 16, 2006
Time: 11:00 a.m. EDT (1500 GMT)
Join veteran journalist Crocker Snow Jr. for a webchat on journalism of today and tomorrow. Snow is director of the Edward R. Murrow Center of Public Diplomacy at The Fletcher School, Tufts University.
USINFO WEBCHAT MODERATOR: Welcome to USINFO webchats! This is the fourth and final chat in our series to mark World Press Freedom Day 2006. Our chat with Crocker Snow will take place today at 11:00a.m. EDT (1500 GMT).
You may submit questions now. Please submit each question separately. Thank you.
CROCKER SNOW: Hello. I'm sitting at the Fletcher School in somewhat flooded Boston Mass prepared to discuss my favorite topic of journalism and journalistic ethics with those of you in the ether.
QUESTION [Josip]: for a student of journalism what are the lessons to be learned from Murrow?
ANSWER [Crocker Snow]: My view is that the single, overriding lesson from and in Murrow's journalism is the importance of integrity on the part of the journalist. Integrity to the subject at hand and the reporting he or she has done about it in the face of commercial, political or other kinds of pressures that inevitably arise to distort this approach of integrity.
Q [Dr. Ali Al-Hail]: Don't you think that, institutions of journalism of today are mostly, selective less than objective, more into constructing than reflecting, more into distorting facts than facing real facts unlike Murrow's journalism and Murrow's era of journalism, because today, these institutions in need for huge budgets to be run, and the 'one' (whoever she\he is) funds and finances them run the show and control the agenda? While Murrow's journalism was self built, and self funded to a greater extent?
A: It's a complicated question, partly because journalism per se has become ever more institutionalized, and thus the teaching of it as well. Also, I believe that most of the major issues that we as globally oriented and connected journalists address are extremely complicated and lacking of black and white answers. One of the many shortcomings of journalism is the very limited time or space in which to relate a complicated story.
Q [Dr. Ali Al-Hail]: As a veteran journalist, are you of the view that, Murrow's coverage and reporting of World War II via news radio was far more objective, genuine and sincere than the journalism's and media's of today?
A: I think that most journalism today - most not all - is every bit as sincere as Murrow's wonderful broadcasts from Britain in the early stages of World War II. However the result usually doesn't come across with the same impact and integrity as Murrow's. Let's consider why. First, he had the field largely to himself in terms of eyewitness to history being made via live radio broadcasts to the US. So his "sincerity" couldn't be compared initially to anyone else's. Not so today of course. Rare is it that any journalist is in a position to set the context and determine the idiom for a major story. The competition within media and among different brands of media is ever so much greater today than 50-60 years ago. And one man's sincerity is another's hypocrisy, depending on one's point of view and the alternative potion of view one has access to. Ah well, I ho0pe you get my point.
Q [Azat Myradov]: Mr. Snow: We are interested to know who would Mr. Murrow have named as his student or apprentice among current journalists? This question comes from a journalist in Turkmenistan.
A: If your question is who, in my view, among today's American journalists most represent the kind of qualities and gravitas that Ed Murrow did, my answer is Bill Moyers. He has displayed the kind of wisdom, integrity and, yes, distance that Murrow certainly did. And he has faced and sometimes faced down lots of different pressures in his various roles as press secretary for President Johnson, publisher of Newsday, independent TV producer and NPR commentator. If your question is different, please clarify.
Q [Debashis]: If journalism of yester years had ushered in a renaissance in society, how come the media today is alleged to have been instrumental in fostering racism in Europe, fundamentalism in the Middle East and communalism in Asia?
Can there be a way in the future to reconstruct the role of media?
Prof. Debashis Chakrabarti, India
A: Whew! This is a wonderful question and worthy of a much more considered answer than this forum provides. My quick responses however are: 1. Journalism didn't usher in a renaissance in society but was, at times, a significant contributing factor simply and merely by providing reportage that was credible and further informed and informed society to make more informed choices. It certainly doesn't mean that journalism always got it right. Consider the penny press and yellow journalism at least in our country ever since our revolution.
The other simple point in my view is that journalism for good and ill is ultimately little more than a reflection, compelling, forward-looking perhaps, but still an ultimate reflection of the mores of the society in which it is operating. It is on balance environmentally determined. It is the public, responding or not, purchasing ads or not, who effect the directions that various media take. Having said this, I believe very strongly that a journalist has to regard him or herself as acting in the public interest. This is the bottom line from a personal point of view. All too often in today's complicated media world journalists become either celebrities per se or facilitators of the agendas other than truth and honesty as best they can determine it.
WEBCHAT MODERATOR: Mr. Snow is a contributing author to the State Department's new online publication about legendary journalist Edward R. Murrow, "About America: Edward R. Murrow: Journalism at its Best."
You can read Mr. Snow's article and view the rest of the publication Edward R. Murrow
Q [Dr. Ali Al-Hail]: To which extent, do you believe that journalism, at least in North America (as a broader term under which all aspects of mass communications and face to face communications come) of today is a reflection of Murrow's and Murrow's era of journalism?
A: Both sadly and happily I do not believe that journalism as practiced today is a particular reflection of Murrow's era. Earlier in this chat I have provided lots of the reasons, environmental and otherwise, that I believe this to be so. Let me go a little further. The issues during the Murrow era were, by and large, grand, sometimes historic issues that he was dealing with and addressing. A world war and its immediate aftermath. He did not in my view practice advocacy journalism per se, but he surely practiced a form of journalism in which his values and even attitude about the subject he was witnessing and reporting came through loud and clear. One as a listener had a distinct sense of where Ed Murrow stood in reporting on the bombing of London or the first view of a concentration camp, etc. There were heroes and there were villains. So he reinforced or amplified. As earlier, most of the issues that you and those of us here are addressing are not so black and white and our "determinations" are challenged many times not only by official sources but flocks of unofficial competitive sources. Times change. Journalism changes. And ultimately I'm not overly down on the journalism of today. I just think that it's got a tougher job perhaps than ever.
Q [Dr. Ali Al-Hail]: Don't you think that, journalism as a word of noble concept which the late Edward R. Murrow fought for, has recently, 'polluted' by politicians who want journalism to be on their side whether they're right or wrong?
A: Dr. Ali, you ask very good questions, and I'm getting to them one by one. Despite my last answer, yes I think journalism is often "polluted" by politicians exercising real or imagined influence over the hearts and minds of journalists. I have done lots of reporting in the developing world, and as the founding editor of The WorldPaper that, at its height, appeared in 27 countries and seven languages think I have reasonably sound sensitivity to the difficulties of journalists and editors in different regions of the world.
There is a vast difference between the pressures faced by editors and writers in many developing countries and that faced by those of us in the developed world. I could teach a course about it. But let me give you one quite concrete example. I happen to be part of a very valuable US-Arab editors dialogue. Roughly 15 American editors (from NY Times, WashPost, CNN, Slate, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and other titles) and 15 counterparts from the Arab media (from Al Ahram, Al Jazeera, Ad Dhusatour, An Nahar, etc.) We have had three meetings so far with a fourth upcoming next month to discuss mutual professional issues such as training, investigative reporting, overcoming cultural bias, etc as a way to build up mutual professional understanding and, in the process, begin to address some of the root causes of the growing gulf between the US and the Arab world.
In our first meeting after building some degree of mutual confidence, we began to appreciate that the primary pressures felt by each "side" were entirely different. To wit: in the Arab world there is not one major media that is finally self sufficient. Al Jazeera was getting 18% of its revenue from adverts when last I checked) All are supported/sponsored in one form or another. So the primary pressure felt by Arab editors, so they told us, is political - pressure provided by the "supporter". "We can report freely about every country but our own," was the way one respected Arab editor put it. The Americans by contrast pretty much all stated that the primary pressure they feel is economic. It's indirect of course for most. But since every major media in the US is finally self supporting and wouldn't be major were it not, it is the pressure of being successful in terms of increased sales or viewers that brings increased ad rates versus the competition that is one of the ultimate arbiters of US media performance. This is one of a number of differences, and only illustrative. By the way at the last meeting in Dubai we did some role-playing in which the Arab editors present had to assume the role of being editors from NY Times, CNN, Fox, etc and the Americans from Al Ahram, Al Arabiya and jihadist website. It was a useful exercise.
Q [Rizwan]: Dear Mr. Snow, Could you tell from your long experience that over the years how Press around the world progressed in terms of breaking free of government and corporate controls. Are we getting freer than before?
A: From my observation and experience there is a definite - maybe not inevitable - trend of the press around the world becoming somewhat freer of government control and influence. First, with some broad generalities this is certainly the case in Russia and Eastern Europe. Far freer by and large than 15 years ago. It is the case in parts of the Middle East due to the advent of and importance of satellite TV in Jazeera, Arabiya vein. Much free dialogue overall about war and peace issues in the Arab world than previously. It is true in parts of Africa. Certainly countries like South Africa and Nigeria and Kenya have strong traditions of a free press which has held most of the time. Other countries like Uganda have gained it and lost it and gained it again. Zimbabwe has gone the other way. North Africa is a mix. Latin America has always had strong, typically family owned media that have been largely independent, and this remains the case. East Asia - with some very big exceptions - has a largely free press. The Chinese media is much more independent than at any time previously, despite the government perhaps more than because of it. So too in Vietnam.
So by and large there is such a trend. Partly this is because information washes through numerous channels such as the Internet more readily than ever before and governments realize the futility of trying to control it. I am, as a final point here, reminded of Amartya Sen's wonderful observation that there has never been real famine in a country with a free press.
Q [Dr. Ali Al-Hail]: How could we possibly, establish of journalism that is an influence free zone? owes nothing to anybody or any government? Just doing its duty as a reflective mirror, the voice of the deprived, the poor, the marginalized i.e., the bulk of the masses, the ordinary people?
A: First answer: impossible. Second answer: very desirable objective and even getting part of the way there would be valuable. In my view, the keys to sound, solid, balanced enlightened journalism are tradition, training and competition. Traditions come from narratives, such as the wonderful narrative of Murrow in "Good Night and Good Luck", rewards such as the Pulitzers in this country, the World Press Freedom Committee fellowships, etc.
Training comes from professional schools that represent a combination of theory and practicality. (A very big and long subject here and I fully realize that effective training of journalists in a developing world situation can be very different than in a developing world environment for all the reasons I have already indicated.)
But finally and ultimately if we have faith in the public to make informed decisions if provided access to most of the information relevant to those decision, competition is the biggest key. Why? A media voice with all the commercial or political support in the world won't be able to grow and prosper (unless in a monopoly situation) if faced by competition that in its own performance is doing a better, more balanced job. It's like politics itself. One party states or even enlightened dictatorships may work for a while, but usually not indefinitely. So too with journalism. Competition keeps editors, reporters, writers and most important owner honest, on their toes, etc.
WEBCHAT MODERATOR: Mr. Snow's chat is the fourth in IIP's (the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. State Department) series to mark World Press Freedom Day 2006. Please visit our webchat station to view transcripts from previous journalism webchats with Oscar DeSoto, Marguerite Sullivan, and Bob Edwards.
Q [Debashis]: I appreciate your quick remarks. But how is it that at a time when there were little technological support, the media as facilitators of political, cultural and scientific query were more effective than the media of today?
How do you rate the role of individual journalists in then and now?
A: My remarks in some cases have been too quick. That's a problem journalism itself has incidentally. Deadline pressures. To your question. I don't really believe that the improvements in media technology, dramatic as they are, has made the practice of journalism any easier. The ultimate issues are judgment, honesty, sense of history, independence, curiosity. Technology has huge advantages in terms of ease of collection, distribution, etc. but has little if any real effect on what are in my view the core issues. In some cases it even complicates them. In terms of rating the roles of individual journalists, I think I feel there are more superior journalists today than earlier, but because there is so much statis and muddle and fog in the world of getting the straight story, it is harder to dind or discover them than earlier. In one of my earlier answers I mentioned the problem of "celebrity journalism" today. This I think is a real problem. It's a cliche, but I think a true one that when journalism or a journalist becomes part of the story then something is amiss. A true journalist should be an interlocutor, a go-between between the story and the consuming public, and his fame should arise from his/her ability and facility in doing this.
Q [Dr. Ali Al-Hail] Do you share the view Dr. Snow that, Edward R. Murrow was blessed, lucky, and gifted to live in the era of 'basic journalism', where he had enjoyed the best of journalism i.e., letting the truth to be told, without a single fear from that 'somebody' to cutoff aide or to stop the funds, the very fear which is breathing under the neck of most journalism institutions of today?
A: Dr. Ali, this may be our last question. Simple answer, no. I think Murrow made his fame by the style and substance with which he reported the story. Without the Battle of Britain he probably never would have achieved what he did. So the story was key. And the fact, as noted earlier, that he had the field largely to himself in the live radio to America medium at that juncture was also key. So the right man in the right place at the right time who then was good enough to go with it with substance, gravitas and integrity, more than an age that necessarily welcomed it. Fate and fortune perhaps.
CROCKER SNOW: I've enjoyed the discussion. I think we're out of time and questions. Tough field, tough questions. I hope I've helped a bit. Thank you
WEBCHAT MODERATOR: We want to thank Mr. Snow for taking the time to speak with us today. A transcript of today's webchat will be available on this site shortly and on our webchat station homepage within a day.
Thank you for participating, the webchat is now closed.
**While guests are chosen for their expertise, the views expressed by the guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of State.**
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
