So……what are priests good for? Well, when it comes to interpreting religious texts, they are the whiz kids. After all, each priest supposively has a tight knit relationship with his specific god. This privilege gives them power and influence. People flock to the churches to learn how to live their lives: how to live morally, how to focus on what’s truly important, how to live successfully, ect. Do Journalists share any of these traits? Walter Lippman wrote that the task of “selecting and ordering” the daily news is one of the “priestly offices in a democracy.” Is he right?
Well, what if the stories on the front page of the New York Times were always about celebrity gossip? What if Lippman and his cohorts decided to merge all the news of political issues onto the last three pages of the New Republic? The order and selections in news publications are supposed to reflect the importance the public places on news topics. Readers are accustom to this process and use it to help decide what is important to them. Through the work of the publications, the public is spurred to act, or not to act. In this way, journalists do carry a very priestly obligation.
A difference between an average news journalist and an average priest however, is shown by the way in which they relay their information to their followers. They both have privileges; the priest claims to have close contact with a god, while the journalist claims to have close contact with specific sources. As the priest interprets the information for the public to understand, the news journalist puts out his information bare, and counts on the public to dress it up with their own interpretations.
From this analysis we see that a journalist lacks a priest’s privilege of an opinion. Of course, there are types of journalists who have this honor. In this way, I would change Mr. Lippman’s observation very slightly. It isn’t as much the task of newsman in general which is priestly, to be more specific, it is those journalists who are privileged with their opinions, such as pundits and editorialists, who are the real priests.
Good post. I think you touched on one of the core differences between the journalism (and society) of the 1920's and today: the fate of the public sphere.
ReplyDeleteWhere we draw the lines of what distinguishes public from private interest has ramifications for what is and is not considered news.
Two critiques: You need more context. Your readers should know what you're writing about, and in this case that means you should provide them with the quote to which you're responding.
Also, for this post, your argument would have benefited from more personal voice. Knowing who you are would help your reader locate the context for your positions.
But we'll work on this aspects of blogging as the semester progresses. All said, good first post.
I enjoyed reading your thoughts about the similarities and differences between priests and journalists. I’m not sure that I agree that most journalists don’t add their own interpretations to the information they present to the people, but I do think your point about readers drawing their own conclusions from the news is relevant. I also liked the style of your post and found it easy to read.
ReplyDeleteI liked your post though, like Dana said, I would disagree that journalists don't get to use their opinion. That used to be the case but since the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, the opinion of journalists and pundits is more of what we get, rather than actual news. There is hardly such a thing as straight-up reporting anymore. Now we get news + opinion in one package.
ReplyDelete