Civic Journalism: The Public “Gets” It

What is civic journalism? Read on for a hard and fast definition.

We all know civic journalism has had a lot of journalism done to it. To some degree, it’s been caught in a journalistic time warp. Stuck in an old master narrative almost entirely informed by Lexis-Nexis searches of stories from the mid-90’s or earlier.

That is before the Internet even became a journalistic force. Before Palm Pilots, VBricks, community publishing and civic mapping.

But, then, stale quotes are a lot faster than fresh legwork.

We have all heard such labels as advocacy, boosterism or marketing applied to civic journalism and, of course, the ever-present controversial. We at the Pew Center keep wondering where all the controversy is supposed to be. It’s certainly not in the communities where it is occurring.

The Batten Awards for Excellence in Civic Journalism each year give the entire journalism community a chance to see for themselves what kind of work is being done under the rubric of civic journalism.

A few weeks ago, as many as 300 students, faculty and journalists turned out at Kent State University to see for themselves.

It was a day of conversation about new and old journalism – new tools, new partnerships and new thinking, all steeped in old values. And the attendees, under the impressive leadership of university president Carol Cartwright and J-School Director Pam Creedon, came away with a lot of new ideas.

Common Traits

There were three top winners and five honorable mentions – eight very different initiatives. But their journalism had many common denominators.

For one thing, it had a comfort level with a high degree of interactivity between the journalists and the readers, listeners, viewers and users. Distinguishing the journalism were many of what we call “entry points” to get readers and viewers involved.

A short decade ago, civic journalism was built around polls and town hall meetings. Since then, it has evolved in exciting ways so that it includes public interactions via e-mail, voice mail, the Web and other new technologies.

Among this year’s winners, you will see groundbreaking online databases in West Virginia and the use of cutting-edge videoconferencing technology to hold a statewide town hall from 10 different sites.

You will see in-depth Web conversations from teenagers throughout the state of Maine. You will see candidate issues grids organized around ZIP codes built by AOL for this last election. And hand-held keypads used by Minnesota Public Radio to ensure that even the quietest voices would not be intimidated from having a say.

And nowadays, appropriately, the polls are done in three, four, or in the case of Minnesota, five different languages.

You will also see journalism that defines “news” differently. For one thing, the winners used storytelling frames that were remarkably devoid of conflict, often a standard definition of news. You’ll see very little good guys vs. bad guys in this journalism.

The Portland (ME) Press Herald’s teen series, “On the Verge,” for instance, doesn’t bother with predictable narratives of druggies and dropouts. Instead, it captures the compelling tensions that average teens now must manage.

Finally, you will see journalism that tackles a lot of tough issues: Standards of learning tests in Minnesota, a failing community in Marion, IN, underused assets in Lawrence, MA.

And journalism that positions ordinary people as capable of some action. They can do something. And the journalists see it as part of their jobs to help folks connect the dots and figure out what they might do with the information provided.

The late Jim Batten, an early civic journalism pioneer and the revered Knight Ridder executive for whom these awards are named, called for a “fresh journalistic mindset” in a key 1989 speech in Riverside, CA. He said the future of journalism can be bright “if we push to adjust to the changes all around us.”

“The real danger lies in assuming that because our history is so honorable and our mission so virtuous, we can take our continued success for granted, as some sort of mystical right.”

Batten looked into his crystal ball and said the journalism that will succeed in the future will place an intense priority on really communicating and connecting with its audience.

Seven years ago when the Batten Awards were first started, about half of the entries were bona fide civic journalism. The rest just wanted to win an award. This year’s pool of entrants demonstrated remarkable journalism, creatively approached, deeply connected. Moreover, the naturalness of the civic engagement was stunning. It was very unself-conscious.

These projects were unabashedly civic, proud to wear the label and proud to do what they were doing for their communities. They demonstrated an affection for their communities, and their democracy, that was not boosterism but a genuine caring, a caring that sometimes called for a little tough love. And their communities responded.

One thing was very, very clear: Readers and viewers don’t need a definition of civic journalism. They know it when they see it.