Civic Journalism: Six Case Studies
Introduction
Journalists have begun to worry about democracy, and that worries still other journalists.
Why all the worry? After 220 years, the American “experiment” in self-government seems well rooted. Besides, journalism’s job is to stand apart and tell the story of democracy in action, not tinker with the machinery.
Still, some of us worry that too few citizens are involved in community life, and that those who choose not to take part come to their indifference out of frustration and helplessness, a feeling that somehow the system works for insiders and special interests, but not for them.
Some have called this “corrosive cynicism.” Others more sanguine have called it business as usual.
Journalism and public life have always been yoked. The authors of the First Amendment recognized this link as they tried to reconcile two opposites:
- Protecting the private life of the young country’s citizens while
- Encouraging an active public life through free speech.
The First Amendment deals with both. It protects us as we worship, gather together, and petition our government. By protecting our ability to speak out, it assures the discourse essential to public life.
But that discourse is in disrepair. By most common measures of citizenship — registering, voting, volunteering — citizens are shunning public life. The implications for democracy are serious; self-government depends on individuals taking responsibility. The implications for journalism are equally ominous; citizens who don’t participate have little need for news.
During the 1990s, journalists who worry about these corrosive forces have taken steps to invigorate journalism’s role in a democracy. To some, the clear objective is better journalism, with invigorated public life as a desirable but secondary by-product. To others, enhanced public life is the end itself, and journalism is the means.
These complementary motives meet in a movement called “civic” or “public” journalism. It proceeds on two assumptions.
- Self-government depends on citizen participation; when civic engagement erodes, so does the need for news media.
- Journalism can work toward better self-government and public life without sacrificing its cherished values and traditions; indeed, those values and traditions lose their voice in the absence of a spirited public life.
The strategy of civic journalism is simple: Improve the coverage of public life, especially election campaigns, by actively engaging the diversity and complexity of citizens in that coverage. Citizen involvement does not threaten the independent values of journalism; old habits and routines are under scrutiny, not values.
Civic journalism seeks to bridge the dangerous detachment from community that has become the norm in too many newspapers. It encourages journalists to discover how their work can be improved by first acknowledging the detachment, then reaching out to citizens as sources and resources, thus bringing citizen voices and ideas to the foreground.
Our two organizations have been active in this arena.
- The Pew Charitable Trusts of Philadelphia created The Pew Center for Civic Journalism in Washington to enhance community life through better journalism.
- The Poynter Institute for Media Studies believes it can improve newspaper, radio, and television news reports by showing journalists how citizens can be valuable allies in the cause of good journalism.
The starting points differ, but the combined objectives — better journalism, better communities — are compatible. This collection of case studies begins to tell the story of their efforts.