By Michael Schudson
Professor
University of California-San Diego
Excerpts from the keynote address of journalism scholar and author Michael Schudson, Professor of Communication and Sociology, at the University of California-San Diego, at the Batten Symposium, May 3, in Minneapolis. Schudson is a former Guggenheim Fellow and recipient of a MacArthur Foundation Genius Grant. His most recent work, “The Good Citizen, a History of American Civic Life,” explores four stages of citizenship: the virtuous citizen, the partisan citizen, the informed citizen and the rights-conscious citizen.
As citizens, we should learn not to accept any analysis that tells us the game is over, that the world can’t get better, because the corporations have the politicians in their pockets, or because the corporations run the media, or because technology dictates certain outcomes, or because capitalism is an unstoppable dynamo, or because ethnic and racial hatred runs deeper even than capitalism.
Of course, you’d have to be crazy not to acknowledge the power of technology and money and hate. But, if that’s all there is, then we’d have no civil rights movement, we’d have no women’s movement, we’d have no fall of communism. And we’d also have no civic journalism.
My hopefulness is based on more than a general faith in the capacity of human beings to perversely violate our best predictions. It’s based also on my understanding of the American past and the ways that American citizenship has changed over the past 200 years.
* * * * * * *
“The informed citizen” is a very specific late 19th-century, Progressive-era invention with a troubling dark side of its own, with an unrealizable and therefore demoralizing ambitiousness, and with a strong contempt within it for other models of citizenship that can still serve us well.
Being well-informed, I think, is too much to ask of our fellow citizens and, at the same time, not nearly enough.
It’s hard for a teacher to say this, just as it may be hard for a journalist to agree to it, but it must be said: The link between information and democracy is not as tight as we’ve made it out to be. It is important. It is not all important. It did not dominate the imaginations of our founding fathers.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
It’s not so. The founders experienced a very different world and assumed a very different model of the good citizen. Their good citizen was a citizen of deference, a citizen who knew his place. That was “the virtuous citizen.” That’s stage one.
There’s something to learn from that sense of trust in others in one’s community. But we didn’t stop there.
A second era began roughly in the 1820s, in which the good citizen knew not his place but his party and was loyal to it.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
The idea of “the informed citizen” created essentially impossible intellectual demands on the ordinary citizen.
* * * * * * *
Indeed, at least one legal scholar has gone so far as to urge that a citizen has not only an obligation to vote but an obligation to sue. And actually, I agree with this.
…Let me share one telling statistic. In 1935 the Supreme Court handed down 160 decisions and two concerned civil liberties and civil rights. In 1989, the Court decided 132 cases and fully half of them, 66, concerned civil liberties.
* * * * * * *
…The discrete and insular minority will always be a minority. And so it needs more than the legislative branch above it. It needs the courts to protect it from majorities.
* * * * * * *
Civic journalism will be making a mistake if it opts for a kind of sloppy populism: Anything the experts do must be tainted. Anything that happens at the grass roots receives the benefit of a doubt. That, I think, is the wrong impulse. I think we have to rely on expert knowledge. We just have to know, and we don’t, how and where and in what manner that expertise fits into a democratic process.
…Third point, news organizations and journalists should become less hostile to political parties…
* * * * * * *