Mollie-Mae Jenkins, Ba Journalism

Year 1

Thoughts on the relationship between academic and journalistic values

To understand the similarities and differences between journalistic values and academic one must understand the meaning and place of them both separately within changing society. Naturally they overlap; both academia and journalism require basic points of methodology, assentation and verification. The belief and correspondence they both have can effect and provoke thoughts and society in a similar way.

‘To define journalism is to limit it’. As we cannot define the root of culture, or cultural values, something that has a detrimental impact on journalism, journalism may be the same. Modernity has had a profound effect on the gradual change of journalistic values, whereas academic values remain respected and unanimous in most respects, those of journalistic pretences vary and are challenged more often than not.

According to Hartley, john (1996) Journalism has the power to ‘expose evils, wreck lives, and be the defence of democracy’. It has the power to do this because ‘journalism purports to be true’. It’s this very journalistic value that defines the link between academic values and itself. Aside from the political emancipation and imperial exploration journalism holds within it, it relies on academia to be trusted and truly valued. Journalism is a commercial industry, but it’s role and impact relies on validity and reliability, and when it becomes a ‘pre-engineered commodity’ Hartley, john (1996) a conflict between the two values can arise.

The ethics and reliability of the British press have been put to question a number of times; the Leverson enquiry sheds light on the role of the press in the phone hacking scandal of 2005. The scandal illuminates the corrupt behaviour that has arisen within the power of the press. The trinity mirror and the express have been found to have bribed prisoners for information as well as numerous ‘illegal snooping’s’ in what the guardian have said to be a ‘’huge black market of private information’’. In these cases transparency has been a severe issue, values of any nature have been shrouded and disregarded. Most importantly journalistic ethics were not met. Kovach, B and Rosenstiel T (2001) ‘the element of journalism’ address the true purpose of journalism and thus its values through a set of nine rules, one of them being to oblige to the truth, another of loyalty to its citizens. In cases like this, the relationship between academic and journalistic values is highlighted. We use those of academic to define how ‘proper’ the writing is, but more importantly how ethical it is, and how reliable.

Journalisms values have to find a midway point between being ‘significant, interesting and relevant’ kovack B et el (2001) and remaining academic. Journalism is ‘the social coordination of individuals and groups through symbols and meanings’ Schudson M ‘the sociology of news’ (2003) which is similar to the means of what makes anything academic – words and grammar are a focal point. The way in which they are used is another element that connects journalism with academia. Words and phrases can be bent to change or exaggerate the truth, because of this need and strive to evoke public interest. The famous ‘dear john letter’ demonstrates how grammar can change the context of something entirely. With journalists having the power to do this validity can become an issue when our ‘impulse is to trust in empirically observable things’ Shudson M (2003). Journalists shape news in a way to interest people every day – It’s not surprising when the press is a free market. It’s important that it remains that way because of the responsibility it has to aid democracy, throughout history Journalism has helped to revolutionize Britain. Where academic values and knowledge have helped journalism to grow, journalism has enlightened and informed in the same way as literature and science have. The irony is that with more freedom to inform, more freedom to deceive is given.

Journalism as a science has been an on-going debate since the enlightenment, when fact and fiction first began to control and take power of people’s minds. In this case journalism and sociology are very similar – both derive from academic natures, but both centre around study, observation and opinion. Thus journalism will always be relative, where more academic fields can be seen as absolute. So is this the difference between a scholar and a journalist? Science is based on facts, and facts are timeless until proven wrong.

Just like journalism, science has been influenced by culture and the demands of society. Great astronomers and mathematicians were supressed by institutions in the past for their revolutionary findings that challenged the nature of the church. It was not until the end of the scientific revolution that science began to become respected in the way in which it deserves when ecclesiastical authorities finally recognised Galileo’s genius. The revelation that the earth goes round the sun was potent to the Churches power. The scientific revolution demonstrates a key feature that both science and journalism have in common – The responsibility to inform and correct. Journalism values facts the same way as science does. It uses facts to support statements, Jeffery schuler (2007) without them it is difficult to form any kind of opinion without disputing it.

As previously mentioned, the relationship between science and journalism can be examined well through the studies of the relationship and similarity between sociology and science. Kuhn (1970) provided a detailed analysis of the development of science, exploring how any scientific community works with a shared set of techniques and theoretical values. This acts as a ‘blinker’ on how they see the world. Sociology, and thus journalism match Kuhns concept of science, journalism like sociology has no dominant perspective. Kuhn describes how theoretical sciences bare similar qualities to those of natural sciences because they both go through ‘paradigm shifts’. Just as the scientific revolution took place before the enlightenment, the rise of the polish public shifted in the same way in 1983 using the force of journalism to emerge democracy and freedom, Shudson M (2003).

The positivist approach to journalism and academia is challenged by the interpretivist, it’s undeniable that journalism cannot precisely follow all scientific methods. Interpretivivst, Weber argues theoretical, and studies that rely on opinion through observation cannot be scientific because they are too subjective – you cannot measure journalism the way you can with natural sciences. Elements of Webers theory fill todays media where journalism is no longer just about collecting ‘hard news’, but opinions and thoughts are just as valued and taken into public interest. The growth of social networking and blogging has defined a new type of journalistic value that contrasts to that of most kinds of academic nature.

The idea that journalism is entirely interpretivistic is explored by E H Carr, Carr describes how history is an analysis of the past from a modern viewpoint that holds its own biased opinion. And what is history if not the journal of the past? Carl Becker wrote ‘the facts of history do not exist until the historian writes them’ Colin Elman ‘bridges and boundaries’ (2001). This approach is entirely constructive, though Becker has similar ideas to Carr about history; Carr Believed the nature to writing history was ‘selective filtering of facts’ E H Carr ‘What is history’. Carr’s theory links to how journalism cannot be objective as science can because like the telling of history it is filtered. We cannot make it ‘value free’, thus value relevance has to be taken into consideration.

The nature of journalistic methods similarly demonstrates both similarities and differences to that of the scholar. Just as a scholar or scientist would – Reporters strive to maintain a degree of objectivity. Four key points Weber makes in order to do this demonstrate the similarities between the scholar and the journalist, the methods or ‘guidelines’ apply to both.

·  Operationalizing key concepts

·  Selecting appropriate questions

·  Recording responses

·  Interpreting findings

By examining and comparing the nature of literature, natural science and social science one can draw the conclusion that Journalism does share various values with academia – The values however depend and vary on what you define as journalism. Respected news and reports try to remain as objective as possible, where as human interest news and tabloid journalism aims only to serve the purpose of entertainment. Research methods and the importance of the clarity of writing within journalism demonstrate how values do not differ from academic values, though they are challenged because of how competitive the field has become.

Words – 1,408

Bibliography

Hartley, John ‘Popular reality: Journalism and popular culture’ (1996)

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/phone-hacking

Kovach B & Rosentiel T ‘The elements of Journalism’ (2001)

Shudson M ‘The sociology of news’ (2003)

Dear John Letter (explained) http://www.nationalpunctuationday.com/dearjohn.html

Kuhn ‘The structure of Scientific revolution’ (1970)

Weber ‘The science debate’ AQA sociology text

Colin Elman et al ‘bridges and boundaries’ (essay) (2001) E H Carr ‘What is history?’ (1961)

Background/further reading

‘The modern world view’ – section ‘the renaissance’

‘AQA Sociology A2’ Nelson Thornes