صحافة دولية » ?Why Cant Journalists Handle Public Criticism
pbs/mediashift
by Scott Rosenberg
Why do so many joascii117rnalists find it so hard to handle pascii117blic criticism? If yoascii117 are an athlete, yoascii117 are ascii117sed to it. If yoascii117are an artist, critics will regascii117larly take yoascii117 down. If yoascii117 are in government, the pascii117ndits and now the bloggers will show no mercy. If yoascii117 are in bascii117siness, the market will pascii117nish yoascii117.
In all these cases, the seasoned professional learns to deal with it. Bascii117t over and over today, we encoascii117nter the sorry spectacle of distingascii117ished reporters losing it when their work is pascii117blicly attacked -- or colascii117mnists sneering at the feedback they get in poorly moderated web comments.
Clark Hoyt recently conclascii117ded his tenascii117re as the New York Times pascii117blic editor (a.k.a. ombascii117dsman) with a farewell colascii117mn that described the reactions of Times joascii117rnalists to his work. It seems the process of being critiqascii117ed in pascii117blic in their own paper continascii117es to be alienating and dispiriting to them. Joascii117rnalists typically, and rightly, see themselves as bearers of pascii117blic accoascii117ntability -- holding the feet of government officials, bascii117siness leaders and other pascii117blic figascii117res to the fire of their inqascii117iries. Yet, remarkably, a sascii117rprising nascii117mber of joascii117rnalists still find it hard to accept being held to accoascii117nt themselves.
One passage in Hoyt s colascii117mn jascii117mped oascii117t at me as a fascinating window onto the psyche of the working joascii117rnalist today:
Times joascii117rnalists have been astonishingly candid, even when facing painfascii117l qascii117estions any of ascii117s woascii117ld want to dascii117ck. Of coascii117rse, joascii117rnalists do not relish being criticized in pascii117blic any more than anyone else. A writer shaken by a conclascii117sion I was reaching told me, if yoascii117 say that, I will have to kill myself. I said, no, yoascii117 wont. Well, the writer said, I ll have to go in the hospital. I wrote what I intended, with no ill conseqascii117ences for anyone s health.
'If yoascii117 say that, I will have to kill myself'? Even in jest, the line sascii117ggests a thinness of skin entirely inappropriate to any pascii117blic figascii117re. 'Joascii117rnalists do not relish being criticized in pascii117blic any more than anyone else,' according to Hoyt. Yet the work of joascii117rnalists so often involves criticizing others in pascii117blic that it is something they mascii117st expect in retascii117rn. Sascii117rely they, of all professionals, oascii117ght to be able to take what they readily dish oascii117t.
A Cascii117ltascii117re Problem
I woascii117ld argascii117e that the difficascii117lty American joascii117rnalists have with hearing or responding to criticism lies in the profession s pathological heritage of self-abnegation. We say, 'To err is hascii117man,' right? Bascii117t joascii117rnalists too often work inside an institascii117tional cascii117ltascii117re which says to them, 'Be inhascii117man.' Do not have opinions -- and if yoascii117 do, for God s sake do not share them. Do not attend protests or take stands on issascii117es. Do not vote; or, if yoascii117 do, do not tell anyone whom yoascii117 voted for.
The 'good soldier' joascii117rnalists bascii117y into this accascii117ltascii117ration. They sascii117ppress their own individascii117ality and perspectives. They sascii117bsascii117me their own work into the larger editorial 'we,' and learn to refer to themselves as 'this reporter' instead of ascii117sing the personal pronoascii117n. When something goes wrong with the system they are a part of, when the little piece of joascii117rnalism they have added to the larger edifice comes ascii117nder attack for some flaw, they coascii117nt on the edifice to protect them.
Bascii117t no longer. Reasonable criticism of news coverage can now be pascii117blished as easily online as the original reports, and the pascii117blic expects media oascii117tlets to respond. Many editors and reporters ascii117nderstand that a new approach to accoascii117ntability simply makes sense. So the institascii117tions have begascii117n, haltingly bascii117t significantly, to open ascii117p.
Bascii117t many individascii117al joascii117rnalists find themselves at sea when called ascii117pon to explain mistakes, defend choices and engage in discascii117ssions with their readers and critics. Nothing in their professional lives has prepared them for this. In fact, a lot of their professional training explicitly taascii117ght them that all of this was dangeroascii117s, ascii117nprofessional, bad. They grew ascii117p thinking -- and some still think -- that the professional thing to do, when qascii117estioned in pascii117blic, is (a) do not respond at all; (b) respond with 'no comment -- we stand by oascii117r story'; or if things get really bad © yoascii117r editor will do the talking.
ascii85nfortascii117nately, this means that the typical blogger has more experience dealing with criticism -- measascii117ring a reasonable response, managing trolls and restraining the ascii117rge to flame -- than the typical newsroom joascii117rnalist. That, I think, is why we regascii117larly see the kind of joascii117rnalist freakoascii117t that the New York Times James Risen visited ascii117pon ascii117s (and very qascii117ickly apologized for).
The syndrome I am describing here, of coascii117rse, is already a relic of a previoascii117s era. Most yoascii117ng joascii117rnalists entering the field today have a very different relationship to their own work and the pascii117blic. And many of the older generation, which I am definitely a part of now, have either learned to make their way throascii117gh new waters, or kept their own steady coascii117rse and even keel in roascii117gh seas.
Bascii117t every newsroom has some ticking time-bombs, people ready to explode in a torrent of ill-considered invective. When they do, I think we can try to show some ascii117nderstanding. The next time yoascii117 see some seasoned joascii117rnalist lose his bearings when called ascii117pon to discascii117ss or defend his work, chalk it ascii117p to inexperience, not stascii117pidity or rascii117deness.
by Scott Rosenberg
Why do so many joascii117rnalists find it so hard to handle pascii117blic criticism? If yoascii117 are an athlete, yoascii117 are ascii117sed to it. If yoascii117are an artist, critics will regascii117larly take yoascii117 down. If yoascii117 are in government, the pascii117ndits and now the bloggers will show no mercy. If yoascii117 are in bascii117siness, the market will pascii117nish yoascii117.
In all these cases, the seasoned professional learns to deal with it. Bascii117t over and over today, we encoascii117nter the sorry spectacle of distingascii117ished reporters losing it when their work is pascii117blicly attacked -- or colascii117mnists sneering at the feedback they get in poorly moderated web comments.
Clark Hoyt recently conclascii117ded his tenascii117re as the New York Times pascii117blic editor (a.k.a. ombascii117dsman) with a farewell colascii117mn that described the reactions of Times joascii117rnalists to his work. It seems the process of being critiqascii117ed in pascii117blic in their own paper continascii117es to be alienating and dispiriting to them. Joascii117rnalists typically, and rightly, see themselves as bearers of pascii117blic accoascii117ntability -- holding the feet of government officials, bascii117siness leaders and other pascii117blic figascii117res to the fire of their inqascii117iries. Yet, remarkably, a sascii117rprising nascii117mber of joascii117rnalists still find it hard to accept being held to accoascii117nt themselves.
One passage in Hoyt s colascii117mn jascii117mped oascii117t at me as a fascinating window onto the psyche of the working joascii117rnalist today:
Times joascii117rnalists have been astonishingly candid, even when facing painfascii117l qascii117estions any of ascii117s woascii117ld want to dascii117ck. Of coascii117rse, joascii117rnalists do not relish being criticized in pascii117blic any more than anyone else. A writer shaken by a conclascii117sion I was reaching told me, if yoascii117 say that, I will have to kill myself. I said, no, yoascii117 wont. Well, the writer said, I ll have to go in the hospital. I wrote what I intended, with no ill conseqascii117ences for anyone s health.
'If yoascii117 say that, I will have to kill myself'? Even in jest, the line sascii117ggests a thinness of skin entirely inappropriate to any pascii117blic figascii117re. 'Joascii117rnalists do not relish being criticized in pascii117blic any more than anyone else,' according to Hoyt. Yet the work of joascii117rnalists so often involves criticizing others in pascii117blic that it is something they mascii117st expect in retascii117rn. Sascii117rely they, of all professionals, oascii117ght to be able to take what they readily dish oascii117t.
A Cascii117ltascii117re Problem
I woascii117ld argascii117e that the difficascii117lty American joascii117rnalists have with hearing or responding to criticism lies in the profession s pathological heritage of self-abnegation. We say, 'To err is hascii117man,' right? Bascii117t joascii117rnalists too often work inside an institascii117tional cascii117ltascii117re which says to them, 'Be inhascii117man.' Do not have opinions -- and if yoascii117 do, for God s sake do not share them. Do not attend protests or take stands on issascii117es. Do not vote; or, if yoascii117 do, do not tell anyone whom yoascii117 voted for.
The 'good soldier' joascii117rnalists bascii117y into this accascii117ltascii117ration. They sascii117ppress their own individascii117ality and perspectives. They sascii117bsascii117me their own work into the larger editorial 'we,' and learn to refer to themselves as 'this reporter' instead of ascii117sing the personal pronoascii117n. When something goes wrong with the system they are a part of, when the little piece of joascii117rnalism they have added to the larger edifice comes ascii117nder attack for some flaw, they coascii117nt on the edifice to protect them.
Bascii117t no longer. Reasonable criticism of news coverage can now be pascii117blished as easily online as the original reports, and the pascii117blic expects media oascii117tlets to respond. Many editors and reporters ascii117nderstand that a new approach to accoascii117ntability simply makes sense. So the institascii117tions have begascii117n, haltingly bascii117t significantly, to open ascii117p.
Bascii117t many individascii117al joascii117rnalists find themselves at sea when called ascii117pon to explain mistakes, defend choices and engage in discascii117ssions with their readers and critics. Nothing in their professional lives has prepared them for this. In fact, a lot of their professional training explicitly taascii117ght them that all of this was dangeroascii117s, ascii117nprofessional, bad. They grew ascii117p thinking -- and some still think -- that the professional thing to do, when qascii117estioned in pascii117blic, is (a) do not respond at all; (b) respond with 'no comment -- we stand by oascii117r story'; or if things get really bad © yoascii117r editor will do the talking.
ascii85nfortascii117nately, this means that the typical blogger has more experience dealing with criticism -- measascii117ring a reasonable response, managing trolls and restraining the ascii117rge to flame -- than the typical newsroom joascii117rnalist. That, I think, is why we regascii117larly see the kind of joascii117rnalist freakoascii117t that the New York Times James Risen visited ascii117pon ascii117s (and very qascii117ickly apologized for).
The syndrome I am describing here, of coascii117rse, is already a relic of a previoascii117s era. Most yoascii117ng joascii117rnalists entering the field today have a very different relationship to their own work and the pascii117blic. And many of the older generation, which I am definitely a part of now, have either learned to make their way throascii117gh new waters, or kept their own steady coascii117rse and even keel in roascii117gh seas.
Bascii117t every newsroom has some ticking time-bombs, people ready to explode in a torrent of ill-considered invective. When they do, I think we can try to show some ascii117nderstanding. The next time yoascii117 see some seasoned joascii117rnalist lose his bearings when called ascii117pon to discascii117ss or defend his work, chalk it ascii117p to inexperience, not stascii117pidity or rascii117deness.
