Skip navigation

Category Archives: Travel


Newseum. Photo by David Monack. Used under Creative Commons license. (

Last weekend, I visited one of my favorite places in Washington, D.C. — the Newseum. I like visiting the Newseum not because of its focus on journalism, but rather because I think it does a pretty good job at being a modern (mostly American) history museum. I think the idea of a museum of news is a great one, especially for journalism geeks like me.

I’ve been to the Newseum five or six times since it re-opened in D.C. in 2008 (from its original location across the Potomac in Rosslyn). Each time, I still enjoy myself, especially the new exhibits. In fact, this time we barely made it through half of the museum in the three hours we had to visit (Luckily, thanks to a Groupon deal, I am now a member of the museum for the next year, so I’ll go back).

A new feature – and disappointment
The News History Gallery — usually one of my favorite spots, with its collections of printed material going back centuries and well-produced educational videos — had a new section about “Newspapers Fight for Survival.” In fact, I was initially excited about seeing this feature, as I think that this important topic isn’t well-presented to the public most of the time, so a discussion about the structure of the NEWS BUSINESS could really help provide a fuller picture of the history and status of journalism, beyond the idealistic picture found in the rest of the museum.

The text of this section says, “Revenue and Circulation Decline, but It’s Not Over Yet.” It goes on to say, among other things:

What went wrong? For years, newspapers generated most of their income from classified ads and other advertising. The Internet changed everything by giving advertisers and readers more options, and more Americans now get their news online.

What this section suggests is that there are two main causes to the newspaper industry’s decline:

  1. Decline in advertising dollars, due both to lack of classified advertising and the current economic recession, and
  2. Decline in print circulation, due mostly to the Internet and readers’ changing habits of news consumption.

Don’t be mistaken. These two issues are major ones, but they are only part of the story. Moreover, I think by focusing on these two issues — and nothing else — the Newseum suggests to visitors that newspapers’ only saving grace would be either an increase in advertising or a society where people pay for online information. Those are the only options.

Some unanswered questions: What about the fact that newspapers are still very profitable, just not at the level that corporate owners and Wall Street expect? What about the fact that newspaper profits are still higher than most other Fortune 500 companies, but just not at the 20-percent margins of yesteryear? What about the fact that newspaper print circulations are actually steady or increasing in much of the rest of the world? What about the fact that the big metro papers in the most trouble were bought by big conglomerates using credit before the recession, and now those big corporations can’t pay their debt obligations?


One of the principles of journalism, say Bill Kovach, Tom Rosenstiel and the Committee of Concerned Journalists, is to be “comprehensive and proportional.” They use the metaphor of a map, that at the heart of truthfulness is that notion that the map shows me how things really are, without misconstruing certain features over others. If this is a map of the newspaper crisis, then I might think I’ll soon be falling off the edge of the world.

Of course, the Newseum isn’t a news organization, per se, but considering that it is run by many former journalists, I think I can expect that same level of commitment to the truth. That being said, I was looking at this exhibit in the News Corporation News History Gallery, which is upstairs from the Bloomberg Internet, TV and Radio Gallery, which is down the hall from the Time Warner World News Galley. And of course the Newseum is run by the Freedom Forum, formerly the Gannett Foundation.

My point is this: Part of the story of the news crisis is the role of corporate owners. Can that story be told in a museum heavily funded by some of these same organizations that might be complicit in exacerbating the crisis? I’m not suggesting that anyone is intentionally trying to suppress some bit of information. But if part of the story of the newspaper crisis is based on structural components of the news business, we need to recognize that it might be hard to tell that story when surrounded by the very structure to be discussed.

This post is about a museum, but clearly these controls apply to the news business as well.

The central theme of the ICA convention this year was “Communication @ the Center.” A pretty obvious, yet intriguing point, that the process of communication (and subsequently what ICA members study) is truly at the center of most human activities. What this means is that not only is communication a part of everything else, but also inversely, everything else is part of communication.

I mention this because many of the journalism studies sessions at ICA (and other conferences and journals of late, academic and professional, for that matter) have focused on new players in the journalism world. These new players are citizen journalists (see my most recent post), opinion bloggers, public relations professionals, and very interestingly, comedians. Yes, it’s of little question that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have had some influence on how we think about journalism. After all, some (at least in academia) have suggested that studying such political satire is an important area of research. After all, the reason why I was at ICA was because of a paper on the Rally to Restore Sanity.

I attended a session on Sunday morning that included several panelists, including one (Geoffrey Baym, author of “From Cronkite to Colbert: The evolution of broadcast news”) whose presentation focused on Colbert’s testimony to Congress last September regarding U.S. agricultural jobs. Baym’s paper (“Politics and the performance of satire: Stephen Colbert’s Harvest of Shame”) compared that testimony to the 1960 Edward R. Murrow prime-time Thanksgiving-day documentary “Harvest of Shame,” which told the story of migrant farm workers.

Baym showed that most media coverage of Colbert’s testimony focused only on the novelty of the comedian testifying in front of Congress, with cable news shows and newspaper editorials asking whether it was appropriate for the comedian to be doing this. Many also focused on the merging of entertainment, journalism, and politics. Baym said, and I agree, that most news media framed the story as if news and entertainment are often distinct entities, when they themselves engage in entertainment-like performance.

Of course, Colbert’s testimony was funny, and he did make several jokes. But were those jokes meant to simply entertain, or were they meant to use political satire as a tool to poke at the errors in our food policy? More than likely, Colbert had multiple goals in mind, but I think that there was a public service mission high in his list of priorities.

Many professional journalists believe very strongly in the principle of independence, that that principle helps them tell the verified truth in a way that is loyal to citizens. But when we get news or civic-type information from non-traditional news sources, how do we evaluate the extent to which they serve a public service mission similar to that which was the cornerstone of modern journalism?

While most agree that it’s impossible for journalists — or anyone for that matter — to be objective, we still expect our journalists to be focused on one primarily goal: finding the truth. In other words, their public service IS providing the truth in a way that’s useful to citizens. One important question now is how do we evaluate the public service mission of non-journalists, who perhaps have additional goals beyond the truth.

I just got back on Monday from the annual International Communication Association conference in Boston. I attended because the paper some colleagues and I wrote about the Rally to Restore Sanity was being presented. However, I was able to spend some time in some other sessions that really presented some new and interesting ideas. I’m going to try to blog about a couple of them. Here’s the first post.

Citizen journalism as civic responsibility
One of the most interesting sessions was from Nikki Usher, a recent Ph.D. from USC Annenberg who will soon be an assistant professor at George Washington University. She spoke in a session with other authors who have contributed chapters to a new book on the status of journalism. Her chapter and talk focused on the concept of citizen journalism, and how it has been hijacked by professional journalists.

Specifically, her point is that citizen journalism has been defined often in its relationship to professional journalism. More importantly, the organizations that have tried to spark development of citizen journalism have often developed standards for it that are based on professional norms. For example, in a learning module on the Knight Community News Network site, the principles of citizen journalism are largely those upon which professional journalism is based.

She also noted that citizen journalism has often been used as simply a tool to provide content (especially so-called hyper-local content) to traditional news organizations, many of which are cash-strapped and see the citizen journalists as free labor. Think CNN iReport.

Her argument is that citizen journalism should be defined outside of the context of its relationship to professional journalism. Her conceptualization sees citizen journalism as a civic responsibility, as a everyday act of living in a democracy. She gave the example that in addition to being a soccer mom, you might be a journalist. Journalism, she said, is what citizens do.

Relationship to my research
So, how does this relate to my research. Well, for one, it conceptualizes a public service in terms that call on everyone to be involved in a bidirectional system. In that, I mean that in the post-professionalization world of journalism (e.g. the last century or so), the role of citizens has been as passive receivers of information. This was the professional norm, and it was certainly aided by features of communication technology that allowed for primarily one-way mass communication. The Internet changes that, yet the professional norms of journalism still try to fit citizen journalism into a traditional box.

I mention that journalism is a public service, and that the concept of citizen journalism re-conceptualizes journalism as something with which everyone can be involved. I love this idea because it relates to another public service — teaching. In other words, the best teaching comes about when all parts of a community (e.g. students AND teachers, as well as others) are involved. The same is true for journalism. This calls on everyone to be an active part of the process. Everyone is a teacher; everyone is a student. Teaching and learning are just what citizens do. This kind of thinking brings journalism and education closer together, which (at least in my mind) involve very similar processes.

One of the other speakers on Usher’s panel mentioned the classic Lippmann-Dewey debate. To oversimplify, Lippmann thought the world was far too complex for most to understand, and that government should be run by elites. The public would have a role in elite rotation through voting public officials out of office. Lippmann, in this way, saw democracy as a means to a end. Dewey, on the other hand, saw democracy as a end in and of itself. Lippmann saw the public as passive; Dewey saw them as more active participants in democracy. This is relevant to the current discussion because perhaps the new landscape (particularly, the new technological landscape) has afforded the public the ability to play a more active role. That is, the changing structure of media allows us to revisit the Lippmann-Dewey debate in a structural context that allows for a more Deweyan public to thrive.

I am slitting this summer up a bit spending this first part of it in Odenton, Md., with Renee. Of course, she works during the day, which gives me a bunch of time to work on all the other things I have going on. Here’s a list of the major items on my summer to-do list:

So far, I’ve kept up with my comps reading schedule, so I’m pretty happy with that. My goal is to take the exams in September sometime.

This coming weekend, I’ll head to Boston for the International Communication Association conference. I may try to blog a bit next week about my experiences there.

In addition to the work this summer, Renee and I are planning a weekend back in Indianapolis in June, and from there, I’ll head back to CoMo for the rest of the summer.