The Dark and Reputable Continent

            As we begin a new Jewish year tonight, so do we begin our journey combing the depths of journalistic practice and rhetoric. In James W. Carey’s “The Dark Continent of American Journalism,” he takes us on a dizzying ride through the history of newspapers in the United States, their evolution from a “producer good for a commercial class” through the advent of the penny press to today’s consumer papers and the resulting changes in journalistic style that inherently resulted from these advances. Along the way, we learned about attention grabbing headlines- how a turn of phrase can suck a reader in the way no amount of insightful analysis can; about the “insider” language that journalists use to communicate internally, and the consequences when a journalist reveals too much; and the crux of the article- how American journalists are less likely to reveal the “how and why” surrounding a story than the dry facts- the titular “dark continent.”

            Carey asserts that American journalism inherently assumes that the reader is aware of certain truths as a prerequisite to understanding its claims. That the story presented is a thread in a tapestry of human events that are integral to their very comprehension. The history Carey presents offers some reason- wire services and expensive print led to a language of journalistic brevity that developed into a distinct culture. How that manifests itself nowadays is in a pronounced, indeed purposeful, lack of explanation. As such, readers are often forced to “read between the lines” to determine certain aspects pertaining to the story.

            In her article “What Society Requires is Reputable Journalism,” Catherine Ford rages against the dying of the light that is print journalism. She argues that though the popular medium for the delivery of news has changed and will continue to do so, newspaper journalism is still the standard bearer for reputable and illuminating subject matter. The internet is too unregulated, she asserts, as “anonymity encourages polemics and flaming discourages real discourse.” Newspapers, being so entrenched and familiar to society, have an undeniable credibility that internet news cannot match. They also have a “review value” that broadcast news cannot instantly deliver (though that is debatable). But most important to Ford is that newspapers deliver the exact opposite of what the modern consumer demands: personalization. Ford argues that as “The Daily Me” culture has pervaded every corner of news delivery, modern news readers are inherently limiting that to which they are exposed. The cycle builds on itself. Newspapers offer a sharp contrast to this, delivering “news we don’t want to hear,” stories that jar our senses and illuminate our otherwise narrow minds.

            These pieces offer stark contrasts to each other. Carey looks back on history, and tries to explain certain flaws in traditional journalism, while Ford looks to the future and praises the old ways. We can learn a little something from both.