Ashley Kolling

COMM 330

May 4, 2021

Final Paper:

Michael Schudson’s, Why Journalism Still Matters, delves into the discussion of whether

professional journalism is still relevant in today’s society. We have evolved from newspaper styled

journalism in recent history which has led to shrinking newsrooms, newspaper closings, and, of

course, the up-rise of “fake news.” With the recent discussion of “fake news,” many argue that

journalism has had its day but Schudson believes that it has become more important than ever for

liberal democracies. Why Journalism Still Matters consists of 11 chapters, after the introduction,

that have been shortened versions of previous published work or presentations from the past

decade. The book is also split into four parts: “Where Journalism Came From,” “Going Deeper

into Contemporary Journalism,” “Short Takes on Journalism and Democracy,” and an Afterword.

Beginning with the introduction, Schudson right off the bat states that journalism still

matters and in fact, matters more than ever. There are various journalism and many of them are

useful, Schudson states, but he argues that the journalism that matters, and what he will make a

case for, is professional journalism. According to media scholar, Daniel Hallin, professional

journalism is defined in which “reporters are committed more strongly to the norms of the

profession than to political ideas” (Schudson, 2018, pg. 1). Schudson also discusses his thoughts

on journalism and democracy. He mentions that journalism may exist without democracy, but

democracy in the contemporary world cannot exist without journalism. “Journalism grows only
more important as an institution of organized skepticism that is central to democratic governance

today” (Schudson, 2018, pg. 6).

In Part I, “Where Journalism Came From,” we understand the history of professional

journalism and how it has changed over the centuries from when it was shaped with the

Enlightenment. Schudson locates the Enlightenment ideals and criticism from the movement and

still believes that “it is fair to say that journalism – as a particular practice aimed at contributing

truths to public discourse, and discussion and criticism in relation to governments – still generally

hold to the liberating optimism of Enlightenment aspirations” (Schudson, 2018, pg. 29). Schudson

examines sociologist and philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who sees the Enlightenment

transformation of consciousness as the decisive moment in the emergence of the public sphere.

The claim in which Schudson examines is Habermas first big claim that by the end of the

eighteenth century, and at the time of the Enlightenment, people were able to come together as

equals, for the first time in history, and reason critically about public affairs. This is our first real

look into public opinion and public discussion which then led to journalisms true establishment.

Schudson argues in a fictional interview with the ‘ghost’ of Walter Lippman (1889-1974)

about the need for good professional formation for journalist. The practices, ideals, values and

oversight have changes dramatically over the past hundred years and particularly over the

twentieth century. This imagined one-on-one conversation with Walter Lippmann offers important

insights on the accountability of the government by the press in days gone by and on the

accountability of the press to the public in our digital age. The interview helps us see how the

development of journalism is linked to its process of professionalization which has improved

greatly over years. Along with better education and more efficient tools for journalists that has

helped shape how professional journalism is performed today.

 Schudson notes some of the changes to professional journalism with objectivity becoming

one of the most important. He shares that beginning in the 1920s is when the process of

professionalization reached its first definitional moment called, Objectivity 1.0. Objectivity began

in 1923 when the American Society of Newspaper Editor wrote up the code of ethics and urged

dedication to nonpartisan reporting of the facts of the matter at hand (Schudson, 2018, pg. 51).

The first era of professionalization lasted until the 1950s and 1960s where it also reached its peak

of journalism’s “high modernity” and is now referred to as the “he said/she said” period of

journalism.

News organizations and news writing then transformed to something new beginning in the

1960s and growing quickly into the 1970s called, Objectivity 2.0. American news coverage of

government, politics and society opened up during this time leading journalism to pay more

attention to the context than to the facts. Schudson takes the societal and political changes during

this time, making news coverage “more probing, more analytical, and more transgressive of

conventional lines between public and private” (Schudson, 2018, pg. 53). He also discusses the

bigger picture on where professional journalism was heading, “not only did the news media grow

in independence and professionalism and provide more comprehensive and more critical coverage

of powerful institutions, but powerful institutions adapted to a world in which journalists had a

more formidable presence than ever” (Schudson, 2018, pg. 53)

According to Schudson, we may be on the path to an Objectivity 3.0. However, he does

state a possibility of moving beyond objectivity but if we do continue on the path for Objectivity

3.0, we will see total fidelity of journalists to the story they are telling. Schudson sees an era where

journalists put themselves in the shoes of those they are writing about. He believes by doing so,

will add a taste of empathy that is a necessary democratic service of journalism. Schudson does
consider that Objectivity 3.0 “is a discipline of not expressing, of setting self-expression

temporarily aside. It is a form of tact, and tact is a form of empathy” (Schudson, 2018, pg. 67).

In Part II, “Going Deeper into Contemporary Journalism,” Schudson delves into some of

the debates surrounding present-day professional journalism. Schudson addresses the rising issues

in journalism today, such as: how independent journalism is developing, fake news, biases, new

journalistic forms, and the evolution of the profession in these times of crisis and change. Schudson

offers ideas regarding the issues at hand, for instance, how news operations can keep itself from

colonized from its own business objective. The idea of complete independence of the journalistic

field is not a new idea or the discussions of journalism being completely anonymous where the

writer can tell their truth without fear or favor. And while this idea may sound favorable to some,

is this really best direction for professional journalism? Schudson writes, “when journalists gain

autonomy from state and market, they do not individually gain free expression, but acquire

collectively the freedom to be directed exclusively by thee values and practices of their own

community” (Schudson, 2018, pg. 76). He also adds that autonomy conflicts with the best practices

of a democratic society and in the case for professional journalism, autonomy must be challenged.

Now on to the discussion of “fake news.” People complaining about false stories or “fake

news” is not a new phenomenon, it has been a present in society as long as there have been

newspapers. Although, with news stories being so easy to present to the public and easily accessed

with the digital era, we are suddenly hearing a louder audience claiming, “fake news.” The rise of

digital journalism has enabled a rise of competition in the media, with the need to obtain clicks for

advertising. The term “clickbait” has become very popular in journalism, where the truth is being

stretched in hopes to obtain the most clicks. Even though technology offers more resources to

contrast information, to verify sources and to avoid misleading or poor quality journalism, there is
still more confusion in journalism today than ever before. Digital journalism does offer undeniable

risks but also offers undeniable advantages. Schudson believes that this issue is not upheld to all

journalism, the journalists that will matter the most are the ones who demand themselves the

highest standards of verification, fact-checking, and original research.

Schudson applies Raymond Williams’ notion of a dramatized society where drama is no

longer located solely in the theater and is no longer dictated by time and season but is instead every

day, everywhere. Schudson argues that we are now living in a “journalized society.” The digital

revolution and creation of digital journalism has caused a lack of distinction between spectators

and professionals. Williams argued that we depend more on representations because societies

have become so difficult to represent. Schudson discusses that “true stories” of journalism play an

important role in representing us to ourselves in a complex society, and we need them more than

ever now.

Part III, “Short Takes on Journalism and Democracy,” discusses the ideas about the

relationships between journalism and democracy. In chapter 8, “Citizenship – According to The

Simpsons,” Schudson addresses and reflects the roles of the American citizen from the beginnings

of the United States to the present. He identifies four eras and uses The Simpsons to characterize

each. Marge Simpson (1789–1820), represents the deferential citizen in an elite-dominated

democracy. Homer Simpson (1820–1890), represents the loyal party citizen of party-dominated

democracy. Lisa Simpson (1890–1920), is the informed citizen of the party-wary democracy. Bart

Simpson (1950 to today), reflects the. irreverent, rights-claiming citizen in trans-electoral

democracy. Finally, Maggie Simpson represents the future, which Schudson asks the question, is

there a new model citizenship emerging?

 Continuing with Part III, Schudson discusses the influence that journalism has over the

democratic system. He addresses the main theme of the book and that is, how essential journalism

is to liberal democracies. He discusses the multiple political roles journalists have in American

society, and acknowledge the fact that,

“Journalists wear political hats. They do so sometimes avowedly (in editorials or

opinion columns or as their principal objective in advocacy publications), sometimes under

extreme situations that make them uncomfortable (in negotiating with the government to

sometimes withhold information from the public to protect national security), sometimes

as insiders or people very close to insiders in ways that they prefer not to discuss (except

perhaps in memoirs), and sometimes in the course of trying to provide fair-minded and

thoughtful leadership in reforming reportorial conventions to adapt to changing social

norms and values, either a step behind or a step ahead of public opinion” (Schudson, 2018,

pg. 166).

With Schudson’s wishes that we acknowledge the way journalism operates, especially in political

journalism, we can seek improvements in the system and encourage new strategies to better our

foundation. Schudson concludes Part III arguing that democracy is a necessarily slow process.

Political socialization, elections, deliberation, and reasoning all take time. Schudson understands

that this slow pace democratic process can be frustrating but is an essential for making democracy

work and hole governments to account.

During the final part of Schudson’s, Why Journalism Still Matters, he responds to criticisms

made to some of his observations and specifically those shown in his book Why Democracies Need

an Unlovable Press. The “Afterword” doesn’t specifically relate to the main arguments or message

of the book. Schudson probably found this as a good opportunity to address some of the criticisms
he received from the work prior. Overall, I found the information delivered by Schudson’s, Why

Journalism Still Matters, to be undeniably convincing as a reader and do agree with his statement

that professional journalism matters more than ever today. Journalism is not in its most perfect

form and does have flaws in the current stage that is digital journalism, but has it ever really been

perfect? Professional journalism in the digital era is still just getting started and there are many

opportunities for improvement and changes to be made in the years ahead. The big argument I

believe Schudson wanted to make is that what really still matters, are the journalists.

Now the big questions is, what’s the future of journalism look like? It’s safe to say with

Schudson’s ambitions that journalism will still exist and continue to grow in the next 10 years. We

should expect journalism to evolve with technology and how it is used in the future. Newspaper

and printed journalism should be expected to be extinct in 10 years. The rise of digital media is

already shown in today’s world, and in the next 10 years we will continue to see new trends relating

to the digital world which may even contain virtual reality. The idea of virtual reality in journalism

seems bold but really isn’t if you think about the fast pace movement technology advancements

are going.

Digital journalism has made it so we can research information faster, made it easier for

editing, conveniences, and a faster delivery time for articles. Imagine what we could be seeing in

10 years. The rate we are already in compared to a hundred years ago is insane and it is possible

journalism work can be done even faster than it is now with artificial intelligence. If this is

potentially where we see journalism in a decade, I’m not sure if all of Schudson’s arguments will

be relevant at that time. However, I don’t believe the future of journalism will ever rely solely on

artificial intelligence. As Schudson states in predictions for Objectivity 3.0, the emotions from an

individual is very important in news writing and storytelling. We will possibly be seeing
journalism become more empathetic, where the journalists place themselves in the position of

those people they write about. This style would help provide add further depth and perspective to

the story.

Schudson discussed the roles of the American citizen from the beginnings of the United

States to the present. He leaves an open spot for the future where there could potentially be a new

model citizen. With values and ideas throughout generations, we could also see changes in

journalism based on that aspects. Journalism throughout its history has evolved as the public

changes their needs and wants from journalism, so we should be expecting a change in some sort

for the future in that aspect.

A possible issue that may be harmful to journalism in the future, are the use of “deep

fakes.” “Deep fakes” are an extreme version of photoshop that allows you to face swap and use

voice technologies to alter your voice and completely change who you are. The discussion of

“deep fakes” have been relevant over the past couple years and are truly horrifying if you see the

possibilities that can come from it. Imagine you see a video that looks and sounds like yourself but

it isn’t actually you. At this point in time, it still does take a lot of equipment and software to make

a believable “deep fake,” but how easy might it be in 10 years? And what will we have to do to

stop this phenomenon?

On the more positive side for the future of journalism, we should expect to have means of

combating “fake news.” There are already. blockchain-based systems in the works that could

provide a number of benefits in the future of journalism. Individuals and organizations can use

blockchains to permanently store and track records of online transactions and digital

communications. Information within a blockchain system can be easily authenticated and tracked

back to its source, making it easier for readers to verify that a given story was published by its
stated author, potentially helping prevent the spread of false or misleading news articles. This

system could really help bring back the trust in journalism. Blockchain-powered content also could

create new ways for journalists to charge for premium content using microtransactions, according

to the Columbia Journalism Review.

There is no doubt in my mind that journalism will look different in 10 years than it does

today. How exactly will it look? No one can really tell you, not even Michael Schudson, but we

will be ready for wherever journalism may take us because we have already evolved this far since

the Enlightenment days of journalism. I do see great potential in the future of journalism and think

it will continue to matter in the years to come.

 References

Green, D. (2019, December 24). What will the next decade look like for journalism?
journalism.co.uk. https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/what-will-the-next-decade-look-like-
for-journalism-/s2/a749114/.

Pavlik, J. (2000). The Impact of Technology on Journalism. Journalism Studies, 1(2), 229–237.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700050028226

Schudson, M. (2018). Why journalism still matters. Polity.

Shuang Li, M. (2018). What can blockchain actually do for journalism? Columbia Journalism
Review. https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/what-can-blockchain-actually-do-for-
journalism.php.