Literature Review: Public (or Civic) Journalism
Locating the work of journalism in the community matters. But the Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service (NNS) also aims to inspire residents in its targeted areas to become more involved in their communities. The scholarly literature on public (or civic) journalism describes how journalists might make their work more meaningful and compelling for the readers they serve. Jay Rosen of New York University, who helped spawn the movement within journalism in the early 1990s, urged editors and reporters to reconnect both their news organizations with their audiences and citizens and communities with public life (Pauly, Eckert, 2002; Pauly, 2003, p. 22; Nip, 2006, p. 213). Rosen (1999) argued that public journalism required five actions: argument (a way of thinking about what media should be doing), experiment (a way of doing journalism), movement (a loose network of those who wanted to improve the craft), debate (often heated) and adventure (open-ended quest for another ethic in the press). Nip described public journalism’s purposes this way: to connect with the community, to engage individuals as citizens and to help public deliberation in search of solutions (p. 214).
At least 320 newspapers had tried some kind of public journalism before its momentum declined, including in Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, Kansas and California. (Friedland, 2004; Ballard, 1996; Pauly, Eckert, 2002, p. 317; Pauly, 2010). New rituals such as community forums, town hall meetings, citizen panels, focus groups, polls and even invitation-only barbecues and pizza parties were typical measures that news organizations undertook as part of a public journalism effort (Rosen, 1999, p. 29; Pauly, 2004, 252; Nip, 2006, p. 216). Voakes (2004) found that: Most newspaper journalists approve of four practices common in public journalism: using ordinary citizens as sources for stories on public issues, conducting polls to discover citizens’ priorities on issues, holding public meetings to begin community discussion of issues, and reporting enterprise stories that look toward solutions to problems. Journalists in smaller communities tend to be even more receptive (p. 31).
Rosen wanted journalists to “care about the outcomes of their work” and to make “reconnecting journalists to their community a top priority” (Pauly, 2003, pp. 23-24; Pauly, 2004, p. 253). With respect to NNS, it is unlikely to soon host public meetings to begin such community discussions, as its size and resources are not at the level that could sustain this type of interaction. But its work and mission of reconnecting journalism and community raises a series of questions that even well-meaning or right-minded efforts such as NNS will likely have to confront as it continues to gain traction in its neighborhoods and the city.
By the mid-1990s, the profession, including editors and reporters in flagship newsrooms, had greeted public journalism with a “quick, angry and negative” reaction, with critics arguing that it merely renamed what journalism had always done, aimed to turn journalists into “do-gooders” and smacked of “boosterism” (Scott, 2005; Pauly, 2010, p. 17; Pauly, 2003, pp. 18-23; Voakes, 2004, p. 31). In the end, while advocates lauded public journalism for its “primacy on storytelling” and aim to make communities prosper, its critics found it “excessively nostalgic and politically unrealistic” or “simply too boring” and unsustainable in an industry increasingly focused on profits (Deuze, 2005, p. 456; Ballard, 1996, p. 31; Pauly, 2010, p. 17; Voakes, 2004, p. 28; Scott, 2005, p. 91). This debate reminds us that the discussion about journalism’s role in the community remains unresolved even as NNS uses the former to serve the latter.
At least 320 newspapers had tried some kind of public journalism before its momentum declined, including in Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, Kansas and California. (Friedland, 2004; Ballard, 1996; Pauly, Eckert, 2002, p. 317; Pauly, 2010). New rituals such as community forums, town hall meetings, citizen panels, focus groups, polls and even invitation-only barbecues and pizza parties were typical measures that news organizations undertook as part of a public journalism effort (Rosen, 1999, p. 29; Pauly, 2004, 252; Nip, 2006, p. 216). Voakes (2004) found that: Most newspaper journalists approve of four practices common in public journalism: using ordinary citizens as sources for stories on public issues, conducting polls to discover citizens’ priorities on issues, holding public meetings to begin community discussion of issues, and reporting enterprise stories that look toward solutions to problems. Journalists in smaller communities tend to be even more receptive (p. 31).
Rosen wanted journalists to “care about the outcomes of their work” and to make “reconnecting journalists to their community a top priority” (Pauly, 2003, pp. 23-24; Pauly, 2004, p. 253). With respect to NNS, it is unlikely to soon host public meetings to begin such community discussions, as its size and resources are not at the level that could sustain this type of interaction. But its work and mission of reconnecting journalism and community raises a series of questions that even well-meaning or right-minded efforts such as NNS will likely have to confront as it continues to gain traction in its neighborhoods and the city.
By the mid-1990s, the profession, including editors and reporters in flagship newsrooms, had greeted public journalism with a “quick, angry and negative” reaction, with critics arguing that it merely renamed what journalism had always done, aimed to turn journalists into “do-gooders” and smacked of “boosterism” (Scott, 2005; Pauly, 2010, p. 17; Pauly, 2003, pp. 18-23; Voakes, 2004, p. 31). In the end, while advocates lauded public journalism for its “primacy on storytelling” and aim to make communities prosper, its critics found it “excessively nostalgic and politically unrealistic” or “simply too boring” and unsustainable in an industry increasingly focused on profits (Deuze, 2005, p. 456; Ballard, 1996, p. 31; Pauly, 2010, p. 17; Voakes, 2004, p. 28; Scott, 2005, p. 91). This debate reminds us that the discussion about journalism’s role in the community remains unresolved even as NNS uses the former to serve the latter.
