What is journalism for?
The simplest answer to the question might be: to keep us informed. But if you give it a second thought, the question becomes like a tangled ball of yarn, revealing many new perspectives.
Some might argue that journalism is crucial because it keeps an eye on those in power. It’s often referred to as the Fourth Estate, or more specifically, journalism as the watchdog of democracy. I tend to agree with this view—after all, I can’t conceive of a democracy without a free press—but it’s also a perspective that 1) elevates journalism to a level of importance that I no longer believe is entirely accurate and 2) suggests that journalism itself must wield power, which I’m hesitant to endorse because power, as we know, tends to corrupt (and I’ve seen many who have been blinded by it).
Others might say journalism is all of that, but it also serves as both entertainment and education: you should feel engaged while reading the news (though I realize this may not have happened to you in a while) and also feel like you've learned something about the world.
Personally, I was drawn to journalism because it was the only field that helped me make sense of the world around me.
I don’t think I have a definitive answer, as I tend to agree with everything stated above and yet feel that these definitions are incomplete and don’t fully represent what I believe journalism truly is.
But in a week where my belief in this craft has been shaken, it feels good to find reasons why journalism still matters.
This interview (paywalled, because, you know, it’s still a business) with Pepe Mujica is one such reason. Even if you totally disagree with the man, even if you are ideologically opposed to what he believes, I don’t think it’s possible to read his thoughts on the state of the world, on religion, or on whether we as a species are ready for technology, without at least considering some of what he has to say.
In my search for understanding the purpose of journalism, I remembered other pieces. This one about children’s clothing, the major international investigations and leaks, the article about Salmonella in U.S. chicken, or this one about the quest to restore Notre Dame’s sound.
I could mention so many others. So, so many. It’s not even fair to highlight just these.
So, what is journalism for?
In my opinion, the simplest yet most complete answer is: to make us think. Preferably about something we haven’t really thought about much before.
This doesn’t mean I completely refute the idea that journalism’s job is to inform or to keep the powerful in check. I support those views as well.
But in the end, if journalism doesn’t make you think, I’m not sure it’s doing its job.
My biggest fear? That newsrooms have stopped thinking, and that people no longer want to be challenged to think. Or, if these things are still true, that the current market model doesn’t allow newsrooms that make us think to survive.
I really hope I’m wrong. Because whether as a journalist or as a reader, I love having my views of the world challenged and being surprised by something out of the box that makes me think about things like how to restore the sound of a centuries-old cathedral that burned to the ground.