Civic Journalism: Moving into New Frontiers

We saw last year a lot of journalism marked by arrogance and excesses, coarseness and shouting, lapses in ethics and breaches of standard practice. In Washington, there was much journalism that Jim Lehrer, of The NewsHour on PBS, painted as “akin to professional wrestling – something to watch rather than believe.”

By comparison, civic journalism, with its conversation about values and credibility, usefulness and problem solving, and dogged listening to readers and viewers appeared tame – and almost virtuous. Or at least common-sensical.

Well into 1999, civic journalism is at another pioneering juncture. It has moved beyond the “start-up” phase, motivated by the passion of its early thinkers who sought recognition for and validation of their ideas.

We are now soundly in the “established” phase, characterized by respect for the underlying philosophy, a high level of expectation for the journalism being produced and an eagerness to innovate more – and to discard what doesn’t work and build on what does.

At its heart, civic journalism is about creating a journalism that helps readers and viewers do their jobs better as citizens – while continuing to fulfill all our other duties of catching the crooks, spotlighting injustices and giving the public the information they need to know.

From my observation deck, I see several trends, all pointing to an evolution in the language, in the practices and, yes, even in the criticism of civic journalism.

In language, there is more talk about interactivity with readers and viewers, giving them a place at the table, treating them as participants not as spectators; about utility or producing journalism that is useful; about searching for the master narrative of a community; and about formally mapping communities in search of alternative sources of news and more diverse listening posts.

In practice, editors are moving away from such early civic journalism techniques as town hall meetings. And they are pioneering ways to get civic journalism out of the ghetto of special projects and into the daily reflexes of beat reporting. They are seeking ways to encourage experimentation and innovation in their newsrooms. And they are experimenting with civic opportunities in the on-line world.

And it’s fascinating to track how the criticism of civic journalism has morphed. Only six years ago, civic journalism was lambasted as advocacy, boosterism or pandering to readers. But when enough experiments disproved those charges, the target landed on foundations, like the Pew Center, who might threaten the independence of journalists. That remains, at best, a hypothetical concern.

The latest harrumphing? Isn’t civic journalism simply “good, old-fashioned journalism?” Why, say some curmudgeons, does it need a label?

Interestingly, Bill Raspberry, in a recent Washington Post column, went a step further. More than civic journalism, he said of The Post’s civic treatment of some school turn-around stories, it was “excellent” journalism.

In closing, I’ll offer some observations culled from a recent think tank gathering of civic journalism leaders hosted in late fall by the University of Kansas. There was some consensus about a few things that we know:

• The values of civic journalism are constant. You may stumble over, or ultimately discard, a practice that doesn’t work, but the values endure.

• When journalists talk about how to revive our credibility, the values of civic journalism quickly percolate into the conversation.

• Civic journalism is different from traditional journalism – in its mission and its willingness not to assume that the same old ways we’ve done things are the best ways.

• The public “gets” it – and likes it.

• Journalists who practice it have an appetite for more.

• Several efforts have had lasting impact on their communities in terms of tangible improvements and new involvement of citizens. Indeed, from Portland to Peoria, citizens active in civic journalism offshoots have actually run for public office.

Enterprising editors, anchored by core journalism values, however, seem to be willing to take more risks and innovate.