What do you think?
Rate this book
The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect
A timely new edition of the classic journalism text, now featuring updated material on the importance of reporting in the age of media mistrust and fake news--and how journalists can use technology to navigate its challenges
More than two decades ago, the Committee of Concerned Journalists gathered some of America's most influential newspeople and asked them, "What is journalism for?" Through exhaustive research, surveys, interviews, and public forums, the committee identified the essential elements that define journalism and its role in our society. The result is one of the most important books on media ever written--winner of the Goldsmith Book Prize from Harvard, a Society of Professional Journalists Award, and the Bart Richards Award for Media Criticism from Penn State University.
Updated with new material covering the ways journalists can leverage technology to their advantage, especially given the shifting revenue architecture of news--and with the future of news, facts, and democracy never more in question--this fourth edition of The Elements of Journalism is the authoritative guide for journalists, students, and anyone hoping to stay informed in contentious times.
More than two decades ago, the Committee of Concerned Journalists gathered some of America's most influential newspeople and asked them, "What is journalism for?" Through exhaustive research, surveys, interviews, and public forums, the committee identified the essential elements that define journalism and its role in our society. The result is one of the most important books on media ever written--winner of the Goldsmith Book Prize from Harvard, a Society of Professional Journalists Award, and the Bart Richards Award for Media Criticism from Penn State University.
Updated with new material covering the ways journalists can leverage technology to their advantage, especially given the shifting revenue architecture of news--and with the future of news, facts, and democracy never more in question--this fourth edition of The Elements of Journalism is the authoritative guide for journalists, students, and anyone hoping to stay informed in contentious times.
432 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
424 people are currently reading
2511 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 175 reviews
February 5, 2008
Banal crap.
The book came recommended by William Safire, so I had high hopes. But, like most established journalists writing about journalism, the authors just wring their hands and lament that the golden age of journalism has been lost. No real analysis, and definitely no worthwhile suggestions. The authors are terrified of anything new and difficult to control from a newsroom desk, and seem utterly unaware that publications outside the United States actually exist; that news aggregators drive readers to, not away from, news sites; and that there may actually be advantages to having people familiar with a region writing from it, instead of hacks that somehow clawed their way up from the crime desk.
Journalism is changing faster than it ever has in human history, and by my lights getting better. If I want, I can find out exactly what happened in Chennai last night, or the GDP of Burkina Faso, or what John McCain said in a Senate debate in 1999, practically instantly. The profession should recognize this, and change the way it's organized and presents its product. To a large extent, it has. More hard-thinking by experienced folk would help that process along, but this isn't it. Instead we get bromides: "Journalists should tell the truth," they say. Really? Thanks guys, good thing I paid $11 for you to tell me that, because here I thought it was a good idea to make shit up.
The book came recommended by William Safire, so I had high hopes. But, like most established journalists writing about journalism, the authors just wring their hands and lament that the golden age of journalism has been lost. No real analysis, and definitely no worthwhile suggestions. The authors are terrified of anything new and difficult to control from a newsroom desk, and seem utterly unaware that publications outside the United States actually exist; that news aggregators drive readers to, not away from, news sites; and that there may actually be advantages to having people familiar with a region writing from it, instead of hacks that somehow clawed their way up from the crime desk.
Journalism is changing faster than it ever has in human history, and by my lights getting better. If I want, I can find out exactly what happened in Chennai last night, or the GDP of Burkina Faso, or what John McCain said in a Senate debate in 1999, practically instantly. The profession should recognize this, and change the way it's organized and presents its product. To a large extent, it has. More hard-thinking by experienced folk would help that process along, but this isn't it. Instead we get bromides: "Journalists should tell the truth," they say. Really? Thanks guys, good thing I paid $11 for you to tell me that, because here I thought it was a good idea to make shit up.
December 28, 2010
Really more for those entrenched in journalism and public service rather than the everyday consumer, but a compelling and thorough review of the basic building blocks of "good journalism." However, the authors fail to devote enough pages to conflicts of interest--namely, corporate ones--as this is a huge, inescapable issue for any publication, especially ones that claim to purport the truth.
December 3, 2011
I was just looking for a basic how-to-be-a-decent-journalist textbook, and I found myself faced with the rather touching exhortation to be a lion for democracy.
May 27, 2011
Kebenaran Itu Ibarat Cicak
Tulisan ini berawal dari sebuah film dan akan berakhir pada sebuah film.
“The truth is out there”, kata film seri terkenal The X-Files. Kebenaran itu ada di luar sana. Kalimat itu seperti menyiratkan bahwa kebenaran yang ada di luar sana bisa dicari, bisa ditemukan, meski tidak selalu mudah. Tapi siapa yang merasa perlu mencari kebenaran itu? Buku ini memberi jawab: wartawanlah yang mencari dan menyampaikan karena ada warga yang membutuhkan. Tapi tentu wartawan bukanlah Nabi atau orang suci. Buku ini menjelaskan tentang apa yang seharusnya diketahui dan dilakukan wartawan serta yang diharapkan publik (warga).
Kebenaran itu ibarat cicak, kata Turgenev sastrawan Rusia. Yang kita tangkap selalu cuma ekornya, yang menggelepar seperti hidup—sementara cicak itu sendiri lepas. Di zaman banjir informasi ini kebenaran dalam bentuk berita ada di tangan media. Untuk itulah buku ini ada. Elemen –elemen jurnalisme media yang harus menjadi pegangan wartawan untuk mencapai kebenaran dijelaskan dalam buku ini. Dan hal itu juga sepatutnya diketahui warga masyarakat. Buku ini penting sekali.
***
Saat ini tidak semua orang menyadari dan mau mengakui bahwa hidup kita sudah diatur oleh media. Sesungguhnya, secara langsung maupun tidak, media telah mengatur bagaimana kita hidup, bagaimana kita bertindak, hingga bagaimana kita berpikir, apa isi pikiran kita, hingga ke sudut terpencil dan terdalam batin kita.
Tapi di hari-hari ini, di tengah berita-berita tentang Osama, Briptu Norman, dan DPR yang memuakkan, mungkin hanya segelintir orang yang masih menyempatkan waktu untuk bertanya-tanya, apa arti berita di tengah deburan ombak gosip yang tayang tanpa henti membanjiri? Belum lagi dalam hitungan menit bahkan detik informasi bisa mengalir deras dari layar monitor alat komunikasi di zaman canggih ini.
Saat ini pula pergerakan dunia maya terutama, membuat kita bisa berpikir ulang tentang apa arti berita “penting” dan “gak penting” tergantung kita punya kepentingan. Dengan sertamerta kita pun “dituntut” memilah-milah mana info sampah dan mana yang berguna. Tapi untuk apa sebenarnya berita ada?
Sebagaimana telah disimpulkan sejarawan dan sosiolog, berita ternyata memuaskan dorongan hati manusia yang mendasar. Orang mempunyai kebutuhan dalam dirinya—sebuah naluri—untuk mengetahui apa yang terjadi di luar pengalaman langsung diri mereka sendiri. Tahu terhadap peristiwa-peristiwa yang tidak bisa kita saksikan dengan mata sendiri ternyata menghadirkan rasa aman, kontrol diri, dan percaya diri. (h. 1)
Manusia membutuhkan berita karena naluri dasar, yang kita sebut Naluri Kesadaran. Mereka perlu mengetahui apa yang terjadi di balik bukit, untuk menyadari berbagi kejadian di luar pengalaman mereka. Pengetahuan tentang sesuatu memberi mereka rasa aman, membuat mereka bisa merencanakan dan mengatur hidup mereka. Saling tukar informasi ini menjadi dasar untuk menciptakan komunitas, membuat ikatan antar-manusia.(h. 14)
Makin demokratis sebuah masyarakat, makin banyak berita dan informasi yang didapatkan (h. 17)
Pada mulanya
Seperti yang tertera di halaman 17, setelah abad pertengahan berakhir, berita muncul dalam bentuk lagu dan cerita, dalam balada-balada yang disenandungkan pengamen keliling. Kemudian apa yang disebut jurnalisme modern muncul pada awal abad ke-17 yaitu melalui perbincangan orang-orang di tempat umum seperti kafe-kafe di Inggris, atau “kedai minum” di Amerika. Di tempat inilah para pemilik bar sering mencatat apa yang mereka lihat dan dengar dalam buku perjalanan yang disimpan di ujung meja bar. Suratkabar pertama muncul dari kafe-kafe ini sekitar 1609 ketika percetakan mulai mengumpulkan berita perkapalan, gosip, argumen politik dan mencetaknya di atas kertas.
Buku ini memaparkan dengan cukup menarik tentang apa itu jurnalisme, sejarah awalnya dan yang terpenting 9 Elemen, yang menjadi pijakan utama dari apa yang disebut jurnalisme, dibahas satu per satu.
9 Elemen Jurnalisme:
1. Kewajiban pertama jurnalisme adalah pada kebenaran
2. Loyalitas pertama jurnalisme kepada warga
3. Intisari jurnalisme adalah disiplin verifikasi
4. Para praktisinya harus menjaga independensi terhadap sumber berita
5. Jurnalisme harus berlaku sebagai pemantau kekuasaan
6. Jurnalisme harus menyediakan forum publik untuk kritik maupun dukungan warga
7. Jurnalisme harus berupaya membuat hal yang penting menarik dan relevan
8. Jurnalisme harus menjaga agar berita komprehensif dan proporsional
9. Para praktisinya harus diperbolehkan mengikuti nurani mereka
Jurnalisme eksis dalam konteks sosial. Warga sebagai individu ataupun masyarakat secara keseluruhan karena kebutuhannya bergantung pada laporan yang akurat dan dapat diandalkan tentang peristiwa yang terjadi.
Hal inilah yang dikejar jurnalisme—bentuk kebenaran yang bisa dipraktikkan dan fungsional. Ini bukan kebenaran dalam pengertian mutlak atau filosofis. Ini bukan kebenaran ala persamaan kimiawi. Namun jurnalisme bisa—dan harus—mengejar kebenaran di dalam pengertian yang bisa kita jalankan dari hari ke hari.(h. 45)
Tujuan utama jurnalisme adalah menyediakan informasi yang dibutuhkan warga agar mereka bisa hidup merdeka dan mengatur diri sendiri.(h. 12) Tujuan utama jurnalisme adalah menyampaikan kebenaran sehingga orang-orang akan mempunyai informasi yang mereka butuhkan untuk berdaulat.(h. 15)
Seperi kata penulis Goenawan Mohamad , pada akhirnya, menulis atau menyampaikan berita adalah sebuah laku moral.
Ketika membaca buku ini saya juga jadi teringat bagian akhir film The Devil Wears Prada (2006), pada akhirnya Andrea (Anne Hathaway) yang sebenarnya ingin jadi wartawan itu, memutuskan meninggalkan pekerjaannya sebagai asisten pribadi dari seorang bos yang sangat menjengkelkan. Dan setelah itu, ketika ia diwawancara kerja oleh sebuah harian di New York, si pewawancara itu mengatakan tentang keputusan Andrea berhenti dari pekerjaan sebelumnya,
“You must have done something right.”
***
Mungkin memang ada masanya seorang yang teguh berjalan mempertahankan prinsip kebenaran adalah seperti pejalan sepi di lorong sunyi. Bekalnya hanyalah sebatang obor yang menerangi pandangannya dari kegelapan sekitar. Orang lain mungkin bahkan tak peduli dengan cahaya terang obor itu. Mereka terlalu jauh di sana, asyik dengan pesta masing-masing. Tapi pada akhirnya—entah kapan—mungkin ketika pesta berubah menjadi kerusuhan dan banyak jadi korban--orang-orang mungkin akan sadar dan paham bahwa mereka juga butuh obor itu.
***
Berita hari ini,
Berita hari kemarin,
seperti luput dari jangkauan
Dan di antara timbunan sampah yang menggunung
mungkin masih terselip mutiara sayu tanpa kata.
Dan itu kau..
(Pandasurya, Mei 2011)
Tulisan ini berawal dari sebuah film dan akan berakhir pada sebuah film.
“The truth is out there”, kata film seri terkenal The X-Files. Kebenaran itu ada di luar sana. Kalimat itu seperti menyiratkan bahwa kebenaran yang ada di luar sana bisa dicari, bisa ditemukan, meski tidak selalu mudah. Tapi siapa yang merasa perlu mencari kebenaran itu? Buku ini memberi jawab: wartawanlah yang mencari dan menyampaikan karena ada warga yang membutuhkan. Tapi tentu wartawan bukanlah Nabi atau orang suci. Buku ini menjelaskan tentang apa yang seharusnya diketahui dan dilakukan wartawan serta yang diharapkan publik (warga).
Kebenaran itu ibarat cicak, kata Turgenev sastrawan Rusia. Yang kita tangkap selalu cuma ekornya, yang menggelepar seperti hidup—sementara cicak itu sendiri lepas. Di zaman banjir informasi ini kebenaran dalam bentuk berita ada di tangan media. Untuk itulah buku ini ada. Elemen –elemen jurnalisme media yang harus menjadi pegangan wartawan untuk mencapai kebenaran dijelaskan dalam buku ini. Dan hal itu juga sepatutnya diketahui warga masyarakat. Buku ini penting sekali.
***
Saat ini tidak semua orang menyadari dan mau mengakui bahwa hidup kita sudah diatur oleh media. Sesungguhnya, secara langsung maupun tidak, media telah mengatur bagaimana kita hidup, bagaimana kita bertindak, hingga bagaimana kita berpikir, apa isi pikiran kita, hingga ke sudut terpencil dan terdalam batin kita.
Tapi di hari-hari ini, di tengah berita-berita tentang Osama, Briptu Norman, dan DPR yang memuakkan, mungkin hanya segelintir orang yang masih menyempatkan waktu untuk bertanya-tanya, apa arti berita di tengah deburan ombak gosip yang tayang tanpa henti membanjiri? Belum lagi dalam hitungan menit bahkan detik informasi bisa mengalir deras dari layar monitor alat komunikasi di zaman canggih ini.
Saat ini pula pergerakan dunia maya terutama, membuat kita bisa berpikir ulang tentang apa arti berita “penting” dan “gak penting” tergantung kita punya kepentingan. Dengan sertamerta kita pun “dituntut” memilah-milah mana info sampah dan mana yang berguna. Tapi untuk apa sebenarnya berita ada?
Sebagaimana telah disimpulkan sejarawan dan sosiolog, berita ternyata memuaskan dorongan hati manusia yang mendasar. Orang mempunyai kebutuhan dalam dirinya—sebuah naluri—untuk mengetahui apa yang terjadi di luar pengalaman langsung diri mereka sendiri. Tahu terhadap peristiwa-peristiwa yang tidak bisa kita saksikan dengan mata sendiri ternyata menghadirkan rasa aman, kontrol diri, dan percaya diri. (h. 1)
Manusia membutuhkan berita karena naluri dasar, yang kita sebut Naluri Kesadaran. Mereka perlu mengetahui apa yang terjadi di balik bukit, untuk menyadari berbagi kejadian di luar pengalaman mereka. Pengetahuan tentang sesuatu memberi mereka rasa aman, membuat mereka bisa merencanakan dan mengatur hidup mereka. Saling tukar informasi ini menjadi dasar untuk menciptakan komunitas, membuat ikatan antar-manusia.(h. 14)
Makin demokratis sebuah masyarakat, makin banyak berita dan informasi yang didapatkan (h. 17)
Pada mulanya
Seperti yang tertera di halaman 17, setelah abad pertengahan berakhir, berita muncul dalam bentuk lagu dan cerita, dalam balada-balada yang disenandungkan pengamen keliling. Kemudian apa yang disebut jurnalisme modern muncul pada awal abad ke-17 yaitu melalui perbincangan orang-orang di tempat umum seperti kafe-kafe di Inggris, atau “kedai minum” di Amerika. Di tempat inilah para pemilik bar sering mencatat apa yang mereka lihat dan dengar dalam buku perjalanan yang disimpan di ujung meja bar. Suratkabar pertama muncul dari kafe-kafe ini sekitar 1609 ketika percetakan mulai mengumpulkan berita perkapalan, gosip, argumen politik dan mencetaknya di atas kertas.
Buku ini memaparkan dengan cukup menarik tentang apa itu jurnalisme, sejarah awalnya dan yang terpenting 9 Elemen, yang menjadi pijakan utama dari apa yang disebut jurnalisme, dibahas satu per satu.
9 Elemen Jurnalisme:
1. Kewajiban pertama jurnalisme adalah pada kebenaran
2. Loyalitas pertama jurnalisme kepada warga
3. Intisari jurnalisme adalah disiplin verifikasi
4. Para praktisinya harus menjaga independensi terhadap sumber berita
5. Jurnalisme harus berlaku sebagai pemantau kekuasaan
6. Jurnalisme harus menyediakan forum publik untuk kritik maupun dukungan warga
7. Jurnalisme harus berupaya membuat hal yang penting menarik dan relevan
8. Jurnalisme harus menjaga agar berita komprehensif dan proporsional
9. Para praktisinya harus diperbolehkan mengikuti nurani mereka
Jurnalisme eksis dalam konteks sosial. Warga sebagai individu ataupun masyarakat secara keseluruhan karena kebutuhannya bergantung pada laporan yang akurat dan dapat diandalkan tentang peristiwa yang terjadi.
Hal inilah yang dikejar jurnalisme—bentuk kebenaran yang bisa dipraktikkan dan fungsional. Ini bukan kebenaran dalam pengertian mutlak atau filosofis. Ini bukan kebenaran ala persamaan kimiawi. Namun jurnalisme bisa—dan harus—mengejar kebenaran di dalam pengertian yang bisa kita jalankan dari hari ke hari.(h. 45)
Tujuan utama jurnalisme adalah menyediakan informasi yang dibutuhkan warga agar mereka bisa hidup merdeka dan mengatur diri sendiri.(h. 12) Tujuan utama jurnalisme adalah menyampaikan kebenaran sehingga orang-orang akan mempunyai informasi yang mereka butuhkan untuk berdaulat.(h. 15)
Seperi kata penulis Goenawan Mohamad , pada akhirnya, menulis atau menyampaikan berita adalah sebuah laku moral.
Ketika membaca buku ini saya juga jadi teringat bagian akhir film The Devil Wears Prada (2006), pada akhirnya Andrea (Anne Hathaway) yang sebenarnya ingin jadi wartawan itu, memutuskan meninggalkan pekerjaannya sebagai asisten pribadi dari seorang bos yang sangat menjengkelkan. Dan setelah itu, ketika ia diwawancara kerja oleh sebuah harian di New York, si pewawancara itu mengatakan tentang keputusan Andrea berhenti dari pekerjaan sebelumnya,
“You must have done something right.”
***
Mungkin memang ada masanya seorang yang teguh berjalan mempertahankan prinsip kebenaran adalah seperti pejalan sepi di lorong sunyi. Bekalnya hanyalah sebatang obor yang menerangi pandangannya dari kegelapan sekitar. Orang lain mungkin bahkan tak peduli dengan cahaya terang obor itu. Mereka terlalu jauh di sana, asyik dengan pesta masing-masing. Tapi pada akhirnya—entah kapan—mungkin ketika pesta berubah menjadi kerusuhan dan banyak jadi korban--orang-orang mungkin akan sadar dan paham bahwa mereka juga butuh obor itu.
***
Berita hari ini,
Berita hari kemarin,
seperti luput dari jangkauan
Dan di antara timbunan sampah yang menggunung
mungkin masih terselip mutiara sayu tanpa kata.
Dan itu kau..
(Pandasurya, Mei 2011)
November 27, 2024
Read for my Intro to Journalism class.
Relies heavily on anecdotes for setting the scene of the chapters. This edition was also printed at the tail end of Trump’s first run, so it leans into the “fake news” narrative, but the writers do a good job outlining the history and gist of journalistic ethics, of which I found mostly agreeable.
Ending leaves a bittersweet taste as it seems they feel journalism is getting further away from its roots, but in a digital age you have to checks and balances.
Relies heavily on anecdotes for setting the scene of the chapters. This edition was also printed at the tail end of Trump’s first run, so it leans into the “fake news” narrative, but the writers do a good job outlining the history and gist of journalistic ethics, of which I found mostly agreeable.
Ending leaves a bittersweet taste as it seems they feel journalism is getting further away from its roots, but in a digital age you have to checks and balances.
November 29, 2020
برای کاری به من پیشنهاد شد و من نصف بیشتر رو خوندم و جالب نبود. بدیهیات بسیار. تلاش شده با روایت کردن اتفاقاتی که در خبرگزاریهای مهم افتاده کتاب جذاب بشه اما من باز هم بنظرم روایتها چندان عمق نداشتن.
April 10, 2017
The Elements of Journalism has generally good advice, but it lacks conviction and uses strangely inappropriate examples. It asks journalists to aspire to the scientific method, but without the socially hard work that the scientific method entails, such as telling your readers how to falsify your work. And the examples it uses are self-defeating, if it is to be taken at face value. For example, in the section on verification it praises David Protess and the Anthony Porter/Alstory Simon case—a case which appears to be purely result-oriented journalism, that is, starting with a result in mind and not allowing the facts to deviate from the desired results. This despite that Protess broke many of the rules in the section.
And immediately following the section on being independent, that is, not “in lockstep with factions or vested interests”, it uses as its example the New York Times following the 2000 elections taking on the Republicans. That may have been a good story, but it was poor placement in the book.
And immediately following the section on being independent, that is, not “in lockstep with factions or vested interests”, it uses as its example the New York Times following the 2000 elections taking on the Republicans. That may have been a good story, but it was poor placement in the book.
January 18, 2017
Una lectura obligada para todo aspirante a periodista o profesional del periodismo. Kovach y Rosenstiel han creado un manual y un manifiesto para que el periodismo pueda volver a ser un instrumento al servicio de los ciudadanos y no de otros intereses. No entran de lleno en el cambio de paradigma del periodismo hacia el digital y no da soluciones para la crisis de los periódicos, pero sí es un espejo de lo que son los elementos clave del periodismo, que todos los nuevos medios nacidos en la red deben interiorizar y respetar, para que el periodismo del siglo XXI no cometa los errores del periodismo del siglo XX.
February 3, 2014
This book was mandatory reading for my first year journalism course, but it would have been worth reading outside of class. It made me think about basic concepts in new ways and clarified a lot of things that were muddled to me before. I'd recommend it to anyone getting started/looking into journalism as well as any news consumer, to understand the reliability and limitations of the press.
Read
September 8, 2023We read excerpts of this book for my journalism class last semester, but I just got around to finishing the rest of it. I think the professor did a great job at assigning the specific sections. It has some thought-provoking points, and any person interested in journalism (writing or consuming) would find this book informative.
September 20, 2018
offers a more technical insight to the *~art of journalism~* and its moral and ethical responsibilities that are often obscured by the glamor of the career itself. the tone established from page one is......sanctimonious but it was still good regardless
January 4, 2017
I have a short list of English language non-fiction books that I think are absolutely required reading for anyone to have a proper idea of the human condition - especially in so-called developed societies - in the early 20th century. At the very top of that list is Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, a perspective-altering approach to history that destroys any claim to to one human group's superiority over another, be it based on race, class, gender, or other criterion. Another book on this list would be Phil Zimbardo's The Lucifer Effect, which explains how normal, seemingly decent, people regularly - we might say constantly - do bad or evil things, and why; without resorting to impossible claims about human nature as good or evil. A far less accessible, but for me equally important, book for the list would be Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition, but I realize that choice is a little too esoteric. There are other books that would appear, but the above are my top 3.
I bring this up because I want to add one: The Elements of Journalism. We are at a time when journalism - or at least the potential to perform journalism - has become democratized in ways previously never thought possible. There are more "journalists" and outlets supposedly performing "journalism" than ever existed in history before. There are more people and outlets posing as journalistic. There is more coverage of "news" than ever previously thought possible. But, despite this, it seems to many people, myself included, as if it is getting harder and harder to find what we recognize as good journalism, or even as passable journalism. The real deal is getting lost in "infotainment" and other far more well-meaning, but unfortunately amateur attempts at the real thing. The serious problem with this is that most people do not or will not recognize the lack of journalistic quality in most "news" they receive, or if they do they don't care enough to complain. (As an aside, the authors cite studies which show that the audience does indeed recognize the lack of quality journalism, and will complain, but these studies are based on relative assessments - for example one local TV news station against another - and are focused on people who regularly watch the news, not a majority of people.)
The authors argue that it is more important than ever to define journalism. But more importantly, to me anyway, they make a compelling case that journalism - of the kind they defend - is necessary for the successful functioning of any democracy. As a proponent of representative democracy as the best (or least bad) system of government in human history, I find this not only worth repeating and discussing, but utterly fundamental to a good citizen's basic knowledge.
The authors identify 10 elements. Much of this is quoted verbatim.
Journalism's first obligation is to the truth (as opposed to a narrative constructed by participants involved in the story)
From pages 44-45:
"Practical truth is a protean thing that, like learning, grows like a stalactite in a cave, drop by drop, over time...
[Truth is] a complicated and sometimes contradictory phenomenon, but seen as a process over time, journalism can get at it. It attempts to get at the truth in a confused world by first stripping information of any attached misinformation, disinformation, or self-promoting bias and then letting the community react, with the sorting-out process to ensue. The search for truth becomes a conversation.
This definition helps reconcile the way we use the words true and false every day with the way we deconstruct those words in the petri dish of philosophical debate. This definition comes closer to journalists' intuitive understanding of what they do than the crude metaphors of mirrors and reflections that are commonly handed out.
We understand truth as a goal – at best elusive – and still embrace it. We embrace it in the same way Albert Einstein did when he said of science that it was not about truth but about making what we know less false. For this is how life really is – we're often striving and never fully achieving. As historian Gordon Wood has said about writing history: “One can accept the view that historians will never finally agree in their interpretations” and yet still believe “in an objective truth about the past that can be observed and empirically verified.” This is more than a leap of faith. In real life, people can tell when someone has come closer to getting it right, when sourcing is authoritative, when the research is exhaustive, when the method is transparent. Or as Wood put it, “Historians may never see and present that truth wholly and finally, but some of them will come closer than others, be more nearly complete, more objective, more honest, in their written history, and we will know it, and have known it, when we see it."
Journalism's first loyalty is to citizens (as opposed to government, editors, owners, corporate entities, groups, etc)
The essence of journalism is a discipline of verification (i.e. fact-checking)
"Fairness and balances...are really techniques - devices - to help guide journalists in the development of their accounts. They should never be pursued for their own sake or invoked as journalism's goal. Their value is in helping get us closer to more thorough verification and a reliable version of events." (p. 87)
"The intellectual principles of a science or reporting:
Never add anything that was not there
Never deceive the audience
Be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives
Rely on your own original reporting
Exercise humility"
Journalism must serve as an independent monitor of power
Journalism must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise
Journalism must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant to the average citizen
Journalism must keep the news comprehensive yet in proportion
Journalism's practitioners have an obligation to exercise their personal conscience
Citizens, too, have rights and responsibilities when it comes to the news
The authors address of each of these and I think make a very compelling case for all. I have only quoted a few passages for the ones I consider most important for today's dearth of quality journalism.
As citizens, we need to demand better journalism from our media. We should not accept journalism that does not thoroughly check facts or relies on other outlets for research. We should create greater demand in the market place for this kind of journalism so the corporations that own most of our media outlets are compelled by their own profit motives to give us better journalism. If we don't do this, it is one of many ways in which we will slip slowly into a society that is less liberal and less democratic than the one I was born into. The crisis of journalism is as much a crisis of democracy as anything else.
I bring this up because I want to add one: The Elements of Journalism. We are at a time when journalism - or at least the potential to perform journalism - has become democratized in ways previously never thought possible. There are more "journalists" and outlets supposedly performing "journalism" than ever existed in history before. There are more people and outlets posing as journalistic. There is more coverage of "news" than ever previously thought possible. But, despite this, it seems to many people, myself included, as if it is getting harder and harder to find what we recognize as good journalism, or even as passable journalism. The real deal is getting lost in "infotainment" and other far more well-meaning, but unfortunately amateur attempts at the real thing. The serious problem with this is that most people do not or will not recognize the lack of journalistic quality in most "news" they receive, or if they do they don't care enough to complain. (As an aside, the authors cite studies which show that the audience does indeed recognize the lack of quality journalism, and will complain, but these studies are based on relative assessments - for example one local TV news station against another - and are focused on people who regularly watch the news, not a majority of people.)
The authors argue that it is more important than ever to define journalism. But more importantly, to me anyway, they make a compelling case that journalism - of the kind they defend - is necessary for the successful functioning of any democracy. As a proponent of representative democracy as the best (or least bad) system of government in human history, I find this not only worth repeating and discussing, but utterly fundamental to a good citizen's basic knowledge.
The authors identify 10 elements. Much of this is quoted verbatim.
Journalism's first obligation is to the truth (as opposed to a narrative constructed by participants involved in the story)
From pages 44-45:
"Practical truth is a protean thing that, like learning, grows like a stalactite in a cave, drop by drop, over time...
[Truth is] a complicated and sometimes contradictory phenomenon, but seen as a process over time, journalism can get at it. It attempts to get at the truth in a confused world by first stripping information of any attached misinformation, disinformation, or self-promoting bias and then letting the community react, with the sorting-out process to ensue. The search for truth becomes a conversation.
This definition helps reconcile the way we use the words true and false every day with the way we deconstruct those words in the petri dish of philosophical debate. This definition comes closer to journalists' intuitive understanding of what they do than the crude metaphors of mirrors and reflections that are commonly handed out.
We understand truth as a goal – at best elusive – and still embrace it. We embrace it in the same way Albert Einstein did when he said of science that it was not about truth but about making what we know less false. For this is how life really is – we're often striving and never fully achieving. As historian Gordon Wood has said about writing history: “One can accept the view that historians will never finally agree in their interpretations” and yet still believe “in an objective truth about the past that can be observed and empirically verified.” This is more than a leap of faith. In real life, people can tell when someone has come closer to getting it right, when sourcing is authoritative, when the research is exhaustive, when the method is transparent. Or as Wood put it, “Historians may never see and present that truth wholly and finally, but some of them will come closer than others, be more nearly complete, more objective, more honest, in their written history, and we will know it, and have known it, when we see it."
Journalism's first loyalty is to citizens (as opposed to government, editors, owners, corporate entities, groups, etc)
The essence of journalism is a discipline of verification (i.e. fact-checking)
"Fairness and balances...are really techniques - devices - to help guide journalists in the development of their accounts. They should never be pursued for their own sake or invoked as journalism's goal. Their value is in helping get us closer to more thorough verification and a reliable version of events." (p. 87)
"The intellectual principles of a science or reporting:
Never add anything that was not there
Never deceive the audience
Be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives
Rely on your own original reporting
Exercise humility"
Journalism must serve as an independent monitor of power
Journalism must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise
Journalism must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant to the average citizen
Journalism must keep the news comprehensive yet in proportion
Journalism's practitioners have an obligation to exercise their personal conscience
Citizens, too, have rights and responsibilities when it comes to the news
The authors address of each of these and I think make a very compelling case for all. I have only quoted a few passages for the ones I consider most important for today's dearth of quality journalism.
As citizens, we need to demand better journalism from our media. We should not accept journalism that does not thoroughly check facts or relies on other outlets for research. We should create greater demand in the market place for this kind of journalism so the corporations that own most of our media outlets are compelled by their own profit motives to give us better journalism. If we don't do this, it is one of many ways in which we will slip slowly into a society that is less liberal and less democratic than the one I was born into. The crisis of journalism is as much a crisis of democracy as anything else.
April 12, 2019
I've been a professional journalist for six years now, but my lack of formal training in the field has always made me a little anxious (I was an English major who did a bit of writing for the college paper and more or less wandered into my career). I'd expected (as it seems not a few had) that this book might fill in the gaps, maybe give some practical advice on, say, how to develop a source, or the anatomy of a good lede. But unless you're a managing editor at a large publication, or a white house correspondent, or a supremely lucky staffer at a legacy magazine willing to give you weeks to months to report a single story, the book reads more like a congressional report on the state of the industry than any kind of guide book. This is mostly an error of assumption on my part (though Christ, titling your book "Elements of..." does present a certain set of expectations)
Even taking the book on its own merits, though, I still can't recommend it. The authors' diagnosis for the root of journalism's maladies is mostly correct (if a little banal in 2019), but it's a little marred by their indulgence in the profession's bedtime stories.
Even taking the book on its own merits, though, I still can't recommend it. The authors' diagnosis for the root of journalism's maladies is mostly correct (if a little banal in 2019), but it's a little marred by their indulgence in the profession's bedtime stories.
January 27, 2008
In cooperation with the Committee of Concerned Journalists, Kovach and Rosenstiel assemble the consensus in the field of journalism about what it is that journalists do. They then examine how each of those principles are affected (possibly even under threat) by the "new media" we face today.
What Kovach and Rosenstiel set out to do here is very ambitious: to outline a set of principles that define the very best journalism, to frame those principles in centuries of journalistic tradition and decades of recent history, and to explain how these principles apply to the news as we know it today. They are:
# Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.
# Its first loyalty is to citizens.
# Its essence is a discipline of verification.
# Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
# It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
# It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
# It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.
# It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
# Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
Kovach & Rosenstiel elaborate on what these principles mean, and in doing so illuminate not only the deep confusion journalism itself feels toward terms like "truth" and "objectivity," but also explains the origins of those terms and how to best understand them. They paint an profile of journalism as it might be, in its most refined form. The book is, quite simply, an outline of journalistic virtue in a form than, it is hoped, journalists will be able to apply to their jobs and citizens will be able to apply to understanding the news.
Above and beyond other principles, K&R specify two as being so fundamental to journalism as to disqualify any forms of communication that fail to pass muster: verification and conscience. Implicit in all principles, they distinguish the journalist from the mere entertainer or propagandist.
Verification is the core of journalistic "objectivity," a term that K&R emphatically assert has been misused by the media. Objectivity, they assert, is not a position, but a process very much like science:
"When the concept originally evolved, it was not meant to imply that journalists were free of bias. Quite the contrary. the term began to appear as part of journalism early in the last century, particularly in the 1920s, out of a growing recognition that journalists were full of bias, often unconsciously. Objectivity called for journalists to develop a consistent method for testing information - a transparent approach to evidence - precisely so that personal and cultural bias would not undermine the accuracy of their work."
Put more simply:
"In the original concept, in other words, the method is objective, not the journalist. The key was in the discipline of the craft, not the aim."
To this end, K&R list guidelines to ensure that reporting never strays into the realm of interpretive fiction, devoting several paragraphs to elaborating each:
1. Never add anything that was not there.
2. Never deceive the audience.
3. Be transparent as possible about your methods and motives.
4. Rely on your own original reporting.
5. Exercise humility.
Conscience, on the other hand, is a more subtle matter, which K&R approach in a more circumspect manner. The book routinely emphasizes that good journalism fulfills a duty to citizens, rather than to "consumers" or to stockholders. The business of the news must, in other words, stand on the foundation of reporting that is not beholden to interests above that of the public good.
"Still, the idea that journalists serve citizens first remains deeply felt by those who produce the news. The question "For whom do you work?" elicited a particularly strong response among journalists we interviewed. More than 80 percent of them listed "making the reader/listener/viewer your first obligation" as a "core principle of journalism" in a 1999 survey on values by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and the Committee of Concerned Journalists. In separate, open-ended in-depth interviews with developmental psychologists, more than 70 percent of journalists similarly place "audience" as their first loyalty, well above their employer, themselves, their profession, or even their family."
Interestingly, K&R argue that opinion journalism and investigative journalism are a noble part of the journalistic tradition, despite their moral agenda, so long as they retain the emphasis on verifiable accuracy and transparency. According to conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher:
" 'I think it's possible to be an honest journalist and be loyal to a cause. It's not really possible to be an honest journalist and be loyal to a person, a political party, or a faction. Why do I say that? I think it relates to my basic belief that there is some relationship between journalism and one's perception of the truth. Once can believe that certain things, ideas, proposals, would be good for American and can openly state that. But to be loyal to a political party, a person or fiction means that you do not see your primary goal as commitment to speaking the truth to people who are your audience. There's a fundamental conflict of loyalty there.' "
Overall, K&R's book is exhaustively researched, heavy on citation, and brimming with both examples and proposals. It's a solid piece of journalism about the state of journalism up to and in 2001. Its failings stem mainly from the writing style, which varies from excellent to bland and redundant. My instinct is that one of the authors is a better writer than the other, and that they each wrote separate sections of the book. Nevertheless, this is a highly informative book that, despite being a few years out of date, correctly anticipates much of the current state of news culture and news practice.
What Kovach and Rosenstiel set out to do here is very ambitious: to outline a set of principles that define the very best journalism, to frame those principles in centuries of journalistic tradition and decades of recent history, and to explain how these principles apply to the news as we know it today. They are:
# Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.
# Its first loyalty is to citizens.
# Its essence is a discipline of verification.
# Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
# It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
# It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
# It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.
# It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
# Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
Kovach & Rosenstiel elaborate on what these principles mean, and in doing so illuminate not only the deep confusion journalism itself feels toward terms like "truth" and "objectivity," but also explains the origins of those terms and how to best understand them. They paint an profile of journalism as it might be, in its most refined form. The book is, quite simply, an outline of journalistic virtue in a form than, it is hoped, journalists will be able to apply to their jobs and citizens will be able to apply to understanding the news.
Above and beyond other principles, K&R specify two as being so fundamental to journalism as to disqualify any forms of communication that fail to pass muster: verification and conscience. Implicit in all principles, they distinguish the journalist from the mere entertainer or propagandist.
Verification is the core of journalistic "objectivity," a term that K&R emphatically assert has been misused by the media. Objectivity, they assert, is not a position, but a process very much like science:
"When the concept originally evolved, it was not meant to imply that journalists were free of bias. Quite the contrary. the term began to appear as part of journalism early in the last century, particularly in the 1920s, out of a growing recognition that journalists were full of bias, often unconsciously. Objectivity called for journalists to develop a consistent method for testing information - a transparent approach to evidence - precisely so that personal and cultural bias would not undermine the accuracy of their work."
Put more simply:
"In the original concept, in other words, the method is objective, not the journalist. The key was in the discipline of the craft, not the aim."
To this end, K&R list guidelines to ensure that reporting never strays into the realm of interpretive fiction, devoting several paragraphs to elaborating each:
1. Never add anything that was not there.
2. Never deceive the audience.
3. Be transparent as possible about your methods and motives.
4. Rely on your own original reporting.
5. Exercise humility.
Conscience, on the other hand, is a more subtle matter, which K&R approach in a more circumspect manner. The book routinely emphasizes that good journalism fulfills a duty to citizens, rather than to "consumers" or to stockholders. The business of the news must, in other words, stand on the foundation of reporting that is not beholden to interests above that of the public good.
"Still, the idea that journalists serve citizens first remains deeply felt by those who produce the news. The question "For whom do you work?" elicited a particularly strong response among journalists we interviewed. More than 80 percent of them listed "making the reader/listener/viewer your first obligation" as a "core principle of journalism" in a 1999 survey on values by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and the Committee of Concerned Journalists. In separate, open-ended in-depth interviews with developmental psychologists, more than 70 percent of journalists similarly place "audience" as their first loyalty, well above their employer, themselves, their profession, or even their family."
Interestingly, K&R argue that opinion journalism and investigative journalism are a noble part of the journalistic tradition, despite their moral agenda, so long as they retain the emphasis on verifiable accuracy and transparency. According to conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher:
" 'I think it's possible to be an honest journalist and be loyal to a cause. It's not really possible to be an honest journalist and be loyal to a person, a political party, or a faction. Why do I say that? I think it relates to my basic belief that there is some relationship between journalism and one's perception of the truth. Once can believe that certain things, ideas, proposals, would be good for American and can openly state that. But to be loyal to a political party, a person or fiction means that you do not see your primary goal as commitment to speaking the truth to people who are your audience. There's a fundamental conflict of loyalty there.' "
Overall, K&R's book is exhaustively researched, heavy on citation, and brimming with both examples and proposals. It's a solid piece of journalism about the state of journalism up to and in 2001. Its failings stem mainly from the writing style, which varies from excellent to bland and redundant. My instinct is that one of the authors is a better writer than the other, and that they each wrote separate sections of the book. Nevertheless, this is a highly informative book that, despite being a few years out of date, correctly anticipates much of the current state of news culture and news practice.
February 3, 2021
This book had potential, but it never seemed to reach it. I was hoping for a thoughtful critique of journalism and a meditation on the nature of journalism. But it felt more like a document written by a committee, updated every decade to make sure it is staying abreast of the hot topics. Overall, it felt like it was speaking more to the authors rather than to "The Public" which its title claims is one of its targets.
Made it 15%.
Made it 15%.
May 2, 2022
This book was written in the budding internet age and half of what it says about gumshoe reporting is absolutely necessary and the other half has been proven demonstrably false.
November 7, 2023
Very uninteresting.
November 1, 2024
Focusing on American news cycles, this is super informative and found it helpful regarding the new age of media. Although written in 2006, I found many of the issues spoken about still applicable today regarding how every citizen now has the capability to be a journo for a day.
Helpful to think about journalistic responsibility and ethics, balancing with how to engage a reader and the right way to go about it.
Helpful to think about journalistic responsibility and ethics, balancing with how to engage a reader and the right way to go about it.
May 30, 2024
Me ha parecido interesante.
July 12, 2025
Pretty interesting to read as a random guy not a journalist. I think it’s aimed at professional writers more than twitter scrollers, but in that case I would think this is what you’d learn in journalism school anyway..?
January 14, 2022
The title of this book, The Elements of Journalism, gives the impression that it might be a sort of textbook, one you might see in an undergraduate survey course on journalism or a first-year graduate course in a journalism program. Although it might, and in my estimation probably ought to, serve in those capacities, it is not your standard college-level textbook.
What this book does is combine elements of philosophy, theory, and pragmatic common sense in order to present both an ideal of what journalism is and what it ought to do with practical reflections on how it should go about it. Perhaps more than anything else, this book is an argument and a preliminary sketch for the recovery of the journalism--and the public view of journalism--that those over the ages of 35 or 40 remember from a time before Twitter, Facebook, clickbait, and fake news.
With my background in philosophy and political theory, I read this book primarily as an affirmation of the necessity for a democratic society to have a commonly-held epistemological framework. To make a democracy, which is fundamentally based on compromise and cooperation, work properly, citizens and leaders need a way of agreeing on facts and knowledge. Journalism is a key player in that endeavor. To that end, the authors spend the length of the book expanding on ten principles they see as necessary if "journalism is to provide people with the information they need to be free and self-governing" (xxvii). Those ten principles are:
1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.
2. Its first loyalty is to citizens.
3. Its essence is a discipline of verification.
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5. It must serve as a monitor of power.
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.
8. It must present the news in a way that is comprehensive and proportional.
9. Its practitioners have an obligation to exercise their personal conscience.
10. Citizens have rights and responsibilities when it comes to the news as well--even more so as they become producers and editors themselves.
To find out what, exactly, the authors mean by all that, you'll have to read the book. If you are a citizen in the United States in the post-Trump, post-Covid, post-truth environment, you should read it, primarily to fulfill the requirements of principle #10.
What this book does is combine elements of philosophy, theory, and pragmatic common sense in order to present both an ideal of what journalism is and what it ought to do with practical reflections on how it should go about it. Perhaps more than anything else, this book is an argument and a preliminary sketch for the recovery of the journalism--and the public view of journalism--that those over the ages of 35 or 40 remember from a time before Twitter, Facebook, clickbait, and fake news.
With my background in philosophy and political theory, I read this book primarily as an affirmation of the necessity for a democratic society to have a commonly-held epistemological framework. To make a democracy, which is fundamentally based on compromise and cooperation, work properly, citizens and leaders need a way of agreeing on facts and knowledge. Journalism is a key player in that endeavor. To that end, the authors spend the length of the book expanding on ten principles they see as necessary if "journalism is to provide people with the information they need to be free and self-governing" (xxvii). Those ten principles are:
1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.
2. Its first loyalty is to citizens.
3. Its essence is a discipline of verification.
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5. It must serve as a monitor of power.
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.
8. It must present the news in a way that is comprehensive and proportional.
9. Its practitioners have an obligation to exercise their personal conscience.
10. Citizens have rights and responsibilities when it comes to the news as well--even more so as they become producers and editors themselves.
To find out what, exactly, the authors mean by all that, you'll have to read the book. If you are a citizen in the United States in the post-Trump, post-Covid, post-truth environment, you should read it, primarily to fulfill the requirements of principle #10.
Read
July 18, 2007These are tough times for journalism. Newsroom executives' bonuses tend to be based on their company's profit margin. Journalists are constantly jockeying for the time and space necessary to tell their stories as they see fit. Only 47 percent of Americans even read a newspaper. And Time and Newsweek--news magazines, remember?--"were seven times more likely to have the same cover story as People magazine in 1997 than in 1977."
It's no wonder that in 1997, the Committee of Concerned Journalists formed to "engage journalists and the public in a careful examination of what journalism was supposed to be." The Elements of Journalism reports the results of that study, which included 21 public forums (attended by 3,000 people), in-depth interviews with 100 journalists, editorial content studies, and research into the history of journalism. Part of what the committee members learned, they already knew. Journalism is complicated business: journalists are paid by management but work for the citizens; they tend to be self-taught (there is little evidence of mentoring and much disdain for journalism schools); and they need to be objective even when they're not impartial. This has always been the case. But the committee also detected a trend, one abundantly evident to anyone who has tried to find news on the evening TV news: "news was becoming entertainment and entertainment news."
"Unless we can grasp and reclaim the theory of a free press," warn Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, the book's authors, "journalists risk allowing their profession to disappear." Through their discussions with journalists, the Committee of Concerned Journalists defined nine "clear principles" of journalism, which Kovach and Rosenstiel explore in great detail. The first principle is, "Journalism's first obligation is to the truth." The last: "Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience." In between come issues of loyalty, verification, independence, and power monitoring, among others.
Invigorating reading for newsroom interns, jaded reporters, and anyone else who needs to be reminded of the rigorousness, integrity, and meaning of journalism. --Jane Steinberg
It's no wonder that in 1997, the Committee of Concerned Journalists formed to "engage journalists and the public in a careful examination of what journalism was supposed to be." The Elements of Journalism reports the results of that study, which included 21 public forums (attended by 3,000 people), in-depth interviews with 100 journalists, editorial content studies, and research into the history of journalism. Part of what the committee members learned, they already knew. Journalism is complicated business: journalists are paid by management but work for the citizens; they tend to be self-taught (there is little evidence of mentoring and much disdain for journalism schools); and they need to be objective even when they're not impartial. This has always been the case. But the committee also detected a trend, one abundantly evident to anyone who has tried to find news on the evening TV news: "news was becoming entertainment and entertainment news."
"Unless we can grasp and reclaim the theory of a free press," warn Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, the book's authors, "journalists risk allowing their profession to disappear." Through their discussions with journalists, the Committee of Concerned Journalists defined nine "clear principles" of journalism, which Kovach and Rosenstiel explore in great detail. The first principle is, "Journalism's first obligation is to the truth." The last: "Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience." In between come issues of loyalty, verification, independence, and power monitoring, among others.
Invigorating reading for newsroom interns, jaded reporters, and anyone else who needs to be reminded of the rigorousness, integrity, and meaning of journalism. --Jane Steinberg
October 20, 2020
In this day and age of polarization, especially in news agencies, this book is an excellent read on the origins of newspapers, its roots in democratic structures and the advent of technological advances (read printing press) and now the internet which affects its validity and reliability.
In the end, humans have the greatest influence on the use of any informational channel to the public. The issue of what is ethical or how morals are kept or promoted is a bit hazy in this book because it seems to point back to every individual having ethics or needed to be ethical but it never really concludes as to what helps establish moral standards. I think that is an effort to remain "neutral" as journalism has always sought but in our in world today, this stance may not hold water for many people.
As a journalism champion, I love the book because I think it is a call to duty for all journalists and "citizen" journalists to speak out when they see ethical breaches or big conglomerate news agencies forgetting to recall the role of journalism in society, to help citizens make thoughtful, informed decisions that ADD to the betterment of society. Of course, what makes society better is the big question!
In the end, humans have the greatest influence on the use of any informational channel to the public. The issue of what is ethical or how morals are kept or promoted is a bit hazy in this book because it seems to point back to every individual having ethics or needed to be ethical but it never really concludes as to what helps establish moral standards. I think that is an effort to remain "neutral" as journalism has always sought but in our in world today, this stance may not hold water for many people.
As a journalism champion, I love the book because I think it is a call to duty for all journalists and "citizen" journalists to speak out when they see ethical breaches or big conglomerate news agencies forgetting to recall the role of journalism in society, to help citizens make thoughtful, informed decisions that ADD to the betterment of society. Of course, what makes society better is the big question!
May 7, 2025
this book follows the saying, “never use ten words when a hundred will do.” i absolutely DESPISE this book. i’m not normally a fan of nonfiction books, but that’s not the reason i hate it. i have to read this book for school, and even my teacher told us to just skim it because it repeated itself over and over and over. it could’ve easily been 100 pages instead of 345 and had to cut none of the information. the subject it covers and information it provides are intensely interesting, but the book itself is just awful. it is downright inaccessible due to its pretentiousness and repetition. when people say they hate reading, it is because they’re forced to read books like this in school.
or to avoid the same mistake this book made, let me shorten this. this book sucks and if you don’t have to read it, don’t waste your time.
or to avoid the same mistake this book made, let me shorten this. this book sucks and if you don’t have to read it, don’t waste your time.
April 19, 2015
This is an interesting introduction to the issues that face journalism today. With the rise of the Internet, the increasing sense of factionalism, and the trend toward infotainment over hard news, it has become more of a challenge to report the news than ever. The authors of this book guide you through the fundamentals of journalism and discuss how these can be maintained despite current trends.
September 8, 2016
jurnalisme itu praksis daripada teoritis. tetapi sebagai praksis, bukan lalu ia lepas dari prinsip-prinsip ideal yang mengerangkainya. buku ini memaparkan pengalaman, kegelisahan, dan permenungan tentang praktik jurnalisme.
October 31, 2012
Very well written, well thought out plan for journalists. It was very useful in my beginning journalism class (university level).
January 16, 2014
FINALLY.
March 11, 2016
Read this book and start demanding better journalism.
January 11, 2022
Het is kapot goed maar kapot moeilijk
Displaying 1 - 30 of 175 reviews