A First Reaction to Wahl-Jorgensen

I would agree with Wahl-Jorgensen in the sense that we journalists are virtually “news-tour-guides” for the general public. It is up to those in this profession to collect interesting news, chase exciting leads, and cohesively and eloquently report on our findings. After reading the brief history on journalism and letters to the editor, a clear evolution from partisan and class based news production and consumption can be analyzed. The validity of the public’s offerings were eventually seen as an outgrowth of inevitable deliberation, which is yet another action that this profession promotes. “In the deliberative vision, citizens engage in political discussion not just because they want their own opinion to be heard, but because they are willing to let themselves be persuaded by others” (20). I do not agree with the author in the sense that we see no reason to listen to the public. We are the nerves that stimulate conversation throughout our national or state-wide body. Wahl-Jorgensen advocates that journalism not only must become actively involved in their respective communities, but “must seek to actively and progressively improve citizen participation” (25). Through both discussion and observation, journalists can turn a focused ear onto what the public craves. If we didn’t listen, our motives would be compromised, and our goals would prove unpromising.

In reaction to the second quote, I gathered that the author was essentially advocating the history and preservation of objectivity. The penny press, at a time when news obviously wasn’t so readily available at every turn, every touch, and every mouse click, elitists and other wealthy members of social authority were now not the only ones reaching for a paper. The common people not only wanted a chance to read, but a chance to respond and have a say in whatever matters they deemed important and influential. This new means of selling news to a larger audience demanded a journalist’s duty to remain neutral on various perspectives. This lesson is very valuable, and still holds water in today’s news production business. Our job is not to argue a point of view or belief; “[n]ews stories came to be written by professionals versed in the emerging genre of objective journalism. Opinion came to be seen as a problematic category” (39). I would argue that our opinion stops after we deem a story worthy of print, for our articles are precisely the facets through which we educate our readers and in essence “serve the public” (56).