Jay Rosen interviews Herbert Gans about Journalism: who gets to decide who gets to decide what's news, objectivity, and multiperspectivity.#

The idea of multiperspectival journalism:

The solo perspective also leads to rhetoric about that collectivity, "the nation." If you believe, however that journalists should also inform citizens about such subjects as the country's political diversity, the politically relevant activities and ideas of their fellow citizens, and what issues are concerning these citizens (which our elected representatives also need to know) then journalists need to be multiperspectival: to encompass all the important viewpoints from people with different values, interests, incomes, etc.

On journalism schools and how values that are implicit in the Religion of Journalism are transferred:

Well, academics are not and do not have to be practitioners and so can suggest what might be rethought and changed in the profession-- and indeed, that is, as I see it, one of their roles in the division of labor between newsroom and classroom. They should not be required or expected just to teach the status quo to the next generation.

Jay Rosen wonders how coverage of the Iraq War might have been different if a multiperspectival approach was taken, and what effect this would have on the country.

Whether such news would have changed administration policy or the war is dubious, for we are currently governed by an ideological party which sees only its own perspective while demonizing all others. Moreover, the power of the news and the ability of journalists to affect society is limited, sporadic and unpredictable. But the amount and diversity of relevant information would have been greater, and who knows what subsequent and indirect impact it might have had.

Herbert Gans closes with a statement about Howard Dean and the Internet campaigns:

However, I see a campaign as at best an introduction for citizens' democracy; the real thing can only take place when there is a government ready to make decisions on the big issues. And then it has to decide which citizens to favor at the expense of others when necessary-- and when to put citizens behind not only the national interest but also the demands of the economically vital (like those who create jobs) and the politically powerful.

But there is one complication even around the exciting events surrounding Dean's Web-related constituents: the fact that the people who are being active via the web are not representative; as always, they are the better educated citizenry-- the same people that always get involved the moment a new form of participation becomes available. (Usually they are also the more affluent, though maybe not in Dean's case.)

And they are the ones who vote as well, which is why I said in the book that we are moving toward an upscale democracy. This is obviously not Dean's fault, but at some point it has to be addressed. In a proper citizens' democracy, the less educated, less affluent, and the non voting non participating people also have to be drawn in or at least consulted and represented, and all that is very difficult.