A reporter's civic duty

As a reporter covering state government in Jefferson City, I learned many valuable things about writing a readable and effective story. I interviewed the “bigwigs” of the Missouri legislature on a daily basis, and Matt Blunt would even call me by name when I raised my hand in a press conference. It was kind of a thrill – being in a historic building and recording the goings-on made me feel important and quite mature. However, after about a month of this, I began to realize my writing had become completely formulaic: cover the meeting/issue on the floor or in committee, talk to the proponent, opponent, and maybe an activist or expert or two. While my stories were balanced, they lacked much depth – very much he said-she said reporting.
Talking about civic journalism in class got me thinking about the reporting stint at the Capitol building. I think I would have found the experience much more rewarding if I had gone outside of the grand edifice and spoken to more people who may not have known the ins and outs of the legislative jargon, procedures and politicking. This is not to say that the capitol beat can’t be an exhilarating and a constantly changing experience, but I think it would have been a lot more meaningful if I had talked to more people.
I did talk to a lot of citizens who came to Jefferson City to have their voices heard, but these were people who wanted to have their voices heard. This is not to say that these citizens aren’t ordinary people – but they are people who keep up with what’s going on in the state. What if I had talked to someone who had no clue about the changes that were being made? That perhaps would have given a whole new layer of complexity and depth to my government reporting – after all it is in theory the people who are being represented in the legislature.
I think it is a common ailment of news people to forget about the “normal” people – it’s much easier to talk to people who know how to effectively articulate their opinions – especially when you have a good idea of what their opinion is. After a few weeks of working in Jeff City, I knew exactly who to go to if a civil liberty was being threatened, or who to speak with if big business was under fire. I didn’t like that aspect of my 6-month reporting experience, and perhaps contributed to my shift from writing to visual journalism.
Civic journalism need not mean ignoring the higher-ups, but simply acknowledging people who are affected or who are experiencing the issue at hand. These are the people we want to read our newspapers and watch our TV shows, and yet they aren’t usually well-represented in reporting. Including them in the conversation is perhaps a throwback to the days of community gatherings and discussions of topics. While the old adage of “shoe leather reporting” may be changing with technology, the skills of asking questions and engaging the average people in conversations about their views and their take on the world shouldn’t change.
While I know that giving a voice to the people is a noble goal for any journalist – we have to be careful not to cross the line and become entwined in the issues – unable to separate observational commentary from personal feelings. While getting emotionally invested in a topic can often result in well-written and in-depth reporting, but becoming too attached to the subject matter (or the people) is overdoing the concept of civic journalism. The reporter becomes a part of the story, rather than the passive observer of it. I don’t mean to discount personal accounts journalists write – some of them are incredibly powerful – but these stories should be labeled as personal accounts, otherwise we are trying to persuade the public instead of informing them.