Contradictions in news epistemology: how modernism failed mainstream US journalism

Abstract

The rise of interpretive news opened a gap between journalism and what people need from news. Modern journalism aims to provide a mature explanation for what happened, insight into what will come next, and a repeatable performance by reporters. With events placed in context, the public can pursue future action based on expert reporting. But US news has mainly proved callow, fallible, and hasty, despite a century of change. Reflections on a project tracking 125 years of news content suggest that flawed news opens more space for engagement than modern journalism can offer. Realism in news confronts the main problems of partisanism, sensationalism, and cynicism. Mainstream journalists resist lurid or partisan coverage to build public trust, but again appear to have failed, especially in the digital era. The implication is that all three could spur vigorous citizenship, partisanism teaching consensus-building, sensationalism teaching moderation, and untrustworthiness teaching self-reliance. The crisis of journalism seems to accompany perils for the people, but modern news at its height of power likely dampened public engagement, a danger itself. Only a different news philosophy can accommodate bottom-up knowledge for audiences resisting top-down journalism. Despite nostalgia for modernism, another news philosophy will not mark an end to democracy.