Back in the day, it was all about pornography. “I know it when I see it”, United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward argued in the ground-breaking verdict Jacobellis vs. Ohio in 1964, a ruling that settled much about what was legal and what was not in matters of show and tell.
“I know it when I see it” also seems to be a common response when it comes to quality journalism. Many of the debates we are having about the media these days often zero in on the question of what quality journalism actually is. And at first glance, the answer seems to be an easy one. But the deeper one digs, the fuzzier the concept becomes. And why does it even matter?
What Do We Mean By Quality?
It does because journalism is in trouble. Traditional business models are being rocked and so is trust, while the risks for journalists are rising even in Europe. Increasingly, new talent seems to be opting out for these reasons. If the trend continues, the survival of the profession will be at stake.
This is why initiatives to support quality journalism are mushrooming. The Council of Europe is running an expert committee working on guidelines for member states (the author of this text is a member). Journalism trust initiatives and projects are trying to help, too. This is where the quality debate kicks in: If we want to save journalism, shouldn’t we focus our energy and resources on the high-end, high-quality part? Maybe – but where does the high-end begin?
If we want to save journalism, shouldn’t we focus our energy and resources on the high-end, high-quality part?
There are quite a few members of the wider journalism community who would, for example, like to deny tabloid journalism any support. “Where is the quality?”, they ask. Where is the value added when reporting about Meghan Markel’s possible pregnancy outfits, or in articles about the likelihood of an alien visit from outer space? Where, they ask, is the quality in a gruesome and overly detailed report of some fatal accident where even the bereaved haven’t had a chance to hear all the details in advance? Others opine that fashion reporting can impossibly be called quality journalism. At best, some say, this kind of content is justified if it pays for “the real stuff”.
What Is “The Real Stuff”?
But what is the real stuff then? Is it only political or business reporting, or investigations of any kind? What about sports reporting, food journalism, or the more entertaining parts of the culture section – and where, by the way, does “quality” culture begin?
It is here, where it becomes obvious that defining what is and is not “quality journalism” is not only an incredibly challenging task. It is also a slippery slope that can lead to all kinds of abuse. Authoritarian regimes, for instance, won’t find it hard to tell you what quality is from their point of view: certainly nothing that involves challenging those in power. And you don’t even have to go back as far as to Hitler-Germany’s book burnings. Viktor Orbán’s decision to ban gender studies in the name of quality is a more recent example. You can bet that we won’t see much balanced reporting on gender issues from Orbán-controlled media in the future. The lesson in this is: defining quality along the lines of content opens the door for censorship. So how can quality be defined without tapping into this trap?
Quality Is About The Process, Not Only The End Result
There is only one solution: The term quality journalism needs to be separated from single pieces of content. Everyone with newsroom experience in high-quality news organisations would agree that even here, low-quality content occasionally slips through. I’m not even talking about misinformation, but rather about the kind of copy-and-paste stuff put together hastily to meet a deadline or to make a boss happy. To be honest, there is plenty of bad journalism in high-quality publications.
“The censored press remains bad, even if it brings forth good products … The free press remains good, even if it brings forth bad products.” – Karl Marx
Instead of being associated with an award-winning story, the term quality should be tied to the processes that can lead to the same: reporting on the ground, consulting a second or third source, having a second or third pair of eyes editing a story, using relevant data, being independent of business interests, sporting a pressure-proof fact-checking process, providing transparency in dealing with factual mistakes and bad journalistic judgement, holding up the bar in talent recruitment and training – and nourishing a culture that is ready to scrutinise these processes. Making sure that a diversity of social backgrounds and viewpoints are represented in the newsroom would take the quality to an even higher level. Looking at it this way, fashion reporting can indeed be quality journalism, if it follows these procedures, rather than writing puff pieces.
Ultimately, journalism is about helping citizens to make their decisions and form their opinions in all matters of life, not just in politics or economics. It is about holding power to account, about lifting the curtain, about explaining and portraying the world. And it is about the ambition–and obligation–to make these things interesting. Without an audience, journalism won’t achieve any of these goals.
We Need A Powerful Corrective
It goes without saying that size matters in all this. The bigger the organisation, the more of these standards can be implemented. A three-person newsroom cannot, for example, afford a fact-checking department. And yet, the proper collection and verification of facts will still be at the core of what they are doing.
The powerful need to be held accountable by a powerful corrective. This corrective can only be a collective, operating under procedures that stand the test of credibility.
What about the lone blogger then, trying to raise her or his voice above the noise? Do they deserve the same protections and support quality journalism is asking for? Not quite. A blogger is protected by freedom of speech rights just as any other individual. But just writing, recording or filming something and publishing it on the web cannot qualify as the kind of institutionalised journalism any democracy should cherish and uphold.
The powerful need to be held accountable by a powerful corrective. This corrective can only be a collective, operating under procedures that stand the test of credibility. In the digital world there is much talk about the wisdom of the crowd, but in the end, the mechanisms of this world are about separating the crowd into individuals. Journalism stands as a force to counter that separation. It needs to remain and be supported as an institution.
You might also be interested in Charlie Beckett’s What Is ‘Quality’ Journalism?
Opinions expressed on this website are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views, policies or positions of the EJO.
Sign up for the EJO’s regular monthly newsletter or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
In Institutions We Trust: What Is Quality Journalism?
November 5, 2018 • Comment, Ethics and Quality, Recent • by Alexandra Borchardt
© Pixino
Back in the day, it was all about pornography. “I know it when I see it”, United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward argued in the ground-breaking verdict Jacobellis vs. Ohio in 1964, a ruling that settled much about what was legal and what was not in matters of show and tell.
“I know it when I see it” also seems to be a common response when it comes to quality journalism. Many of the debates we are having about the media these days often zero in on the question of what quality journalism actually is. And at first glance, the answer seems to be an easy one. But the deeper one digs, the fuzzier the concept becomes. And why does it even matter?
What Do We Mean By Quality?
It does because journalism is in trouble. Traditional business models are being rocked and so is trust, while the risks for journalists are rising even in Europe. Increasingly, new talent seems to be opting out for these reasons. If the trend continues, the survival of the profession will be at stake.
This is why initiatives to support quality journalism are mushrooming. The Council of Europe is running an expert committee working on guidelines for member states (the author of this text is a member). Journalism trust initiatives and projects are trying to help, too. This is where the quality debate kicks in: If we want to save journalism, shouldn’t we focus our energy and resources on the high-end, high-quality part? Maybe – but where does the high-end begin?
If we want to save journalism, shouldn’t we focus our energy and resources on the high-end, high-quality part?
There are quite a few members of the wider journalism community who would, for example, like to deny tabloid journalism any support. “Where is the quality?”, they ask. Where is the value added when reporting about Meghan Markel’s possible pregnancy outfits, or in articles about the likelihood of an alien visit from outer space? Where, they ask, is the quality in a gruesome and overly detailed report of some fatal accident where even the bereaved haven’t had a chance to hear all the details in advance? Others opine that fashion reporting can impossibly be called quality journalism. At best, some say, this kind of content is justified if it pays for “the real stuff”.
What Is “The Real Stuff”?
But what is the real stuff then? Is it only political or business reporting, or investigations of any kind? What about sports reporting, food journalism, or the more entertaining parts of the culture section – and where, by the way, does “quality” culture begin?
It is here, where it becomes obvious that defining what is and is not “quality journalism” is not only an incredibly challenging task. It is also a slippery slope that can lead to all kinds of abuse. Authoritarian regimes, for instance, won’t find it hard to tell you what quality is from their point of view: certainly nothing that involves challenging those in power. And you don’t even have to go back as far as to Hitler-Germany’s book burnings. Viktor Orbán’s decision to ban gender studies in the name of quality is a more recent example. You can bet that we won’t see much balanced reporting on gender issues from Orbán-controlled media in the future. The lesson in this is: defining quality along the lines of content opens the door for censorship. So how can quality be defined without tapping into this trap?
Quality Is About The Process, Not Only The End Result
There is only one solution: The term quality journalism needs to be separated from single pieces of content. Everyone with newsroom experience in high-quality news organisations would agree that even here, low-quality content occasionally slips through. I’m not even talking about misinformation, but rather about the kind of copy-and-paste stuff put together hastily to meet a deadline or to make a boss happy. To be honest, there is plenty of bad journalism in high-quality publications.
“The censored press remains bad, even if it brings forth good products … The free press remains good, even if it brings forth bad products.” – Karl Marx
Instead of being associated with an award-winning story, the term quality should be tied to the processes that can lead to the same: reporting on the ground, consulting a second or third source, having a second or third pair of eyes editing a story, using relevant data, being independent of business interests, sporting a pressure-proof fact-checking process, providing transparency in dealing with factual mistakes and bad journalistic judgement, holding up the bar in talent recruitment and training – and nourishing a culture that is ready to scrutinise these processes. Making sure that a diversity of social backgrounds and viewpoints are represented in the newsroom would take the quality to an even higher level. Looking at it this way, fashion reporting can indeed be quality journalism, if it follows these procedures, rather than writing puff pieces.
Ultimately, journalism is about helping citizens to make their decisions and form their opinions in all matters of life, not just in politics or economics. It is about holding power to account, about lifting the curtain, about explaining and portraying the world. And it is about the ambition–and obligation–to make these things interesting. Without an audience, journalism won’t achieve any of these goals.
We Need A Powerful Corrective
It goes without saying that size matters in all this. The bigger the organisation, the more of these standards can be implemented. A three-person newsroom cannot, for example, afford a fact-checking department. And yet, the proper collection and verification of facts will still be at the core of what they are doing.
The powerful need to be held accountable by a powerful corrective. This corrective can only be a collective, operating under procedures that stand the test of credibility.
What about the lone blogger then, trying to raise her or his voice above the noise? Do they deserve the same protections and support quality journalism is asking for? Not quite. A blogger is protected by freedom of speech rights just as any other individual. But just writing, recording or filming something and publishing it on the web cannot qualify as the kind of institutionalised journalism any democracy should cherish and uphold.
The powerful need to be held accountable by a powerful corrective. This corrective can only be a collective, operating under procedures that stand the test of credibility. In the digital world there is much talk about the wisdom of the crowd, but in the end, the mechanisms of this world are about separating the crowd into individuals. Journalism stands as a force to counter that separation. It needs to remain and be supported as an institution.
You might also be interested in Charlie Beckett’s What Is ‘Quality’ Journalism?
Opinions expressed on this website are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views, policies or positions of the EJO.
Sign up for the EJO’s regular monthly newsletter or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
Tags: Attacks on the Press, Future of Journalism, Journalism, media, quality
About the Author
Alexandra Borchardt
Related Posts
The media revolution in Afghanistan
When The Pressure Becomes Too Great – Why...
Five Things You Need To Know About Journalism’s...
Nominations For The 2019 Free Media Awards
The new tool helping outlets measure the impact of investigative...
October 22, 2023
Audit of British Tory MP demonstrates the power of investigative...
September 13, 2023
The impact of competing tech regulations in the EU, US...
September 12, 2023
Enough ‘doomer’ news! How ‘solutions journalism’ can turn climate anxiety...
August 31, 2023
Student perspective: How Western media embraced TikTok to reach Gen...
August 19, 2023
Lessons from Spain: Why outlets need to unite to make...
July 26, 2023
INTERVIEW: Self-censorship and untold stories in Uganda
June 23, 2023
Student Perspective: Job insecurity at the root of poor mental...
June 9, 2023
The battle against disinformation and Russian propaganda in Central and...
June 1, 2023
Opinion: Why Poland’s rise on the Press Freedom Index is...
May 17, 2023
From ChatGPT to crime: how journalists are shaping the debate...
April 25, 2023
Student perspective: Supporting the journalists who face hopelessness, trauma and...
April 13, 2023
Interview: Why young people in Bosnia and Herzegovina feel they...
March 29, 2023
Humanitarian reporting: Why coverage of the Turkey and Syria earthquakes...
March 8, 2023
How women journalists in Burkina Faso are making a difference...
January 11, 2023
Dispelling the ‘green’ AI myth: the true environmental cost of...
December 29, 2022
New publication highlights the importance of the Black press in...
December 12, 2022
The enduring press freedom challenge: how Japan’s exclusive press clubs...
September 26, 2022
How Journalism is joining forces with AI to fight online...
September 14, 2022
How cash deals between big tech and Australian news outlets...
September 1, 2022
Panel debate: Should journalists be activists?
August 19, 2022
Review: The dynamics of disinformation in developing countries
August 9, 2022
Interview: Are social media platforms helping or hindering the mandate...
July 15, 2022
Policy brief from UNESCO recommends urgent interventions to protect quality...
July 5, 2022
EJO’s statement on Ukraine
February 28, 2022
Study shows European mainstream media ignore humanitarian crises in the...
May 22, 2024
Journalism students see an industry in crisis. It’s time to...
April 18, 2024
Interview: How a summer school is sowing seeds for strong...
March 14, 2024
AI advances have left news publishers fearing for their business...
February 23, 2024
Big comeback for organisation providing invaluable networks to journalism students
January 31, 2024
The new tool helping outlets measure the impact of investigative...
October 22, 2023
Audit of British Tory MP demonstrates the power of investigative...
September 13, 2023
The impact of competing tech regulations in the EU, US...
September 12, 2023
Enough ‘doomer’ news! How ‘solutions journalism’ can turn climate anxiety...
August 31, 2023
Student perspective: How Western media embraced TikTok to reach Gen...
August 19, 2023
Lessons from Spain: Why outlets need to unite to make...
July 26, 2023
INTERVIEW: Self-censorship and untold stories in Uganda
June 23, 2023
Student Perspective: Job insecurity at the root of poor mental...
June 9, 2023
The battle against disinformation and Russian propaganda in Central and...
June 1, 2023
Opinion: Why Poland’s rise on the Press Freedom Index is...
May 17, 2023
From ChatGPT to crime: how journalists are shaping the debate...
April 25, 2023
Student perspective: Supporting the journalists who face hopelessness, trauma and...
April 13, 2023
Interview: Why young people in Bosnia and Herzegovina feel they...
March 29, 2023
Humanitarian reporting: Why coverage of the Turkey and Syria earthquakes...
March 8, 2023
How women journalists in Burkina Faso are making a difference...
January 11, 2023
Dispelling the ‘green’ AI myth: the true environmental cost of...
December 29, 2022
New publication highlights the importance of the Black press in...
December 12, 2022
The enduring press freedom challenge: how Japan’s exclusive press clubs...
September 26, 2022
How Journalism is joining forces with AI to fight online...
September 14, 2022
How cash deals between big tech and Australian news outlets...
September 1, 2022
Panel debate: Should journalists be activists?
August 19, 2022
Review: The dynamics of disinformation in developing countries
August 9, 2022
Interview: Are social media platforms helping or hindering the mandate...
July 15, 2022
Policy brief from UNESCO recommends urgent interventions to protect quality...
July 5, 2022
EJO’s statement on Ukraine
February 28, 2022
13 Things Newspapers Can Learn From Buzzfeed
April 10, 2015
How Data Journalism Is Taught In Europe
January 19, 2016
Why Journalism Needs Scientists (Now)
May 13, 2017
Digitalisation: Changing The Relationship Between Public Relations And Journalism
August 6, 2015
The Lemon Dealers
June 27, 2007
The new tool helping outlets measure the impact of investigative...
October 22, 2023
Audit of British Tory MP demonstrates the power of investigative...
September 13, 2023
The impact of competing tech regulations in the EU, US...
September 12, 2023
Enough ‘doomer’ news! How ‘solutions journalism’ can turn climate anxiety...
August 31, 2023
Student perspective: How Western media embraced TikTok to reach Gen...
August 19, 2023
Lessons from Spain: Why outlets need to unite to make...
July 26, 2023
INTERVIEW: Self-censorship and untold stories in Uganda
June 23, 2023
Student Perspective: Job insecurity at the root of poor mental...
June 9, 2023
The battle against disinformation and Russian propaganda in Central and...
June 1, 2023
Opinion: Why Poland’s rise on the Press Freedom Index is...
May 17, 2023
From ChatGPT to crime: how journalists are shaping the debate...
April 25, 2023
Student perspective: Supporting the journalists who face hopelessness, trauma and...
April 13, 2023
Interview: Why young people in Bosnia and Herzegovina feel they...
March 29, 2023
Humanitarian reporting: Why coverage of the Turkey and Syria earthquakes...
March 8, 2023
How women journalists in Burkina Faso are making a difference...
January 11, 2023
Dispelling the ‘green’ AI myth: the true environmental cost of...
December 29, 2022
New publication highlights the importance of the Black press in...
December 12, 2022
The enduring press freedom challenge: how Japan’s exclusive press clubs...
September 26, 2022
How Journalism is joining forces with AI to fight online...
September 14, 2022
How cash deals between big tech and Australian news outlets...
September 1, 2022
Panel debate: Should journalists be activists?
August 19, 2022
Review: The dynamics of disinformation in developing countries
August 9, 2022
Interview: Are social media platforms helping or hindering the mandate...
July 15, 2022
Policy brief from UNESCO recommends urgent interventions to protect quality...
July 5, 2022
EJO’s statement on Ukraine
February 28, 2022
The Order of Journalists in Italy: An Outdated Institution?
October 17, 2011
Apple iPad Hype
February 4, 2010
“My Oh My, You’re Not Looking So Good Today!”
April 1, 2006
News Consumption And Media Trust In Ukraine
December 6, 2018
What is a Journalism Education For?
June 13, 2014
Operated by
Funded by
Newsletter
Find us on Facebook
Archives
Links