HISTORY OF JOURNALISH

Main article: History of journalism

When it comes to the history of journalism, everything starts with the invention of the movable type printing press by Johannes Gutenberg in the 15th century. However, while Bibles and other books were among the first things produced by Gutenberg's press, it wasn't until the 17th century that the first newspapers were distributed in Europe.
The first regularly published paper came out twice a week in England, as did the first daily, The Daily Courant.
A New Profession in a Fledgling Nation
In America, the history of journalism is inextricably intertwined with the history of the country itself. The first newspaper in the American colonies - Benjamin Harris's Publick Occurrences both Foreighn and Domestick - was published in 1690 but immediately shut down for not having a required license.
Interestingly, Harris' newspaper employed an early form of reader participation. The paper was printed on three sheets of stationery-size paper and the fourth page was left blank so that readers could add their own news, then pass it on to someone else.
Many newspapers of the time were not objective or neutral in tone like the papers we know today. Rather, they were fiercely partisan publications that editorialized against the tyranny of the British government, which in turn did its best to crack down on the press.
An Important Case
In 1735, Peter Zenger, publisher of the New York Weekly Journal, was arrested and put on trial for allegedly printing libelous things about the British government. But his lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, argued that the articles in question could not be libelous because they were based on fact.
Zenger was found not guilty, and the case established the precedent that a statement, even if negative, cannot be libelous if it is true. This landmark case helped establish the foundation of a free press in the then-fledgling nation.


The 1800s
There were already several hundred newspapers in the U.S. by 1800, and that number would grow dramatically as the century wore on. Early on, papers were still very political and partisan in tone, but gradually they started to become more than simply mouthpieces for their publishers.
Newspapers were also growing as an industry. In 1833 Benjamin Day opened the New York Sun and created the "Penny Press." Day's cheap papers, filled with sensational content and aimed at a working class audience, were a huge hit. With huge increases in circulation and larger printing presses to meet the demand, newspapers became a mass medium.
This period also saw the establishment of more prestigious newspapers that had begun to incorporate the kinds of journalistic standards that we know today. One such paper, started in 1851 by George Jones and Henry Raymond, made a point of featuring quality reporting and writing. The name of the paper? The New York Daily Times, which later became The New York Times.
The Civil War
The Civil War era brought technical advances like photography to the nation's great papers. And the advent of the telegraph enabled Civil War correspondents to transmit stories back to their newspapers' home offices with unprecedented speed.
But the telegraph lines often went down, so reporters learned to put the most important information in their stories into the first few lines of the transmission. This led to the development of the tight, inverted-pyramid style of writing that we associate with newspapers today.
This period also saw the formation of The Associated Press wire service, which started as a cooperative venture between several large newspapers wanting to share news that arrived by telegraph from Europe. Today the AP is the world's oldest and largest news agency.
Hearst, Pulitzer & Yellow Journalism
The 1890s saw the rise of publishing moguls William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer. Both owned papers in New York and elsewhere, and both employed a sensationalistic kind of journalism designed to lure as many readers as possible. The term "yellow journalism" dates from this era; it comes from the name of a comic strip - "The Yellow Kid" - published by Pulitzer.
The 20th Century - And Beyond
Newspapers thrived into the mid-20th century but with the advent of radio and then television, newspaper circulation began a slow but steady decline.
That decline has only been hastened by the advent of the internet, and the early years of the 21st century have seen the newspaper industry enter a kind of death spiral, with layoffs, bankruptcies and even the total shutdown of some publications being seen nationwide.
Still, even in an age of 24/7 cable news and thousands of websites, newspapers maintain their status as the best source for in-depth and investigative news coverage.
The value of newspaper journalism is perhaps best demonstrated by the Watergate scandal, in which two reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, did a series of investigative articles about corruption and nefarious doings in the Nixon White House. Their stories, along with ones done by other publications, led to Nixon's resignation.
The future of print journalism as an industry remains unclear. On the internet, blogging about current events has become enormously popular, but critics charge that most blogs are filled with gossip and opinions, not real reporting.
There are hopeful signs online. Some websites are returning to old-school journalism, such as VoiceofSanDiego.org, which highlights investigative reporting, and GlobalPost.com, which focuses on foreign news.
But while the quality of print journalism remains high, it's clear that newspapers as an industry must find a new business model in order to survive well into the 21st century.

Other styles

Newspapers and periodicals often contain features (see Feature style) often composed by journalists who specialize in this form.
Feature articles are usually longer forms of writing; more attention is paid to style than in straight news reports. They are often combined with photographs, drawings or other "art." They may also be highlighted by typographic effects or colors.
Writing features can be more demanding than writing straight news stories, because while a journalist must apply the same amount of effort to accurately gather and report the facts of the story, the journalist should also write it to be creative and interesting. The lead (or first few paragraphs of the story; see Nut graph) must grab the reader's attention and still accurately embody the ideas of the article.
In the last half of the 20th century, the line blurred between straight news reporting and feature writing. Journalists and publications today experiment with different approaches to writing. Tom Wolfe, Gay Talese, Hunter S. Thompson are some of these examples. Urban and alternative newsweeklies go even further in blurring the distinction, and many magazines include more features than straight news.
Some television news shows experimented with alternative formats, and many TV shows that claimed to be news shows were not considered as such by traditional critics, because their content and methods do not adhere to accepted journalistic standards. National Public Radio, on the other hand, is considered a good example of mixing straight news reporting, features, and combinations of the two, usually meeting standards of high quality. Other U.S. public radio news organizations have achieved similar results.

Role of journalism

Main article: Freedom of the press

In the 1920s, as modern journalism was just taking form, writer Walter Lippmann and American philosopher John Dewey debated over the role of journalism in a democracy. Their differing philosophies still characterize a debate about the role of journalism in society and the nation-state.
Lippmann understood that journalism's role at the time was to act as a mediator or translator between the public and policy making elites. The journalist became the middleman. When elites spoke, journalists listened and recorded the information, distilled it, and passed it on to the public for their consumption. His reasoning behind this was that the public was not in a position to deconstruct the growing and complex flurry of information present in modern society, and so an intermediary was needed to filter news for the masses. Lippman put it this way: The public is not smart enough to understand complicated, political issues. Furthermore, the public was too consumed with their daily lives to care about complex public policy. Therefore the public needed someone to interpret the decisions or concerns of the elite to make the information plain and simple. That was the role of journalists. Lippmann believed that the public would affect the decision-making of the elite with their vote. In the meantime, the elite (i.e. politicians, policy makers, bureaucrats, scientists, etc.) would keep the business of power running. In Lippman's world, the journalist's role was to inform the public of what the elites were doing. It was also to act as a watchdog over the elites, as the public had the final say with their votes. Effectively that kept the public at the bottom of the power chain, catching the flow of information that is handed down from experts/elites.
Dewey, on the other hand, believed the public was not only capable of understanding the issues created or responded to by the elite, it was in the public forum that decisions should be made after discussion and debate. When issues were thoroughly vetted, then the best ideas would bubble to the surface. Dewey believed journalists should do more than simply pass on information. He believed they should weigh the consequences of the policies being enacted. Over time, his idea has been implemented in various degrees, and is more commonly known as "community journalism".
This concept of community journalism is at the centre of new developments in journalism. In this new paradigm, journalists are able to engage citizens and the experts/elites in the proposition and generation of content. It's important to note that while there is an assumption of equality, Dewey still celebrates expertise. Dewey believes the shared knowledge of many is far superior to a single individual's knowledge. Experts and scholars are welcome in Dewey's framework, but there is not the hierarchical structure present in Lippman's understanding of journalism and society. According to Dewey, conversation, debate, and dialogue lie at the heart of a democracy.
While Lippman's journalistic philosophy might be more acceptable to government leaders, Dewey's approach is a better description of how many journalists see their role in society, and, in turn, how much of society expects journalists to function. Americans, for example, may criticize some of the excesses committed by journalists, but they tend to expect journalists to serve as watchdogs on government, businesses and actors, enabling people to make informed decisions on the issues of the time.

[edit] The elements of journalism

According to The Elements of Journalism, a book by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, there are nine elements of journalism.^[2] In order for a journalist to fulfill their duty of providing the people with the information, they need to be free and self-governing. They must follow these guidelines:

1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.
2. Its first loyalty is to the citizens.
3. Its essence is discipline of verification.
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
7. It must strive to make the news significant, interesting, and relevant.
8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.

In the April 2007 edition of the book,^[3] they added the last element, the rights and responsibilities of citizens to make it a total of ten elements of journalism.

[edit] Professional and ethical standards

Main Article: Journalism ethics and standards
In the UK, all newspapers are bound by the Code of Practice of the Press Complaints Commission.^[4] This includes points like respecting people's privacy and ensuring accuracy. However, the Media Standards Trust has criticised the PCC, claiming it needs to be radically changed to secure public trust of newspapers.^[5]
This is in stark contrast to the media climate prior to the 20th Century, where the media market was dominated by smaller newspapers and pamphleteers who usually had an overt and often radical agenda, with no presumption of balance or objectivity.

[edit] Failing to uphold standards

Such a code of conduct can, in the real world, be difficult to uphold consistently. Journalists who believe they are being fair or objective may give biased accounts—by reporting selectively, trusting too much to anecdote, or giving a partial explanation of actions. (See Media bias.) Even in routine reporting, bias can creep into a story through a reporter's choice of facts to summarize, or through failure to check enough sources, hear and report dissenting voices, or seek fresh perspectives.
A news organization's budget inevitably reflects decision-making about what news to cover, for what audience, and in what depth. Those decisions may reflect conscious or unconscious bias. When budgets are cut, editors may sacrifice reporters in distant news bureaus, reduce the number of staff assigned to low-income areas, or wipe entire communities from the publication's zone of interest.
Publishers, owners and other corporate executives, especially advertising sales executives, can try to use their powers over journalists to influence how news is reported and published. Journalists usually rely on top management to create and maintain a "firewall" between the news and other departments in a news organization to prevent undue influence on the news department. One journalism magazine, Columbia Journalism Review, has made it a practice to reveal examples of executives who try to influence news coverage, of executives who do not abuse their powers over journalists, and of journalists who resist such pressures.
Self-censorship is a growing problem in journalism, particularly in covering countries that sharply restrict press freedom. As commercial pressure in the media marketplace grows, media organizations are loath to lose access to high-profile countries by producing unflattering stories. For example, CNN admitted that it had practiced self-censorship in covering the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq in order to ensure continued access after the regime had thrown out other media. CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour also complained of self-censorship during the invasion of Iraq due to the fear of alienating key audiences in the US. There are claims that the media are also avoiding covering stories about repression and human rights violations by the Israeli and Iranian regimes in order to maintain a presence in those countries.

[edit] Legal status

Main article: Freedom of the press

Journalists around the world often write about the governments in their nations, and those governments have widely varying policies and practices towards journalists, which control what they can research and write, and what press organizations can publish. Many Western governments guarantee the freedom of the press, and do relatively little to restrict press rights and freedoms, while other nations severely restrict what journalists can research and/or publish.
Journalists in many nations have enjoyed some privileges not enjoyed by members of the general public, including better access to public events, crime scenes and press conferences, and to extended interviews with public officials, celebrities and others in the public eye. These privileges are available because of the perceived power of the press to turn public opinion for or against governments, their officials and policies, as well as the perception that the press often represents their consumers. These privileges extend from the legal rights of journalists but are not guaranteed by those rights. Sometimes government officials may attempt to punish individual journalists who irk them by denying them some of these privileges extended to other journalists.
Nations or jurisdictions that formally license journalists may confer special privileges and responsibilities along with those licenses, but in the United States the tradition of an independent press has avoided any imposition of government-controlled examinations or licensing.^{[citation needed]} Some of the states have explicit shield laws that protect journalists from some forms of government inquiry, but those statutes' definitions of "journalist" were often based on access to printing presses and broadcast towers. A national shield law has been proposed.
In some nations, journalists are directly employed, controlled or censored by their governments. In other nations, governments who may claim to guarantee press rights actually intimidate journalists with threats of arrest, destruction or seizure of property (especially the means of production and dissemination of news content), torture or murder.
Journalists who elect to cover conflicts, whether wars between nations or insurgencies within nations, often give up any expectation of protection by government, if not giving up their rights to protection by government. Journalists who are captured or detained during a conflict are expected to be treated as civilians and to be released to their national government.

[edit] Right to protect confidentiality of sources

Main article: Protection of sources

Journalists' interaction with sources sometimes involves confidentiality, an extension of freedom of the press giving journalists a legal protection to keep the identity of a confidential informant private even when demanded by police or prosecutors; withholding sources can land journalists in contempt of court, or in jail.
The scope of rights granted to journalists varies from nation to nation; in the United Kingdom, for example, the government has had more legal rights to protect what it considers sensitive information, and to force journalists to reveal the sources of leaked information, than the United States. Other nations, particularly Zimbabwe and the People's Republic of China, have a reputation of persecuting journalists, both domestic and foreign.
In the United States, there has never been a right to protect sources in a federal court. Some states provide varying degrees of such protection. However, federal courts will refuse to force journalists to reveal sources, unless the information the court seeks is highly relevant to the case, and there's no other way to get it. Journalists, like all citizens, who refuse to testify even when ordered to can be found in contempt of court and fined or jailed.

[edit] Current state of journalism worldwide

Even in more optimistic scenarios, no one has a business model to sustain digital journalism beyond a small number of self-supporting services. The attempts of newspapers to shift their operations online have been commercial failures, as they trade old media dollars for new media pennies. We are enthusiastic about Wikipedia and the potential for collaborative efforts on the web; they can help democratize our media and politics. But they do not replace skilled journalists on the ground covering the events of the day and doing investigative reporting. Indeed, the Internet cannot achieve its revolutionary potential as a citizens’ forum without such journalism.
Much of local and state government, whole federal departments and agencies, American activities around the world, the world itself–vast areas of great public concern–are either neglected or on the verge of neglect. Politicians and administrators will work increasingly without independent scrutiny and without public accountability. We are entering historically uncharted territory in America, a country that from its founding has valued the press not merely as a watchdog but as the essential nurturer of an informed citizenry. The collapse of journalism and the democratic infrastructure it sustains is not a development that anyone, except perhaps corrupt politicians and the interests they serve, looks forward to. Such a crisis demands solutions equal to the task. ^[6]