NINA Home
Newsletters
Board Members
Meeting Minutes
Member Newspapers
Constitution & Bylaws
Contests
Calendar
Job Listings (via the Northern Star)
Job Hunter's Guide
Gibson's latest
gives scary picture
By Brian Thornton
It's tough being a journalist nowadays. Everyone seems to want our heads on a stake - folks on the left, right and even in between. Nearly all seem to agree on only one thing: Journalists are just no darn good. If you want pop culture proof just go check out the latest movie from that master of cinematic subtlety, Mel Gibson.
Fresh from his success and clout from making "The Passion of the Christ," Gibson has lent his name, money, and title of producer to a simple but incredibly ugly revenge film called "Paparazzi." (And sadly, it's probably playing at a theater near you.) Here journalists are not portrayed in the usual way as simple bumblers and goofs or invaders of privacy but as unshaven, loutish representatives of evil incarnate. The paparazzi in this film are not content to simply be nasty. Instead, they are egomaniacs who are compelled to destroy any who oppose them or try to keep them from taking photos of the celebrity du jour.
One particularly grimy photog character says to the hero of the tale, a poor action movie star who is being stalked by wild bands of photographers, "I'm going to destroy your life and eat your soul. And I can't wait to do it." Some may argue that these movie evildoers are photographers and technically not journalists.
However, the dozens of newspapers photographers I've worked with over the years would insist that the best news photographers are journalists, first and foremost. The bad guy photographers in "Paparazzi" are seen as regular newspaper employees and are frequently referred to as representatives of the fourth estate. The movie shows them, as a matter of course, routinely beating, raping, and blackmailing people, carrying guns, dealing drugs and breaking into the homes of the rich and famous to get the best pix.
Remember when Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman portrayed Woodward and Bernstein journalists as heroes in the 1970s?
So should journalists just shrug off this most recent terrible cinematic portrayal of the press? Maybe. One of my first city editors was fond of telling cub reporters in the 1970s, "Kid, if everybody is mad at you when you are reporting the truth then you must be doing something right." His next favorite line was, "If you want a friend, buy a dog."
But Gibson's last movie was so popular and touched so many people, it's hard to tell how much impact this new one might have - especially since Gibson himself has a cameo appearance as someone who foments hatred against the press.
It's not likely this one movie will cause people to punch out reporters. But this latest cinematic rant against the press serves as a benchmark - it shows how far the once-mighty have fallen in public esteem. Remember right after 9/11 when people hailed journalists as the folks who brought them vital information in a timely manner? Now the latest polls show people rate journalists as being less trustworthy than convicted bribe-taking politicians and the worst snake oil salesmen.
If you are a journalist, the purpose of this column is not to urge you to rush out to see "Paparazzi." For one thing it will certainly be depressing when the movie's hero beats up and kills journalists, and the audience cheers him on. But maybe "Paparazzi" will force journalists to read the writing on the wall, or in this case reflections on the silver screen, and start to think seriously about how we are perceived and what, if anything, we should do about those perceptions.
What can we do better?
I don't have any quick-fix solutions to improve public perceptions of the press overnight. But I do offer a couple of suggestions, including first and foremost the idea that all of us in the profession, including ex-reporters like me who now teach journalism, should start having public discussions in places like this column. And these frank discussions need to zero in on what we are doing right and more importantly, what we might do better in the future to at least explain to average people why journalism is an honorable and necessary profession. So I will get the ball rolling here and hope NINA members might offer their ideas on how the press might try to get "civilians," or those on the outside, to understand what we do and why.
My first suggestion is "Letters to the reader." I have been reading and studying letters to the editor for years. Such letters are almost always lively, passionate and entertaining. The thought process of the readers and their worldviews can make them seem like flesh and blood friends and neighbors and not alien "others." But what I see very rarely are good letters to the reader - letters from the editors who provide a clear behind-the-scenes explanation for why a certain controversial story was published where it was and when. For example, many people would probably like to know what kind of internal debate went on before a high-ranking editor at the Chicago Tribune recently decided to come forward with a front-page story that discussed his own military service in Vietnam right along side presidential candidate John Kerry.
Such letters from editors don't have to offer apologies. Simple explanations of the thought process that went into a decision before publication can go a long way toward taking the press out of the mysterious villain category and into the area of a public servant trying to do a difficult job well. Some papers, especially bigger ones, already have public editors or ombudsmen who consistently publish such letters to readers. But more papers, big and small, should consider such a regular column.
Another simple idea is to consider inviting more people, even regular groups of them, into the newsroom to see what reporters/editors do on a daily basis. In addition, people from the community should be invited to join the editorial board and sit in on daily "budget meetings," where the contents of the paper get hashed out. I remember sitting in on a few daily budget meetings at the Wichita Eagle when I worked there in the 1980s and enjoying the debates over what should be on tomorrow's front page. I valued the front page much more as a result.
Here are a few more ideas: newspapers could sponsor public forums on coverage of terrorism, for instance, or involve themselves in community outreach programs such as discussions of the effects of growth in Chicagoland suburbs. Newspapers could also sponsor town-hall meetings to discuss the causes of voter apathy and how to combat it.
Precisely what a newspaper decides to do to reach out to readers is not important. What is of vital importance, however, is to realize that journalists need to do something. If we don't speak for ourselves, celebrities such as Mel Gibson will be happy to continue to speak for us and spread the myth that journalists are monsters who beat, rape and blackmail people to get the next front-page scoop.
Dr. Brian Thornton is an associate professor of communication at Northern Illinois University. He teaches news writing, editing, journalism law and other courses. Contact him at thornton.b@comcast.net.