BuzzMachine

I increasingly come to see that we are not in a crisis of information and disinformation or even of misguided beliefs, but instead of belonging. I wonder how to reimagine journalism to address this plight.

Belonging is a good. The danger is in not belonging, and filling that void with malign substitutes for true community: joining a cult of personality or conspiracies, an insurrection, or some nihilistic, depraved perversion of a religion.

What role might journalism play to fill that void instead with conversation, connection, understanding, collaboration, enlightened values, and education?

Hannah Arendt teaches us that amid the thrall and threat of totalitarianism, some people belong to nothing, and so they are vulnerable to the lure of joining a noxious cause manufactured of fear. In The Gutenberg Parenthesis, I quote her:

“But totalitarian domination as a form of government is new in that it is not content with this isolation but destroys private life as well. It bases itself on loneliness, on the experience of not belonging to the world at all, which is among the most radical and desperate experiences of man.” For Arendt, to be public is to be whole, to be private is to be deprived; to be without both is to be uprooted, vulnerable, and alone.

Arendt found in Nazi and Soviet history “such unexpected and unpredicted phenomena as the radical loss of self-interest, the cynical or bored indifference in the face of death or other personal catastrophes, the passionate inclination toward the most abstract notions as guides for life, and the general contempt for even the most obvious rules of common sense.” The lessons for these populist times are undeniable as Trump’s base shows a loss of self-interest (what did he accomplish for them over the rich?), an indifference to death (defiantly burning masks at COVID superspreader rallies), a passionate inclination toward abstract notions (are abortion and guns truly more important to their everyday lives than jobs and health?), and contempt for common sense (see: science denial and conspiracy theories).

Later in my book, I call upon the theories of sociologist William Kornhauser, who contends that the solution to such alienated mass society is to support a pluralistic society of belonging, in which people connect with communities — they “possess multiple commitments to diverse and autonomous groups” — and are less vulnerable to, or at least feel a competitive tug away from, the siren call of populist movements. I write:

A pluralistic society is marked by belonging — to families, tribes (in the best and most supportive sense, which Sebastian Junger defines as “the people you feel compelled to share the last of your food with”), clubs, congregations, organizations, communities. A pluralistic society is more secure and less vulnerable to domination as a whole, as a mass. In such associations we do not give up our individuality; we gain individual identity by connecting, gathering, organizing, and acting with others who share our interests, needs, goals, desires, or circumstances. When that occurs, in Kornhauser’s view, elites become accessible as “competition among independent groups opens many channels of communication and power.” Then, too, “the autonomous man respects himself as an individual, experiencing himself as the bearer of his own power and as having the capacity to determine his life and to affect the lives of his fellows.” In short, a pluralistic society is a diverse society.

Of course, it is diversity that most threatens the autocrats, populists, racists, and fascists who in turn imperil our nation and democracy around the world. That is why they condemn “identity politics.” The internet, I theorize, enabled voices too long not represented in so-called mainstream — i.e., old, white — mass media to at last be heard. That is what the would-be tyrants and cultists use to stir fear and recruit their rudderless hordes, preaching that the Others — Blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQ people, immigrants, “woke mobs,” and lately trans people — will come steal their jobs, homes, history, security, society, and even children.

Journalism brings information to the fight for their very souls. We stand outside reactionary revival tents with slips of paper bearing facts, thinking that can compete with the heart-thumping hymns of fear within.

In 2022 in Paris, a group of scholars gathered at the International Communication Association for a preconference that asked, “What comes after disinformation studies?” In a paper reporting on the discussion, Théophile Lenoir and Chris Anderson conclude: “Fact-checking our way out of politics will not work.”

Journalists want to believe that we are in a crisis of disinformation because they think the cure must be what they offer: information. The mania around disinformation after 2016 led to what Joe Bernstein in Harper’s calls Big Disinfo, a veritable industry devoted to dis-dis-information. I was part of that effort, having raised money after 2016 to support such projects. I’m certainly not opposed to reporting information and checking facts! But we need to concede that these are insufficient ends.

If the problem is not disinformation, then it must be belief, we say, pointing to opinion polls in which shocking numbers of citizens say they ascribe to insane ideas and conspiracy theories. Regarding such polls, I will forever return to the lessons of the late James Carey: “Public life started to evaporate with the emergence of the public opinion industry and the apparatus of polling. Polling … was an attempt to simulate public opinion in order to prevent an authentic public opinion from forming.”

Polls are fatally and fundamentally flawed because they reflect the biases of the pollsters, who insist on sorting us into their buckets, leaving no room for nuance or context. Worse than that, polls have become a mechanism for signaling belonging in some rebellious, defiant cause. Writes Reece Peck, another scholar at the ICA Paris preconference, “Political scientists have come to understand that voting is less a cool-headed deliberation on how specific policies help or hurt the voter’s material economic interest and more an occasion for expressing the voter’s cultural attachments and group loyalties.” Fringe opinions are a means for these citizens to tell pollsters, media, and authority: ‘You can’t sort us. We’ll sort ourselves.’ As researchers Michael Bang Petersen, Mathias Osmundsen, and Kevin Arceneaux have found, people who circulate hostile political information do so out of a “Need for Chaos,” a desire to “‘burn down’ the entire political order in the hope they gain status in the process.” In the hope, that is, that they will find a place to belong in their posse, their institutional insurrection. See again: Arendt.

I believe there is only one true hope to cure vulnerability to such performative belief: education. By that I do not mean media- or news-literacy, the hubristic assertion that if only people understood how journalism works and consumed its products, all would be well. I mean education, period: in the humanities, the social sciences, and science. As I write in my upcoming book, The Web We Weave, I taught in a public university because I believe education is our best hope. But universities — particularly their humanities departments — are being starved of resources and attacked by populist, right-wing forces that view education as their enemy because it is through education that they lose voters and power. This is where our underlying crisis and solution lie.

What can journalism do? I am not sure.

In any discussion of the crisis in democracy, someone will pipe up with banalities about the internet segregating us in filter bubbles and echo chambers. But research by Petersen and Axel Bruns shows that — as Petersen says — “the biggest echo chamber that we all live in is the one we live in in our everyday lives,” in the towns, jobs, and congregations we seek out to be around people like us. Journalist Bill Bishop said it well in the subtitle of his 2008 book, The Big Sort: “The clustering of like-minded American is tearing us apart.” The internet doesn’t cause filter bubbles, it punctures them, confronting people with those they are told to fear. The internet does not cause division. It exposes it.

Thus I have argued that one mission for journalism (and, for that matter, social networks) should be to make strangers less strange. At the Tow-Knight Center, I funded research to that end by Caroline Murray and Talia Stroud, who found 25 inspiring projects in newsrooms attempting to do just that; look at their list. I find that work heartening, yet still insufficient.

Journalism is flawed at its core. It is built to seek out, highlight, and exploit — and cause — conflict. Political journalism is engineered to predict, which does nothing to inform the electorate. Instead, in the words of Jay Rosen, it should focus on what is at stake in the choices citizens make. Journalism has done tremendous harm to countless communities that have never trusted its institutions. Journalism — just like the internet companies it criticizes — is built on the economics of attention.

I do not, of course, reject all of journalism. Yes, I criticize The Times and The Post because they have been our biggest and best and we need them to be better. I also praise excellent reporting there and support it with my subscriptions. I think it is important to understand our history sans the sacred rhetoric publishers use to lobby politicians and courts for protection against new competitors, from radio to television to the internet to AI. James Gordon Bennett, the early newspaper titan said to be the father of modern journalism — thus mass media — once said to an upstart in the field: “Young man, ‘to instruct the people,’ as you say, is not the mission of journalism. That mission, if journalism has any, is to startle or amuse.” There are our roots in mass media. Hear Carl Lindstrom writing in The Fading American Newspaper:

In its hunger for circulation it has sought status as a mass medium to the point where it is a hollow attempt to be all things to all men. It has scorned competition as an evil, and cultivated monopoly as a virtue. While claiming a holy mission with constitutional protection, it has left great vacuums of journalistic obligation into which competiting mediums have moved with impunity and public acceptance. Today journalism is on the move at an ever-accelerating rate with the daily press showing no apparent concern. This indifference is in accord with its incapacity for relentless self-examination. In this vacant place self-delusion has built itself a nest.

He wrote that in 1960.

There are movements to address the mission void in present-day journalism. I helped start one in Engagement Journalism, with my colleague Carrie Brown. There is Solutions Journalism, Collaborative Journalism, Constructive Journalism, Reparative Journalism, Dialog Journalism, Deliberative Journalism … and others. I would like to bring these various ’ives together in a room to see what links them. I think it will be this: They start with listening.

Journalism is terrible at listening. We train reporters to hit the streets with premade narratives and predictions, looking for quotes to fulfill them. In Engagement Journalism, we teach journalists instead to hear the communities they serve. That does not mean we must listen to every cultist’s crazy theories and fears concocted for media attention. Journalists give them plenty of oxygen already. No, I mean that we need to allow people to be heard regarding their real lives and actual circumstances and concerns. That is a necessary start.

How do we then reimagine journalism built around helping people understand that they can belong to positive communities of understanding and empathy, they can build bridges to other communities through listening and learning, they can find fulfillment in their own identities without excluding or denigrating the identities of others?

A few years ago, I participated in valuable diversity training. In one exercise, our trainer told each of us to reflect on our own cultures. I demurred, saying that I had no culture as I am of boring, generic, white-bread, American, suburban stock. She told me I was wrong. Upon reflection, I saw that she was right. She forced me to recognize the power of the cultural default. I’ve learned that lesson, too, from André Brock, whom I quote in The Gutenberg Parenthesis:

In Distributed Blackness, his trenchant analysis of African American cybercultures … Georgia Tech Professor André Brock Jr. sought to understand Black Twitter on its own terms, not in relation to mass and white media, not in the context of aiming to be heard there. “My claim is ecological: Black folk have made the internet a ‘Black space’ whose contours have become visible through sociality and distributed digital practice while also decentering whiteness as the default internet identity.” That is to say that it is necessary to acknowledge the essential whiteness of mass media as well as the internet. “Despite protestations about color-blindness or neutrality,” Brock wrote, “the internet should be understood as an enactment of whiteness through the interpretive flexibility of whiteness as information. By this, I mean that white folks’ communications, letters, and works of art are rarely understood as white; instead, they become universal and are understood as ‘communication,’ ‘literature,’ and ‘art.’”

Brock helped me see where journalism is “whiteness as information.” So have Wesley Lowery and Lewis Raven Wallace in their criticism of journalistic objectivity (works I assigned and taught every year).

Brock also made me see how the internet has helped me belong. I long was a loner; journalists fancy themselves that: separate, apart (and let’s admit it, above). I live in a town disconnected from many of my neighbors. But on the internet, I have found myself connected with many communities.

Every year in the Engagement Journalism class I had the privilege of teaching with Carrie Brown, we would ask students what communities they belong to. The answers inevitably began with the obvious: “I’m a student.” “I live in Brooklyn.” But then someone might say, “I struggle with mental health issues.” A few students later in the circle, another students would echo that. Thus a connection is made, empathy established, a community enabled. Not all communities are bounded by geography; online, they might exist in any definition, anywhere.

Such conversation and connection can occur only in an environment of trust, but today we live in an environment of distrust — and that is the fault, in great measure, of media and politics manufacturing disconnection and fear. That is what journalism must fight against: a darkness not of information but of the soul. I return to Lenoir and Anderson in Paris:

Technical solutions to political problems are bound to fail. Historical, structural, and political inequality — and especially race, ethnicity, and social difference — needs to be at the forefront of our understanding of politics and, indeed, disinformation. The challenge for researchers, and our field broadly, is to engage in politics by generating ideas and crafting narratives that make people want to live in a more just world, not just a more truthful one.

The same should be said of journalism. How might we do that?

Journalists might see ourselves as conveners of conversation (see, for example, Spaceship Media).

We might see ourselves as educators, defenders of — yes, advocates for — enlightened values of reason, liberty, equality, tolerance, and progress. It is not enough to expose inequality, we must defend equality.

We might see it as our task to build bridges among communities — to make strangers less strange, to help people escape the filter bubbles in their real lives.

We might understand the imperative to fight — not neutrally amplify — the dark forces of hate, fear, and fascism.

We must pay reparations to the communities our institutions have damaged by finally assuring that their stories are told — by themselves — and heard.

We could reject the economics of attention and scale of mass media and rebuild journalism at human scale, valuing our work not through our metrics of audience but instead as the public values us.

As I leave my last job and the last year, I am reflecting on where to turn my attention next. I spent a dozen years at the end of my time in the industry working to make journalism digital, a task that should be self-evident but even so, is far from done. I spent eighteen years in a university exploring new business models for news, though I fear that trying to save established journalism ends in protectionism. My proudest work has been teaching and learning Engagement Journalism and it is there — in listening to communities — where I wish to devote myself.

I also believe it is critical that we understand journalism now in the context of a connected world and call upon other disciplines — history, ethics, psychology, community studies, anthropology, sociology — to understand the internet not as a technology but as a human network. That is the subject of my next book. That is what I have been calling Internet Studies: examining how we interact now and what reimagined and reformed institutions we need to help us do that better. Somewhere in there, I believe, is the essence of a new journalism, a journalism of education, a journalism of belonging.