20150102.0758

Thanks to a most excellent friend, John Jarzemsky's 19 December 2014 LitReactor piece, "A Generation of People Shunned Standards in Writing and Journalism...You Won't BELIEVE What Happened Next!" crossed my news feed this morning. In the piece, Jarzemsky argues that online journalism is currently experiencing a period analogous to yellow journalism in the United States, one that prizes sensationalism over attempts at accurate reporting and that has become a means to demonstrate that a given person is "right." The article seeks to demonstrate that current online writing often fails to meet definitions of rhetoric (provided but not cited, weakening the rhetorical force of the piece) and offers a series of actions that can help to undercut the immediate reactions Jarzemsky notes with sadness as part of a hopefully passing phase that will soon resolve itself. While there are some points at which the article falters (the aforementioned lack of citation, raggedness of some of the transitions among paragraphs), the basic ideas are sound and well worth consideration.

Some things in the article are notable. One of them is the relatively balanced framing of the issue Jarzemsky discusses. He situates current internet journalism in journalistic history, allowing him to comment about purported inaccuracies without running into the problem, common to commentators on current constructions, that writers now just can't write. It does privilege present presentations of offline journalism, admittedly, tacitly asserting that there are unbiased, objective reports (which is not true and never has been) and that they are lacking among online journalistic pieces but not among more traditional media; it is a problem. But it is a great deal better than the more typical comments that are nothing more than to say "people are stupid now." It may be true that they are, but if it is, it is also true that they have been.

Another is the closing statement: "writing, reporting, communicating, and learning, is seldom, if ever, about me." The article as it appears online recognizes the importance of the statement, highlighting it in a text-box for easy attention. And it is an important comment, one likely to rile those whose focus is on the aggrandizement of the self (although such people are not likely to be those reading LitReactor) and one that serves as a corrective to the narcissistic tendencies enabled and abetted by the diversity of the online publication environment. (It is to be noted that Jarzemsky cites the ease of offering multiple viewpoints as a benefit of online journalism. It is a point with which I agree.) There are times and places for opining, certainly. They are not all times and places. Too often, it is forgotten. Too often also, the needs of the readers are forgotten--or needs of diverse readers are, the peril of the echo chamber.

Finally, Jarzemsky's four-point call to action, although familiar in large part from other places and (annoyingly) reading much like a series of resolutions, is a useful beginning point. It is incomplete, certainly; any provisional measure is, and any measure which has not been deployed can only be provisional. But, joined with the closing comment, it is something to keep in mind.