EVALUACIÓN DEL TRABAJO CONTINUADO DURANTE LAS

Just as theorists and policy makers are struggling to reconcile the ideals of PSB with current economic and political realities, theorists and journalists are pondering the future role of journalism. As Bennett (1993) puts it, "It is hard to imagine a more opportune time than now to promote dialogue between academics and journalists about the democratic roles and social responsibilities of both journalism and communications scholarship" (p.180).

McChesney (1993) asks critical communications scholars to examine "why journalism does not serve democratic ends at present and what needs to done so that we may have more democratic journalism in future" (p.102). This section looks at some of those who are undertaking this work.

Understanding contemporary journalism is an important starting point. Wyatt and Badger (1993) say traditional labels of "news", "opinion" and "features", although enshrined in textbooks, are misleading, and there is now a baffling list of new journalistic forms. Their typography uses modes of composition derived from rhetorical and literary criticism, combined with a subjective-objective continuum. The typography is intended to aid understanding of the variety of journalistic forms and how they operate in relation to their audiences. It is referred to in the qualitative analysis in Chapter Nine.

Roeh and Cohen (1992) analyse news stories from the perspective of being "open" (current, factual, neutral and standardised) or "closed" (timeless, poetic, mythological, loaded and stylised). The tenets of objective journalism call for an open approach, but journalistic coverage cannot escape the constraints in all writing for closure, which imposes a single correct reading: "News should be read as a battleground for the open and the closed, the professional and the poetic" (p.54).

Bennett and Edelman (1985) examine the narratives in political reporting "not to eliminate narrative from public discourse, but to learn to use the narrative form more critically and creatively" (p. l61). They call for a new political narrative "designed to focus contradictions and normative dilemmas in the same story" (p.170), something which cannot be done with the standard form, which reproduces both sides in separate narratives (what Epstein (1973) terms the dialectical story model).

Bennett and Lawrence (1995) discuss the approach of media scholars who offer a "theoretical bridge" across the gap that separates liberal theorists and critical theorists of the press. Their aim, they say, is to explore the conditions under which media provide a channel to challenge cultural practice and under which they frustrate such challenges and reproduce products which reinforce the political and ideological status quo. Their study of news icons (strong images arising out of news events which evoke powerful cultural themes) shows how, in certain cases, these can provide an impetus for transforming both the news dialogue and promoting social change.

Ettema (1994) investigates the use of irony by journalists who "must honor objectivity but promote outrage" (p.7). Irony uses the forms of objectivity and helps investigative

journalists to construct a "victims and villains" narrative. But in the current

information-saturated, post-modem world, Ettema says, it is likely only to encourage cynicism, ironic knowingness, rather than moral indignation in the reader. Ehrlich's (1996) comments on the use of irony in tabloid journalism reinforce Ettema's warning.

Bennett (1993) calls for journalistic norms to be supplemented with other guidance systems to create a higher standard of political debate in the news. He gives seven suggestions, ranging from changing the beat system, running more news analysis pieces and systematically incorporating public opinion into policy debates, to propositions like recognising when potentially important stories are dying because of the lack of elite debate and finding other ways of sustaining coverage.

Patterson (1993), dealing with election coverage in the USA, goes back to Lippmann's distinction between "truth" and "opinion", to suggest that the press should neither judge candidates' motives nor speak for them. He wants substantial free airtime to allow

candidates to speak for themselves and a shorter campaign time. Australian journalist trainer Davies (1989) also turns to Lippmann and to Henry Mayer to recommend journalism as "a form of explanation rather than a form of division" (p.59).

Rising discomfort among journalists about their activities and their decreasing public credibility (Bennett, 1993; Fallows, 1996; Gordon, 1995; Hemandez, 1995; Wallace, 1995) is creating an impetus for change within the profession. Bemstein (1992), the epitome of the investigative journalist, in his indictment of modem journalism, calls for the press to examine itself:

We need to start asking the same fundamental questions about the press that we do of the other powerful institutions in this society - about who is served, about standards, about self interest and its eclipse of the public interest and the interest of truth" (p.21).

Readership and audience figures show the public's appetite for news is steadily reducing, despite brighter formats and more commercial formats. Rosen (1992) records the response of American newspapers like the Witchita Eagle and the Charlotte Observer that are experimenting with close involvement in community issues. Journalists, he says:

should announce and publicly defend their legitimate agenda: to make politics "go well", in the sense of producing a useful dialogue, where we can know in common what we cannot know alone, where the true problems of the political community come under serious discussion (p.25).

Cottle (1995), Ehrlich (1996) and others demonstrate that formats can be used for a variety of end results. They want to combine new or popular techniques with old verities and would maintain, with Taylor (1992), that the problem with new news is not that it fails to maintain standards of balance, nuance and perspective but that "it never aspired to these standards in the first place" (p.40).

From the New Zealand perspective, both Morrison (1996) and Palmer (1996) say that the new political system of MMP offers new challenges and opportunities for the media. For the system to work, policy must be debated as it is developed. Morrison argues

that experiences of the last decade tell us that the market will not produce that kind of journalism: "That is a strong argument for retaining a specialised public sector news media, state funded but free from party political control and accountable for delivering public good journalism" (p.44).