ANALYSIS: Local Journalism Is How We Regain Faith in One Another
Mistrust of Media Is the Symptom ... our inability to converse is the illness. There's a cure for that, and local media can lead the way.
By Martin Davis
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
The idea that journalism is losing trust with the public is hardly revelatory information; still, a Gallup survey released in October is startling in the amount of trust people have lost in journalism over the past 50+ years.
The reasons for this decline are legion — changes in communication, the politicization of most everything, the overall decline of trust in institutions writ large to name just a few — but the root cause is more basic.
It’s our unwillingness to converse.
Concerns about the art of conversation’s decline have a long history. An August 6, 1927, “Talk of the Town” piece in the New Yorker bemoaned “the disappearance of some of the pleasanter grammatical conventions that our forefathers found of use,” thereby leading to less effective conversation. For example, the writer bemoans the demise of the “retort courteous,” which has been replaced by the less-refined and less-civil “crack.” Before long, he continues, retorts will be reduced to sticking our tongues out at one another.
Decline, however, differs from an unwillingness to talk. And when it comes to conversation, we have reached an age where we choose not to talk with one another.
In journalism, the shift of Republicans refusing to talk with legacy media they deemed liberal began during the Obama years. By this time, of course, FOX News was ascendent, so there was another game in town besides CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC.
The willingness not to speak with media, however, was just the start. Working in Washington, I began to notice around 2008 that neither Democrats nor Republicans were willing to mix after hours in the bars around the Capitol or near other centers of power.
A report in the Washington Post this October showed that the divide has gotten even more stark. By tracking campaign spending on fast food, it appears the two parties can’t even eat in the same places anymore.
The unwillingness to talk with media was professionally frustrating. I hated having to write, “we reached out to [insert politician name] but did not receive a response.”
But not being able to converse informally with those I disagreed was more alarming. When we can’t speak with those we disagree with, we lose our ability to understand our opposition and to work toward solutions.
Declining; Not Dead
Over the Advance’s first year, one of the more-interesting things to watch has been the interaction that has developed with our readers. While the siloing of people’s social networks in Washington is certainly happening, here conversations are still possible.
And this is what gives local media its dynamism.
Like any media platform, we receive our share of flaming, usually when an article or commentary is written or reported in a way that doesn’t square with the personal political motivations of the reader.
Fair enough. There’s nothing wrong with venting from time to time.
But the more-interesting responses we receive come from those who want to express a concern with an article or commentary based on some substantive observations. This happens at the national level, of course, but the discussion is usually limited to online.
Here, at the local level, we have the opportunity to reach beyond the computer screen and engage in honest, face-to-face conversation.
I was reminded of the power of such conversation this past week.
My column Prayer and Faith Have a Legitimate Role in People's Lives ... drew a response from local Baptist minister Adam Blosser, who had two main issues with the column.
The first was tied to how the article was framed, and the second tied to how I had painted evangelicals. He argued that the portrayal I put forward was based on too little conversation with evangelicals themselves.
Intrigued by his concerns, I reached out to Blosser and invited him to coffee. We sat down this past week and had a lengthy discussion about the article; but more important, about our own paths to where we landed in life.
Among the lessons learned; Blosser was correct that the opening paragraphs in my column did a poor job framing the argument that followed, and I was happy to concede the error.
A longer discussion grew out of my argument that evangelicalism’s theological underpinnings are damaging to respectful treatment of others. On that point we continue to disagree, but over the course of our conversation he gained a better appreciation for my understanding of evangelical theology and thought, and why I make the argument the way I do. Likewise, I came to appreciate some of the nuance that he sees in the evangelical position.
There are more conversations to come, and though we’re unlikely to reach full agreement on issues like these, we certainly will have a better understanding of their other and their motivations.
The Future of Good Journalism
What will restore faith in journalism?
More conversations like the one I was honored to share with Blosser last week.
Journalism is not a one-way street. It requires writers and readers to understand one another. And each has an obligation in the enterprise.
The journalist is obligated to do their research, conduct responsible interviews, and craft the best story they can, given the time restrictions they work under.
Readers are obligated to read widely, understanding that no one piece of journalism is meant to be definitive. Daily journalism captures a moment in time, usually under extreme time pressures.
And when the two sides have concerns about the other, invite each other to sit down for a conversation. A one-to-one conversation is more powerful than two people talking. There’s a multiplying effect.
In the newsroom, a better-informed journalist can help their colleagues frame stories more inclusively in the future. More important, they can expand the list of people their colleagues speak with.
And in the community, readers have an opportunity to speak out when they hear people in their circles complaining about what they perceive to be biased or poor journalism, to ask — “Have you spoken with the writer?”
Whether you worry that democracy itself is under attack, or feel that your voice has been ignored for too long by media and other institutions, the surest way back to regaining trust is through honest conversations.
Coming to agreeable terms isn’t the point. Understanding the complexity of worldviews we’re fortunate to have around us, is.
In such discussions, we also see the seeds for restoring faith in journalism.
Local Obituaries
To view local obituaries or to send a note to family and loved ones, please visit the link that follows.
Support Award-winning, Locally Focused Journalism
The FXBG Advance cuts through the talking points to deliver both incisive and informative news about the issues, people, and organizations that daily affect your life. And we do it in a multi-partisan format that has no equal in this region. Over the past year, our reporting was:
First to break the story of Stafford Board of Supervisors dismissing a citizen library board member for “misconduct,” without informing the citizen or explaining what the person allegedly did wrong.
First to explain falling water levels in the Rappahannock Canal.
First to detail controversial traffic numbers submitted by Stafford staff on the Buc-ee’s project
Our media group also offers the most-extensive election coverage in the region and regular columnists like:
And our newsroom is led by the most-experienced and most-awarded journalists in the region — Adele Uphaus (Managing Editor and multiple VPA award-winner) and Martin Davis (Editor-in-Chief, 2022 Opinion Writer of the Year in Virginia and more than 25 years reporting from around the country and the world).
For just $8 a month, you can help support top-flight journalism that puts people over policies.
Your contributions 100% support our journalists.
Help us as we continue to grow!
