The good, the bad and the ugly: deciphering truth in the era of independent journalism

I work for the “legacy media.” Specifically, a newspaper that’s been in circulation for over 160 years. It’s a small paper, but very much an institution in the city it serves.

But times are getting tough for small newspapers like mine. We’re losing staff, we’re losing money and our beats are growing ever wider. More subscriptions are canceled than renewed and readers complain about having to pay for content online.

New media is taking over and that’s a good thing, even if it means changes in my industry. More voices are being heard, more stories are being told and more ground is being covered.

I went to school for journalism, but I didn’t need to. I learned more in one year on the job than I did in four years of college. All it takes to be a good reporter is a drive to pursue truth, a knack for storytelling and enough courage to challenge those in positions of authority.

People are starting to realize this, and we’re beginning to see an uptick in folks who identify themselves as reporters but hold no affiliation with any recognizable outlet.

This is fine, good even, but it requires a little more work on the part of the readers that I’m finding they’re often not willing exert.

Even on the local level, legacy media outlets are being challenged by smaller alternative publications that seek to provide a freer sort of journalism than we can with our wings clipped by corporate restrictions.

But those same outlets sometimes turn around and hire publicly partisan individuals to serve as editors, they shine bright lights on preferred candidates, telling people who to vote for without labeling it as opinion.

They often publish rumors without the slightest effort to confirm them and play the news like a campaign ad. The stories are shared and discussed as gospel on social media.

Being a journalist involves a lot of leg work. Some independent journalists do that legwork and do it well. Others just want to play the game any way they can.

It’s up to readers to know what to look for: sources, specifics and confliction. Where does the information come from? What are the details that will affect readers? What does the other side say?

It’s important to remember that reporters are human, we have our ideas, our leanings and our beliefs. It’s hard not to have bias when you feel so strongly about something, but you have to be your own harshest critic.

Good journalists realize that not everyone sees things as they do and make a point to present all sides of the story and compare those statements to the available documentation. We must constantly question our perceptions.

Readers also need to accept that good journalism doesn’t come free. Before I came to my current paper, I worked for another paper that ceased publication. Circulation had hit an unsustainable low and print subscriptions never really took off.

When the announcement was made that we’d close, the public lost it and went crazy on the corporate managers, never stopping to ask what could have been if they were willing to pay for the product.

In the Wild West that is the internet, everyone is free to share stories and ideas and I can’t stress enough how beneficial this is for a society. As the media landscape adapts to this new freedom, wonderful new reporters will rise to prominence, but so will some not-so-wonderful ones.

The moral of the story is this: learn to identify good journalism and support it. You’ll miss it when it’s gone.