Another turning point for journalism |

Another turning point for journalism

Tribune-Review contributing writer Andrew Conte.

President Trump calls the media “the enemy of the American people,” and now the young journalists I know are ready to go to war.

They’re not out to fight their fellow citizens, of course. Instead, they feel emboldened to hold power accountable — Trump, other elected officials, corporations, business executives — and want to tell honest stories about Washington affecting and ignoring people. I asked my students about how Trump’s animosity influences their career goals. They had ready answers:

• “It’s pushing me to make sure my stories are as credible and accurate as they can be. There’s no room for fake news.”

• “I won’t read editorials and opinion any more. I just read hard news.”

• “Now with everything going on, I feel like I need to be in the loop.”

• “It’s just really important to get the facts because who knows what are the facts and the alternate facts?”

Young journalists are energized, not intimidated. At a time when anyone with a computer or smartphone can reach the world, students who take that responsibility seriously study the craft’s historic tenets — objectivity, fairness, accuracy — as they learn to use the shiny new tools.

Watergate stands out as “one of the great turning points in American journalism,” media analyst Ellen Hume wrote two decades ago. Students already had started surging into journalism schools over civil rights, the Vietnam War and unrest caused by the assassinations of President Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr. and others. President Nixon’s downfall — spurred by the reporting of The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and muckrakers such as Jack Anderson — crystallized that feeling of purpose. Reporters asking honest questions and relentlessly pursuing truth became heroes to a generation (more, really) eager to restore truth and justice to democracy.

We stand at another great turning point in American journalism. It couldn’t have come at a better time, just as industry insiders worried if a future existed at all. Reporters feel rejuvenated — eager for substantive, impactful stories , not meaningless scoops. When Trump lies, newspapers point it out . When he’s a hypocrite, TV news outlets play back his words as proof .

Young people feel this energy. Like the Watergate era, interest started with social issues — the tea party movement, Occupy Wall Street , # blacklivesmatter . The greatest difference could be that they believe journalism again can make a difference.

“We are watching things change,” Robert Snyder, a Rutgers University media professor, told me. “There’s a huge interest in what’s going on. … They’re much more interested in the news.”

That interest has students taking a closer look at government reporting and hard news. Many already use technology to share stories. Some hone their reporting and storytelling at journalism schools. Even those who focus on sports and entertainment know Trump-era politics will cross into their work — at the Grammy Awards and surely at the Oscars.

As one of my students put it: “I want nothing to do with politics — but it’s important to be aware.”

Andrew Conte is the director of the Center for Media Innovation at Point Park University.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.