The approach Alan Rusbridger took about journalism in his talk at Queen Mary, University of London is interesting, however; the debate between Walter Lippman and John Dewey which he describes in the same talk is more interesting, at least to me. For some reason, it reminded me of the debate in the north between abolitionists and their opponents over whether African-Americans were a separate species, whether or not they were able to learn, able to vote intelligently, or contribute to the market economy, or even read the Bible. In Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson argued that blacks were inheritably inferior to whites with respect to their capacity for reason and imagination and that colonization was the only way of dealing with free blacks. Whereas, abolitionists argued that African-Americans were, in fact, capable of learning once they find the right environment and given the right for education. The debate of the late 18th and early 19th century then was about what should be done with slaves, and the 21st debate is what should be done with the public, the masses who want to participate in journalism, to voice their opinions, to feel involved, rather than being merely passive recipients.
Lippman believes that “the issues of the age [are] too complex to be grasped by the public – whom he likened to “a deaf spectator in the back row.” For this he believes the public should be governed by a class of specialists, bureaucrats, journalists and academics, or the elites of the society as he calls them. This class is the one that has superior knowledge and in charge of explaining to the pathetic “deaf spectator in the back row” what is going on around them. I personally think this is an extremely harsh and limited view. The public absolutely has the ability to engage in an intellectual practice in a democracy once they are given the chance and that can be easily seen in today world, where almost everyone has access to the internet. Thus, it is safe to assume that the kind of public who want to be part of this discourse are the passionate and interested citizens. Undermining the public’s ability and intelligence to engage in intellectual practice is no less evil than segregating African-Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries because of the size of their skulls. In both cases, the argument is based on false assumptions. I think journalism should not be confined to a specific class of people; it should be with cooperation with the public, to the people and of course for the public. As the world not have realized that African-Americans are no less than any white man without providing proper conditions and legislating equal rights, specialists and experts in the journal arena would not know the public’s potentials and abilities without co-operating with them and involving them in a discourse that has been always kept for a group of people.
Dewey stands on the opposite side of the argument. In his argument, he points out a very important point, that is the “foundation of democracy was conversation, rather than pure information.” He thinks the public could become educated about issues, make judgments and arrive at solutions to public problems “if proper conditions are furnished.” I believe the public can learn the rules of the journalistic discourse once they are let in as knowledge is acquired through experience. The open-source journalism that The Guardian has adopted since 2009 is a smart step towards a new form of journalism.; a journalism, in Rusbridger’s words “of which people feel they are a part, which people trust, believe in and feel involved with.” Finally, in a time the newspaper industry is experiencing a gradual but steady decline, opening the doors for the public to engage in the practice of journalism, to become citizen journalists is no longer an option, but a necessity.