In today’s digital age of inexpensive and accessible media production and distribution means, it is clear that “We’re All Journalists Now.”
The book of this title by Scott Gant explores the current era’s transition in journalism and the laws associated with the changing times. Gant’s book examines today’s definition of “journalist” and to whom journalistic rights ought to be afforded. There are many well done elements of his book, ranging from its historical accounts, to modern day examples, to its strong central message and arguments. This is an excellent book for a classroom discussion, as its message has many points that can be debated. While the author’s position is at times questionable, this is a book that should be read. “We’re All Journalists Now” is a worthwhile, thought-provoking work.
The benefits of this book are ample. Gant stays on-message well and his main points are consistently supported throughout the book: First, that “press” rights should be granted based upon the act of journalism rather than a media-organization affiliation (p. 86); second, that “the legal framework for allocating press rights and privileges is not keeping up with the pace of change”(p. 136). In addition, Gant does well to provide a full-circle historical account of the press – from the independent penny papers prepared by the people (p. 15), to corporate-driven media conglomerates (p. 20), to citizen created blogs (p.24). He investigates the ways in which “journalism is returning to its status as an activity rather than a profession” (p. 136).
Credit should also be given to Gant for his use of legal examples to highlight his message that there should be a consistent, modern system of protection for journalists. His examples range from the precedent-setting Branzburg v. Hayes case of 1972 which “gave rise to more questions than it answered” (p. 64), to possible modern-day “shield law legislation in the 110th Congress” (p. 155).
Gant shines with a well-structured argument on page 84. He offers an evaluation of licensing the press, wherein he provides the pros and cons given by Justices and offers subsidiary information based on the addition of technological developments. Due to the fact that anyone can engage in journalism in today’s age, Gant concludes that: “If the Court reexamines the nature of press freedom, what is crucial, is that it recognize that any special ‘press’ rights conferred by the First Amendment must be based on activity, not status” (p. 86). His fully-formed arguments are a pleasure to read, as they evaluate multiple sides of the issue.
Nonetheless, while Gant’s arguments and examples are clear, there is room for debate in some of his theories. Such room for debate can be seen as a pro or a con to the book: A pro in that it presents opportunities for critical thought and evaluation, and a con because a non-critical reader may simply read it and agree with his questionable messages. From the perspective of a reviewer, this is a pro. There are many wonderful opportunities to engage in questioning the author. This is an excellent book for which a critical essay could be written; some readers may find themselves siding with Gant’s adversaries. Following are two examples of Gant’s opinions that welcome debate:
First, Gant cites that there is “an artificial distinction between professional journalists and everyone else” (p. 34) and sees a “need for reevaluation at all levels of government of the circumstances in which special benefits are extended to those we deem journalists, and denied to everyone else” (p. 90). One could argue that there will always be times in which certain rules apply to particular entities and not to others. If one views the government as a business, it is the norm that certain players will be granted privileges over others. Through such a lens, it makes sense that perks would be granted to someone serving the best-interests of the company. A hotel hoping for a great editorial review will offer a complimentary stay with all the bells and whistles for someone who writes for a popular travel publication; however, that same hotel may not offer any deals to someone who claims to be a journalist but has an unknown blog and no resume. It is natural for the government to act in its best interest, as any business would. Nonetheless, Gant finds it “troubling” that “only those associated with traditional news organizations are legitimate, and entitled to those special privileges” (p. 116). He also describes these selective preferences as “unfair” (p. 126). This, again, seems to be an open line for criticism using the old adage that “life’s not fair.” Gant also takes issue with the fact that a “caste system” has evolved in journalism (p. 136). To this, one could argue that the world is comprised of systems of haves and have-nots. Despite working in the same industry, employees are not granted the same luxuries as their company’s CEO. Similarly, within universities, graduate and undergraduate students are not granted admittance into the same honor societies.
As a second example, Gant calls it “unfortunate” that the White House is considering ways to “tighten up the press credentialing process” (p. 107). In contrast, it could be debated that a tightening of press credentials is not a bad idea in this age wherein everyone is a journalist. Gant believes that the act of journalism is the sole requirement that should be considered for citizen journalists to be on the same playing field as learned professional journalists. However, Gant briefly admits in his conclusion that “as for the ‘new media,’ much of it is junk” (p. 200). This assessment provides ammunition for a critical reader to rightly ask: “Should someone who produces junk really be allowed behind the scenes of the White House or granted such special privileges? Should they be granted trustworthy rights purely because they engage in the act of journalism?” Albeit, Gant believes an “over-extension of preferences is far preferable to denying press privileges” (p. 179).
In conclusion, “We’re All Journalists Now” is a thought provoking work and offers an excellent foundation for debate or classroom discussions. It is a worthwhile read for those looking to gain perspective on the transitioning media in today’s digital age. Gant provides a consistent argument while offering insightful background information on the media and government policies relating to journalism. This book is best read, and most enjoyable, when read with a critical eye.
Hi Christy,
I didn’t have the opportunity to read “We are All Journalists Now”, but I believe your review provided me with a very good idea of what the book is about and some of the problems I might encounter if I read it.
As you point out, Gant believes that citizen journalists should be considered on the same level as professional journalists, since the act of journalism is what matters. I also think this idea is very questionable for many reasons: first of all, if the White House, for example, decided to provide credentials for every “citizen journalist” who appeared there, it would be unfeasible to have a press conference. “Citizen journalists”, who don’t depend on a media company’s salary or a professional reputation, could start protesting during the conference, could interrupt others journalists during the questions session, could disturb the work of professional journalists who actually need to get some words to publish in the next day’s newspaper. Secondly, even though, one can argue that the act of journalism is something that any literate person is capable of, I believe that there are some sets of rules that all professionally trained journalists learn that make their work more intelligible and the communication more efficient than the work an amateur can produce. Some examples of this specific knowledge are: newsworthiness criteria, writing styles, clear text structure and discourse, appropriate citation and use of sources of information, and use of coherent analogies. Third, like it or not, journalists and media companies gain credibility from their sources – including government spokesman – every time that they publish accurate information that corresponds to what the sources provided. So, standing by the source’s side, how can a citizen journalist guarantee accuracy? What is their knowledge about ethics in this profession? What do they have to lose?
The only part in your book review I didn’t find very clear was the paragraph where you wrote: ‘Branzburg v. Hayes case of 1972 which “gave rise to more questions than it answered” (p. 64) and the “shield law legislation in the 110th Congress” (p. 155)’. In my opinion, you could have provided more background information to readers better understand what these examples mean.
Christy,
I like where you went with your review. I read the same book as you, so I am familiar with the material.
What I liked about the book was how Gant took a side early in the book and stuck with it until qualifying it a bit at the end as you noted. I also agree with how you see his argument that every single person who practices journalism should be equal. I just don’t think that is how it should be. As you said, “life’s not fair” and perhaps some citizen journalists don’t get to sit in the press box in congress. Due the physical restrictions on the number of seats in a location, like the press box at Safeco Field, he suggested a lottery be held to determine who gets the seats. Is it really a good use of resources to let somebody like me who barely blogs and just wants to see if I can get a spot in the press box?
Looking at the big picture the book paints, I tend to side with you, Christy. I just don’t see the point in making everybody equal just because tools have lowered the barrier of entry to being a journalist. There is a difference between professional journalists and citizen journalists.
Looking at this issue concerns me because I feel as though I need to have some experience with professional journalism to really make a good decision on where I stand in the matter. It is most certainly not a cut and dry issue and it seems like I am being pulled by both sides.