What should journalists know of philosophy?

UN Climate Change Summit Enters Final Week

Carlin Romano, critic at large for the Chronicle of Higher Education and former reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer, has taken heat for his recent essay arguing that more philosophers ought to be taking up journalism as a focus of inquiry, and more aspiring journalists ought to be taking a class like the one he has taught at various colleges and university over the last 25 years. He summarizes that course thusly: # Link in context

“So I constructed a basic course that examines journalism in the light of philosophical thinking in epistemology, political theory, ethics, and aesthetics, mixing philosophical and journalistic materials and vocabularies. In Part 1, we scrutinize “truth,” “objectivity,” and “fact.” In Part 2, we explore how journalism might fit classic modern theories of the state, including that tradition from Locke to Rawls that largely ignores the “Fourth Estate.” In Part 3, we ponder how what practitioners call “journalistic ethics” fits with broader moral theories such as utilitarianism. In Part 4, we investigate whether journalism can be art or science without overstepping its conceptual bounds. The guiding principle was a variant of Browning: One’s reach should exceed one’s grasp, or what’s a syllabus for?”  # Link in context

lf philosophy blogs are any indication, Romano’s word was not kindly met. University of Chicago law professor Brian Leiter thinks that the column’s real message was, “Why is Brian Leiter so mean to me?”  Apparently, they’ve had some sort of running feud. In any event, he dismisses Romano’s thesis: # Link in context

“As to why ‘philosophy of journalism’ is not a major topic of philosophical study, I would have thought the answer obvious:  it’s not a central or substantial intellectual or cultural practice, unlike science, art, or law.   The idea that “philosophy of journalism” would displace the central subjects of the discipline for millenia–metaphysics, epistemology, value theory (the ones too “abtruse” for Mr. Romano to understand)–is sufficiently silly that only a journalist could propose it.”  # Link in context

Pedestrian Walks Past Front Page Headlines Detailing War With Iraq

More constructively, Ben Hale, a philosophy professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, picked up Leiter’s post and  suggested that philosophers might contribute the the discussion of journalism ethics. One of his commenters took specific exception to Leiter’s marginalization of journalism as a cultural practice: # Link in context

Is he suggesting that journalism really is NOT one of the main conduits by which modern society learns about its current affairs? Is he really suggesting that journalism is NOT a way that culture is constructed? Does he really believe that the vast majority of people in the world do NOT learn about everything from the failure of their local schools to educate their children to the failure of central governments to take adequate steps to prevent a new financial bubble? (Not to mention such essential pieces of information as precisely which drug killed Jacko, and just how mind-blowing Britney’s new CD is, as I learned on NPR the other day. No kidding.) # Link in context

Hans Holbling at the Galilean Library allowed that Romano’s goal – helping journalists’ become more “philosophically astute” — might be a worthy one, but he raises interesting questions about the how the field of philosophy would be advanced by a focus on journalism and media: # Link in context

“If we have journalists who are able to question their own preconceptions, avoid inductive inferences from small data sets, and so on, then let’s suppose this is a good thing for both journalism and for those consuming the products of journalism. Why do we also need philosophers to understand the intersubjective standards setting these journalists report on? Unless we presuppose that only philosophers can teach the journalists to be more philosophically astute, or even if we don’t, it seems the development of philosophers can be left out of this. A more accurate requirement might be: we should get journalists to study the philosophical aspects of their work to help develop a more valuable form of journalism.” # Link in context

like Holblin’s reformulation very much, and I see some value in Romano’s course. Indeed, much of my own journalism teaching is an attempt to engage students in philosophical reflection on the ethics, esthetics, epistemology, and rhetoric of journalism as it is practiced currently and historically in the United States. However, I am not a trained philosopher, and I work hard every semester to make up for that gap. So far, I’ve been able to do this without making my colleagues in our philosophy department retch, because my best and most demanding teacher, my father, started me reading Plato from the time I was about nine, and we’ve gone on from there. # Link in context

Infusing philosophical literacy into journalism education

All of that said, I don’t think Romano’s required “Philosophy of Journalism” course is an adequate solution. Journalism education is being rethought, and should be, prompted largely by the fundamental shifts in economics and technology of newsgathering and delivery. I think Romano is particularly off-base when he argues that foundations and university journalism departments should require the formal study of the philosophy in order to “[focus] on long-standing gaps in journalism education” instead of the “bells and whistles of new technology, as if tweets will save us all.”  This, I submit, is a false choice. # Link in context

New York Times Seeks Buyouts Before Imposing Layoffs

Instead, I would argue that we need to infuse philosophical thinking into every aspect of media study and practice. It’s a particularly good thing to do now because so many fundamental aspects of the field are changing. I don’t pretend to be an authority on how to do it, but it has to be done. I wish there was more of a conversation between journalists and philosophers — and here is where I agree with Romano —  because I suspect both fields could benefit. If, as I’ve read, philosophers do use news stories as a starting point for many of their own inquiries, why would it not be useful to understand how journalists and journalism scholars approach these issues? # Link in context

So I thought it would be useful to run through a list of essential philosophical concepts and texts that journalists should understand: I will freely admit that in attempting this, I am exposing my own clumsiness with the subject, but that is the only way that I know of te learn. I welcome additions, including suggestions about the courses in which these concepts and texts might best fit. I will do that in one of the the posts that follows. # Link in context

CC BY-ND 4.0 What should journalists know of philosophy? by Kim Pearson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


  1. Morton Winston says

    Happy New Year Kim!

    I would be glad to explore this topic with you. I do get some philosophical inspiration from the news. But I have not thought that much about what philosophy has to offer to journalism. So let's think together.


  2. Don Hart says

    Romano deserves the heat he is getting for his proposal. Philosophers should NOT focus on journalism and journalism students should NOT take a philosophy course like Romano’s.
    Unfortunately (?) journalism IS “a way that culture is constructed” so journalists must accept some responsibility for the culture that they (help) construct.
    If we had more sophisticated journalists would we have a more sophisticated culture? I doubt it. If we had more sophisticated consumers of journalism would be have more sophisticated journalists. Of course.
    Reflection and meta-thinking is a good thing (even for journalists), but I think that students can get what they need there from lit-crit study. I wish that every journalist in the country read Barbara Herrnstein Smith, but I doubt that Fox would be happy with that (or even the NYTimes).

    • professorkim says

      Please elaborate, Don. Why should they not take a philosophy course like Romano’s? Lit-crit study isn’t a standard part of the journalism curriculum as it stands now. Why would it be helpful? Right now, most journalism students get some grounding in utilitarian theory, (it’s not unusual to have them read Aeropagitica) to help them understand why there is a First Amendment. They get ethics, often taught in terms of codes and case studies. My favorite media ethics text, Media Ethics: Issues and Cases (Mc Graw Hill) does that, but also explores a variety of ethical approaches, eg, Aristotle’s Golden Mean, Rawls’ Theory of Justice, Communitarianism. I my race, gender and news class, I also add critical feminist theory to the mix, but I don’t use Herrnstein Smith.

  3. Don Hart says

    Kim,I did an elaboration last week and it never showed up here.
    You and I do not agree about many foundational things here – so I don’t know whether I
    can be helpful in this discussion.
    For example, I am very skeptical about “curriculums” (for journalism, or philosophy, or
    college). I am skeptical about reducing learning to “courses.”
    On other levels I am skeptical about the practice of journalists. I see members of the White House
    Press Corps asking really naïve and stoopid questions every day. [Whenever a “leader” is asked
    a question – that is an opportunity for authority to spin an answer. Spin is all that will ever result
    from questions about “what?” and “why?”]
    On a deeper level, there simply is NO “what” – there is only “what-under-a-description”
    (I have a neighbor/friend who believes that we simply SEE what people do (he is a retired
    superior court judge). I find that simplicity dangerous in judges AND journalists.
    Derrida taught us that there is nothing beyond the text. How do we get journalists to understand
    and act on that? My point was that A COURSE (either in philosophy or in lit. crit.) won’t
    bring it about that journalism students give up all those dead-white-european-christian-male
    assumptions that foster the culture of Pat Robertson and George Bush.
    Finally (and then I’ll shut up) the “why?” question is also quite dangerous. There just is NO
    (universal) psychology – we must get people to the level of understanding psychology as
    based in a culture.
    I read Aristotle in high school and it took me 25 years to GET OVER that. I think your
    students should read Richard Rorty (and to DO that, they might have to read 66 other books first)
    (but I’ll bet you that Mort disagrees with that suggestion).