This is the kind of article that I could spend a lot of time analyzing, or I could just let the pub have at it. I’ll choose the latter. The argument, by some researchers at Baylor, is that Harry Potter unfairly portrays journalism only in a negative light, with no consequences for bad journalism (!).
Quotes:
“The books present an unnecessarily pessimistic view of journalism today,” says Dr. Amanda Sturgill, senior lecturer in journalism at Baylor and one of the study co-authors. “Since literature can play an important role in helping children learn and possibly empathize with situations experienced by the characters, the potential for influence on journalism is strong.”
“In no situations was there recourse on The Daily Prophet or the Ministry of Magic for what was published,” Sturgill says. “This could convey the message to young readers that there are no ill effects of poor journalism in the real world.”
Read the whole article, and write your responses below!
Red Rocker on 
diva_alix on 
Arabella Figg on 
Joivre on 
Loading ...
{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }
“In no situations was there recourse on The Daily Prophet or the Ministry of Magic for what was published,” Sturgill says. “This could convey the message to young readers that there are no ill effects of poor journalism in the real world.”
Uh, duh!! That was the entire point, there was no recourse through “official” channels. Rowling makes the point that most major news conglomerates are essentially organs of the political system.
Wow… would they like some scape to go with that goat?
Clearly the folks who put together the Baylor study have never heard of David Simon, or his work (The Wire, Generation Kill, etc.). For those not familiar with him, he’s a former Baltimore Sun reporter who, while a staunch advocate of professional journalism (especially when it’s, you know, done right), is a fiercely vocal critic of the state of the industry/profession today; he utterly loathes what corporate ownership has done (and continues to do) to the quality of mainstream journalism in America. Who needs government control when about 5 mega-conglomerate corporations own about 90% of ALL of our media? There was a time in this country when newsrooms were neither considered, nor required to be, profit centers. That’s not the case anymore and its destroying the industry/profession literally from the inside out.
Not to mention… did any of the Baylor study authors go take a look at Reporters Without Borders most recent study/ranking? The United States ranks 37th-ish on the scale of freest press in the world. Most of socialist Europe (The Netherlands, Sweden, etc.) ranks far, far higher than we do. So, all those “evil” socialists are actually better at providing accurate information, obtained and written by professional journalists and distributing it to their citizens than we are.
Ah hell, don’t even get me started… I’m not a journalist and I could write pages on this. I abandoned the mainstream media AGES ago because of the seriously falling standards and lack of coverage of important issues.
I think it’s pretty safe to say that if the Baylor study authors want to decry the state of professional journalism in America today, a MUCH more intellectually honest means of doing so would be to study and truly analyze the goings on in the actual industry, instead of pointing fingers at various critics who happen to actually be right.
Memo to the study authors: it’s a “Quick Quotes Quill” not a “Quick Notes Quill!” Ah, sweet irony.
Thank heaven for a non-rose-coloured view of journalists after all the sappy, idealized portrayals in other books and movies. Hopefully the HP series will encourage children to question the accuracy of what they read in newspapers and elsewhere rather than mindlessly swallowing everything as true. A nice introduction to skepticism and (eventually) historiography.
Lily Luna,
AMEN… to literally your entire post, lol!
I personally have experienced very poor journalism in regards to a family tragedy. There was no attempt to get a correct story or facts but simply a focus on what, to the journalist, would be a touching story.
I have a very dim view of journalistic standards and the general adherence to these standards.
Any chance to bag them is fine with me.
So, I made the mistake of following the Baylor link on to the original article published American Communication Journal. And in a minute, I’ll make the further mistake of taking this on as a legit piece of research…
First, I’ll let one thing out right off the bat… It’s never easy to be rejected by your peers. I had an article rejected a couple of months ago. I killed myself for months writing that thing — which was, without question, flawed and probably didn’t deserve publication. But what ticked me off was that one reviewer’s comments left me absolutely certain that they neither read my article, nor understood what I was discussing. One “fact” they wrote in response (as an indicator of my intelligence and understanding of the subject) is categorically and verifiably not true. Issues like that have floated underneath the peer review process for a while.
So, I have to admit that I’m a wee bit pissed that this was published in a legit academic journal. It’s this kind of thing that makes us academics look bizarre and out of touch. And this sort of article makes me want to spend an afternoon tossing off some crap idea just to stick a publication line on my CV. But, I digress…
Okay, got that out of the way. On to an academic refutation…
The article follows a fairly conventional scholarly format: Lit Review, Methods/Methodology, Results, Discussion.
The easy place to start picking apart any article following this format is to look for flaws in the researchers’ methods. In this piece, the authors are using what they call a “framing analysis” — I know it as a “discourse analysis.” It’s a relatively simple, qualitative empirical method in which researchers work through some text multiple times in order to establish categories into which they can fit different segments of the text. The idea is to draw categories “organically” from what the text provides by looking for thematic, structural, or even linguistic differences in different spots. Researchers “code” for these differences by repeatedly categorizing segments until they land on categories (or codes) that they believe are relatively reliable. This sort of thing is done primarily by scholars studying interview notes and or communications practices in specific rhetorical contexts.
You test the validity of the method by providing the data and categories to coders, sometimes not directly affiliated with the research group, and you study how often different individuals code the same segments into the same categories. Categories with a high degree of similar usage are termed reliable, while others are dismissed. This research report indicates they began with “10 initial frames”, but eventually narrowed them down to the three mentioned in the news report.
But there is one thing the researchers are assuming in their codes, and I’m not sure they’re aware of it. They presume that the press in HP has to operate the same way it should in the real world. In other words, they’re presuming that the journalism HP shows is, in fact, a “free press.” Given the press’ relationship with the Ministry, that’s a highly questionable assumption.
Another problem with the report’s methods is this:
In other words, coders didn’t fully categorize the text themselves. Quotes were pulled and handed to coders. Potentially, this means that meaning is pulled from its original context, distorting its interpretations. And the ways quotes were sorted could affect how coders categorized the data. Instead of looking for features of the text, they could have been unintentionally reflecting patterns in compendium. The big problem with this study is that the methods section doesn’t adequately spell out the coding process, especially because they didn’t just hand over the books and say, “Here. Code this.” They boiled the texts down, and I want to know how/why they did. To judge the study’s true merits, you have to look not just at the data they analyzed, but also how it was presented and why one quote was chosen, but another wasn’t.
Now, onto a broader issue. HP could give kids a bad impression of the media? Watching FOX, MSNBC, or CNN in primetime could do the same frikkin’ thing…!?
Plus, you know, Rowling could be offering a critique of the state of journalism. To piggyback off of Hermione Luna‘s point, profit motive has driven all media, journalism included, to become spectacle. I’m okay with this in movies, but in the news… I don’t care too much about the news anymore because I don’t want to watch Keith Olbermann or Bill O’Reilly scream for ten minutes at people who disagree with them. Meanwhile, the rest of the networks’ personalities are trying to catch competing networks in some kind of “gotcha” moment. During the Iran situation, the best sources of info I could find on the subject were a couple of blogs and Twitter (believe it or not). I didn’t watch a single report on any news show/network.
korg, I’m sorry to hear about your experience. I can’t point to anything personal, but I’m from a part of the US that is never happy with our portrayal in the media. Eastern Kentucky often seems painted as some kind of backwoods black hole in which the mountain folk put their cars on cinderblocks in the front yard, produce moonshine or methamphetamine in the basement, and play with rattle snakes in church on Sunday.
One documentary title is rather infamous in my part of the world — American Hollow.
http://www.truveo.com/American-Hollow-110/id/1557386010
Well, I was about to go out running, but I made the mistake of checking in here first, and now I’m sucked in, as usual, to a compelling discussion. This one hits particularly close to home; I graduated in May from Baylor, and I actually took a class with Dr. Sturgill. (I ended up switching majors from journalism to English, but that’s beside the point.)
I haven’t yet read the entire article, but I completely agree with [b]Lily Luna[/b]. While journalism should ideally always be unbiased conveyances of the truth, journalists are taught to be skeptical of anything they hear. In a time when the media is so easily corrupted, shouldn’t the public be taught this as well?
Impossible to add much of value to Dave the L’s post. But I’ll try:
1) It’s a “duh” study. They could have just asked any of the Potter fanatics, hm, aficionados who know every word: “Are there any positive images of the press in the series?” Heck, they could have posted the question here and gotten an answer in nanoseconds.
2) Would it make as much sense to suggest that the Potter books will make readers less appreciative of real sports because nobody can fly? Or afraid of fireplaces because people might appear in them?
3) I have a first-person reason to wish Rowling had tossed in at least one image of a good reporter. But it’s fick-shun, folks. And I trust (most) readers to add it to the cultural stew between their ears with *some* judgment.
4) A much more interesting study would have involved finding some Potter readers (and how hard would *that* be?) and trying to discern if the portrayal of journalism in the series has affected their real-world opinions. Wouldn’t be easy to tweeze out the influence of Potter. But at least there’d be a goal worth pursuing that isn’t thuddingly obvious. Maybe they’d need to find people who hadn’t read Potter yet and test ‘em before and after?
Hi! I am a frequent blog lurker, but don’t have time to comment often. However, I’m actually working toward my Masters in Journalism so I thought I’d join the conversation this time around.
I’ll be honest when I say that stereotypical images of journalists like Rita Skeeter are part of what kept me from pursuing journalism sooner, because as a Christian I didn’t want to have to succumb to the type of lifestyle I thought would be required to make a living. The Baylor study raises an interesting question that I had never thought about. I can definitely see their point. Rita Skeeter is the worst form of journalist. So, the study may be right in that HP could promote a negative view of journalism, but I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing. The fact is, you can’t believe everything you hear on the news today and the earlier you learn that the better IMO. I think JKR does a great job of showing the importance (and difficultly) of separating truth from lies, particularly in the last book.
I also wonder whether the researchers have read HP thoroughly. They said there are no good counterparts to Rita Skeeter – what about Xeno Lovegood? Yes, he may not be the sharpest tool in the shed and he definitely has his weaknesses (ie: anything unusual), but at least he does thorough research, even if it is sometimes misguided. He also stands firmly on his convictions regardless of what that means for his popularity. And we can’t forget that he ended up being right about a lot more than anyone thought he was.
Aw, heck. This was as fun as reading any half-baked rant on the Letters page of my local paper. What a wad of hand-wringing bloviation. Harry Potter is single-handedly killing journalism! Oh, the humanity!!
Seriously LOL…
Arabella, nice comment!
The reasoning of Harry killing journalism reminds me of the Harry Haters who claimed Harry was single-handedly leading every child who read the series into the occult.
You mean it’s not, revgeorge? I’m shocked…shocked! After all, I read it in the paper….
Sheesh… again I step away from the computer for mere minutes (ok, an hour-ish) and the conversation explodes in all sorts of fabulous directions, lol!
Dave, thanks for the break down on how that particular type of study is put together/analyzed. My instincts told me it was a whole lot of bogus, but it’s nice to be able to see the rational, academic/scientific reasons for exactly why that’s true. Oh, and the Kentucky thing? You’d think we’d have realized by now that it’s 2009 and Deliverance was also fiction… but no, the stereotyping continues. Sigh…
korg20000bc, sorry to hear you’ve had such a rotten personal experience in this regard… and even more so that you had to endure family tragedy as the catalyst for it.
Arabella, once again you crack me up, lol! “Oh, the humanity” indeed! You and revgeorge both make excellent points… I really like your analogy revgeorge about those who claim HP is a modern-day “Pied Piper” luring our children into a host of ills… what utter dreck!
I doubt that Harry Potter is making children have a pessimistic view of Journalism anymore than it’s making them join a Coven. After all, as Dave wrote, “Watching FOX, MSNBC, or CNN in primetime could do the same frikkin’ thing…!?” While JKR does portray the media in a mostly negative light, there are some positive examples of the fourth estate in the series as well. One need only look at the only fair article that Rita Skeeter wrote (so far as we know), i.e. her interview with Harry Potter in the fifth novel. Consider the massive coverage of Voldemort’s return towards the end of the same novel with such articles as “HE-WHO-MUST-NOT-BE-NAMED RETURNS”, “You-Know-Who’s Last Attempt to Take Over”, “What the Ministry Should Have Told Us”, and “Why Nobody Listened to Albus Dumbledore”. Also many times JKR incorporates snippets of articles from The Daily Prophet to drive the plot forward. We see this in the first novel where a small article reveals that there was a break-in at Gringotts the very same day Harry Potter and Hagrid retrieve some of Harry’s gold and of course the Stone. A much fairer conclusion would be that while the series paints a negative light on Journalism in the Wizarding World, there are some positive examples of Journalism in there as well. One can go further and look at the relationship that JKR has with the press. While she certainly had her problems with them, especially with coverage over her life story and rumors, JKR has not been recluse and always took the time for interviews. I think the study protests too much and should not take how the series portrays Journalism personally. If anything this should drive the discussion forward about the state of Journalism today and bring to the forefront ethical issues regarding media ownership, bias reporting, and more that others touched upon in the comments above me.
Going back to revgeorge’s first quote:
The irony is HP gets it right, but a myopic journalist doesn’t realize it: when the press gets something very wrong, the public would hope that other journalists would expose it. But that hope is empty. No profession is more likely to defend its own than the press. Even though they are in the profession arguably most responsible for doing just that. Pick your favorite example of journalistic abuse and then TRY to find press exposing it. The only scandal reporters find uninteresting is their own.
I just read the article and I realize this isn’t something that really needs to be debunked but the logic is just baffling.
First of all lawyers and politicians are some of the most negatively portrayed professions in the world and there’s no shortage of people that want to be either. That’s because they’re financially rewarding and markers of social status. Journalism can definitely be a presitigious career (as it’s competitive and hell) but it’s becoming less of an option since so many agencies are cutting back on correspondents these days, for a number of reasons.
Secondly, I really don’t get the timing of this piece, two years after the last book was published, and nine months after the onset of the economic crisis, should HP really their biggest concern?
Thirdly, even if this was the case, why would the books affect public opinion anywhere near as much as real life high profile events-for example, what all the hoopla around the death of princess Diana did to portray journalists in a negative light?
Or you know,other little things like how the lead up to the Iraq war was handled. It’s no contest, and it’s highly unlikely kids too young to remember any of these won’t live to see a similar scandal blow up in their adult lives. [OF course there are plenty of real world examples of phenomenal journalists as well, I could list off many more examples of both.]
Listing off the positive/negative protrayals of journalists in the books is a “well duh” and really straightforward thing. But as was already mentioned, the study doesn’t attempt any scientific measure of how much these portrayals actually affect people’s attitudes. Maybe people became fans of the books because they already agreed with the outlook of the author. Maybe others take it with a grain of salt, never thought about that aspect since it’s not really that central to the overall storyline, never picked up on it at all or just couldn’t care less. I’ve met quite a few fans of the books that hold opinions that are what I would consider to be the complete opposite of the overall message of the series, or are just plain oblivious to it, so that wouldn’t surprise me a bit.
Wow I can write a lot.
Gee, I just clicked in out of curiousity after reading the original article, and thought I would just post something simple like,
“Exactly, revgeorge.” However, I found that there were numerous posts in response, each with a thoughtful analyis but going in different directions. I did get a big laugh out of Arabella Figg’s “Oh the humanity.” Dave the longwinded has pretty much covered all the reasons why journalists fall short; in addition, I would just add the comment that “infotainment” has certainly not helped the reputation of “serious” journalism–if indeed such a thing exists today. When someone who has been the Chief of Staff to a President of the United States(George Stephanopolous) steps into the role of a journalist with no peep from other reporters who actually had to study to learn their craft, and former Sports announcers like Keith Olbermann become the face of sanctimonious pronouncements, it’s clear that “serious” journalism is in deep trouble. But we never hear censure of these “Johnny-come-latelies” by the people who suffer the most from their appearance into the ranks of what may very loosely now be called reporting. So the public has become distrusful, and some famous author has portrayed journalists in a less than flattering light? Booo hooo! My heart bleeeds for these poor ickle journalists–NOT!
I do want to emphasize that, despite some awful examples of journalism in the world, there are lots of good ones left. Jeffrey Weiss, who commented above, is a good example – he’s done great coverage of Potter for years for the Dallas Morning News, and I had the chance to meet and talk with him at Portus 2008 last year. Thanks for stopping by and adding your perspective, Jeff.
Love your examples, Fricka.
The couple of occassions where I’ve personally known something about what was being reported on, I could see inaccuracies in the reporting, sometimes minor, sometimes major. The one time 15+ years ago that I sent a letter to the editor of my college alumni magazine, it was “edited” before publication and while the edits themselves technically weren’t inaccurate, they somehow changed the whole tone of the letter so that what was intended as sarcasm sounded like it wasn’t.
Too often these days newspapers essentially publish press releases with minimal or no fact checking or opportunity for response. How often do we see articles like the following one I just made up:
HUMANS TO TURN INTO LIZARDS
By Ima N. Ideeotte
Due to global warming, pollution, and Americans’ overconsumption and greedy hogging of the world’s sugar, oil, and pharmaceuticals, genetic mutations are likely to cause us to give birth to children who more resemble lizards than people within our lifetimes and the only way to stop this dire result is with significant public health and environmental reforms. That’s according to a new study published by the Association of Supercilious Scientists Hoping Our Lives Eventually Stink. “We must act now to rein in wasteful overconsumption and to limit the amount of harmful gases we emit. We propose a new 100% surtax on all products containing unnecessary ingredients like sugar and other sweeteners, butter, oil, and artificial colors and flavors, as well as all bean products, gasoline, plastics, electricity-using products, and anything else that might harm us. Nothing should be allowed unless it is first shown, in a secure, risk-free way, to be safe and effective,” said Maya Bumm, President of the Association. A message left overnight on a candy manufacturer’s general voice mail for a response to this proposal was not immediately returned. A copy of the study and a photo spread are available from New Moon Publications.
Oh, sorry, was I showing reporters in a negative light?
No offense to Jeffrey Weiss. I hadn’t seen comment 19 before I wrote my last post.
Travis, you’re right. I overgeneralized too much at the end of my comment. And I shouldn’t have. There is good journalism out there.
Jeff, I don’t know your work well, and I have to confess the name didn’t click with me (much to my detriment!). I think I owe you an apology, sir! Though I do not have the courage or constitution for self-imposed flagellation, I will humbly beg that revgeorge rebuke me with a Care Bear Stare (inside joke on Facebook…
).
Sorry, Jeff…
Dave, I wasn’t pointing at anyone in particular. I’ve only skimmed the comments. Just wanted to make a general statement about it, and thank Jeff for commenting.
The real reason traditional journalism is failing (and I amazingly found this nowhere in the exerpt shown) is due to the rise and expansion of the Internet. Newspapers are failing everywhere and a boy wizard isn’t to blame. Advertisers are taking their business to the Net and very fine print journalists are forced into early retirement or laid off. Where can they go in a rapidly diminishing workplace?
This has happened at our own paper–locally owned, which is nowadays a
rarity, and excellent, award-winning reporters and photographers are now gone or are writing as correspondents. Both my husband and I have written punditry columns and some feature stories for ten years; citizen column work is now unpaid. I’ve seen some egregious work and had a bad expierience with a reporter quoting me. Nevertheless, most journalists try hard to maintain integrity.
If traditional journalism fails and we are forced to rely only on untrained Net writers with unknown provenance or dubious backgrounds and no accountability, we are in trouble.
These researchers need to look beyond WizWorld .
Ack. I’m posting from my iPod. Please forgive the space break I couldn’t fix and a misspelling. I’m glad I at least got off what I did as the thing froze. I do think these researchers failed in their assessments, not taking into account the rapid and roiling changes everyone is dealing with, including traditional journalism.
Now you can all jump on me for being part of agenda-crazed
Journamort…though I always try to use my influence (and I do have it) for good).
Travis, oh no! I didn’t think you had! But, your comment made me realize I had. No worries!
Couldn’t agree with you more, Arabella. The rise of the Internet and its impact on print journalism/journalists is something David Simon (and I imagine other reporters/former reporters) talks about extensively as well.
Also agree that the researchers really should have looked far beyond the HP-verse as to causation. There are a multitude of factors, cited by almost every single one of us who’ve posted on this subject thus far, working in conjunction to undermine/shred the industry and its professionals… not one of those factors has anything whatsoever remotely to do with HP and its readers.
The greatest irony is this: the study authors are vigorously pointing their fingers at HP as a significant factor in the undermining of their industry/its professionals… yet, what does it actually say about the state of the industry when professional journalism educators can’t (or won’t) even devise a study which looks at causation factors grounded in actual reality and/or business practices of their industry?
It’s idiocy such as this that makes me really feel for all the truly great journalists out there (and, yes, they’re undoubtedly out there). It’s got to be a special brand of horrific woe to have to witness first-hand the implosion of not only your professional industry/means of making a living, but the vestiges of a genuinely important public service and noble-calling as well.
I have had bad experiences with Journalism in my home town. Both personal and I’ve heard of other peopl having trouble. It really just depends on how focused and dedicated the journalists are, and apparently, not many of them are.
I will say one thing to defend the original article. The researchers’ ambitions weren’t about addressing the broad scope of problems that journalism faces in an age of new media and information overload. I suspect they would rather largely agree with many of the criticisms we’ve articulated here.
They’re goal was an analysis of HP’s representations of journalism, concluding those representations are unfair and could prejudice young people in their views on journalism as a career choice. But this idea is what several people here, including Jeff, have pointed to as a rather obvious “Duh!” I don’t think they’re trying to argue that HP bears more responsibility than other factors.
But, reading the article, one thing I couldn’t figure out is a question I get all the time from reviewers when I submit articles: “Who cares?” I couldn’t figure out how or why this question merited a scholarly study (flawed as it is), especially in the face of the concerns that we’ve all mentioned here. It’s not like HP is representing something that isn’t an already popular conception among many. Most everyone I know in all facets of my life distrust newspapers, television, and radio to present them with accurate information (I’ve always been a wee bit suspicious of the “objectivity” standard). And it has nothing to do with HP or any other book.
Yet, we should also be careful not to overgeneralize in another direction, too — which I can be guilty of. It’s one thing to point to the decline of print journalism and speculate about problems. But the demise of newspapers doesn’t necessarily mean the decline of news and journalism per se. While newspapers and print sources are tanking, online media and television are ticking upward in numbers of users/viewers. Why pay for a newspaper when most of what’s in it I can get for free somewhere else, and often in a format that is quicker to digest?
Yes, there is a general distrust of journalism as either politically ideological, or rigidly corporate, or just purely sensational. But the news industry isn’t going anywhere I don’t think. But, print-based journalism is, and some of that is due to the fact that a print newspaper simply doesn’t have the tools to compete with new media that are less expensive for consumers, and often allow for participatory cultures to spring up.
Most enjoyable commentary, all around. Do you think the folks who wrote the thing will ever get wind of this discussion?
It’s terribly silly to think that the portrayals of journalism in HP are going to keep kids from wanting to grow up to be journalists. Once again, people look at kids and think that they’re incapable of thinking critically. Bad portrayal=don’t want to do it? How insanely simplistic. If this were true, would there be any lawyers in the world?
Instead, what Rowling has given us is a nice lesson about using discernment in regards to media. I am always trying to get this message through to my students (does that make me the one that’s responsible for the downfall of the newspaper?) and Rowling does this way more effectively than I’ve been able to accomplish in the classroom!
The more I read of the study and your comments, the more shocked and appalled I get that Baylor would spend time and money conducting this study the way they did! I wouldn’t call myself a research expert by any means, but I did take a Research Methods class last semester and learned the proper way to conduct research studies. I won’t recount it here because Dave already did that for us – I’ll just agree and say it was horribly done. First of all, I can’t believe book 7 wasn’t included because that’s one of the most, if not THE most important in terms of views of Journalism in the series. Secondly, for the whole study to be based on QUOTES from the series is terrible. Reading quotes out of context in no way gives you an accurate picture of one page, let alone a series of 3,000+ pages! One of the first things every Journalist learns is never to trust someone else’s research. Harry learned this lesson the hard way in the last book. It looks like the researchers could stand to learn a thing or two from him. Okay… getting off soapbox now
Dave, you write: “They’re goal was an analysis of HP’s representations of journalism, concluding those representations are unfair and could prejudice young people in their views on journalism as a career choice.”
One point I was trying to make was that, as journalism is in flux, and with the rise of blogging, and the many options online, etc., kids might not regard journalism itself as a smart career choice during a time of turmoil and transition. After Woodward and Bernstein’s Watergate coverage, journalism became a hot and glamorous career choice. Now, with a glut of out-of-work journalists, students may look elsewhere. I highly doubt that Rowling’s spot-on satire has any influence on this choice.
Great comments all around, Hermione Luna (I love your name btw, I see myself as a mesh of the two as well) and Lily Luna, I really liked your comments at the top of the page, Dave’s explanations were great, and Arabella Figg’s post had me snickering.
What really struck me was how whiny and petulant the tone of the article was. This defensiveness, or tendency to defend its own, as one person pointed out, is one reason that people have a negative view of the media.
To blame Harry Potter for the decline of newspapers and use the Daily Prophet as an example is ridiculous as Rowling’s critique is clearly of the media as a whole, only wizards, not having television, rely on the paper, and to some extent the radio, to get their news. The decline of the in print newspaper has more to do with 24 hour tv news networks and the internet, as others have pointed out.
As far as the Harry Potter books portraying no negative consequences to bad journalism, I would say that many people in the wizarding world’s mistrust of their media and government was one, but that mistrust isn’t widespread throughout the series. I would say that in the real world, I can think of a major network or two where there seems to be no consequence for bad journalism!
As others have pointed out, there are good examples of journalism in our society. I have two friends who just finished the journalism program at Stanford (I’m proud of them and felt the need to brag!) and they do their best to be accurate, fair and do the best work they can, but in a country where the media is largely controlled by a handful of cooperations, unbiased journalism is harder and harder to come by.
*Must confess that she rather likes Keith Olbermann, but harbors no illusions that his program is unbiased*
They did sound whiny and petulant, didn’t they? Lol! Great catch on the tone of the piece, diva_alex… I was so frustrated by the “really?-they-spent-money-and-staff-time-to-do-an-idiotically-irrelevant-study-on-this?” factor that I completely missed the defensive quality you mention… and it’s totally there, lol!
Thanks for the compliment! I know exactly what you mean about feeling like a blended mesh of the two… which in many ways seems a contradiction (hard-core pratical library girl, who also believes wholeheartedly in Wrackspurts? Go figure!) but it’s a genuinely fun one.
Well, make that three who see themselves as Hermione/Lunas. Hermione, the overachieving, literalist bibliophile, and Luna, the openminded, emotive/psychological sensitive– both valuing loyalty and friendship.
I was reading chapter one of DH last night and I found a positive example of journalism. Charity Burbage writes and editorial for the Daily Prophet in defense of muggles, muggle-borns, and intermarriage. There is also Potterwatch radio, and the Quibbler goes from National Enquirer-like rag to source of real information. Of course, even Xeno succumbs to pressure from the Death Eaters in the end, though as his daughter’s life was being threatened, I forgive him. Rowling is clearly telling us to read anything with a critical eye, keep an eye out for bias, and consult a variety of sources, something I’d think any serious student of journalism would agree with.
Hermione Luna I know! Funding for research and studies is so limited, and they spent their limited resources on that and then can’t even keep the petulance out of their tone? If they want a renewed respect in journalists and journalism, they’re very misguided about how to go about it. It’s an example of the “look for a scapegoat and an easy answer” approach that’s so common in our society (though to be fair, I think it may be human nature in general). “Let’s not actually ask hard, thought provoking questions about why it is that trust in the meda is so low and newspaper circulation is in decline. Let’s blame a set of popular novels instead of taking the trouble to really think seriously!”
It is fun to be a Hermione Luna mesh. I’m a girl who loves my books and learning and who *loved* college in particular, and I love Hermione’s passion for justice, but I also feel as “out there” as Luna, and willing to believe that anything’s possible. Luna’s honesty, open-mindedness, and ability to see things as they are, as well as her devotion to her friends makes her one of my favorite charcaters (I went dressed as her for the book 6 release).
Tee-hee, Lily Luna, that was a great piece of journalistic satire!
Travis, thanks for reminding us that there are some people who still try to write responsibly, and sorry Jeffery Weiss if I oversimplified or overgeneralized in my remarks. I do agree with what Arabella Figg wrote about journalism being in flux. It’s true that the Internet has taken a big chunk out of the other media’s reading audience, but that was true when television came on the scene and did the same thing to print newspapers. While I’m thinking of the subject of newspapers, I have to say that our family is one of the dwindling number who still have a subscription to a daily newspaper. I doubt that I am the only one who notices that the printing ink that is used now is cheaper, and I have to pause frequently when reading as it makes me sneeze. The latest insult is that the paper is no longer printing a TV guide to be included in its Sunday edition, as it has become “too expensive,” so now if someone still wants that, he or she has to subscribe over the internet. I am willing to concede that the problem isn’t just with the reporting, but with the publishers of papers and magazines who seem to be much more interested in how they can make more money while providing less service. Is it any wonder, then, that so many potential readers turn to the Internet for their source of news? And to get back to the topic of Harry Potter, the problem with so many of the reviews that have come out is that they clearly are being written by someone who hasn’t read the book(or books!) That lack of preparation might have been something that critics used to get by with, as most of the books that came out previously, the public had not yet read the book, so didn’t know whether the review was accurate or not. With Harry Potter, there have been 7 books, and so the readers can all tell quickly whether the person discussing HP, whether on TV, Newspaper/Magazine, or Internet, has actually read the book and has the details correct. Alas, ear wax! Most of the time, it’s clear that the same questions are being asked or answered, and the person has no clue as to the depth of the writing that is present in the JKR books. That’s just one prime example of how stinky journalism is today. Hopefully that will change, but if not, I look for a number of major Newspapers and even perhaps a couple of Television Stations to go belly-up in the same way that the Automobile industry in Detroit did.
I just noticed that I mis-spelled Mr. Weiss’ first name; I put the “e” in the wrong place. Sorry, Jeffrey!
Yay! Hermione Luna’s of the world unite, lol!
Another great catch, diva_alex! There are plenty of examples of great journalism to be found in DH… and I too thought JKR did a great job of juxtaposing the good and bad, as well as utilizing both examples in ways that mirror the state of modern journalism in reality.
Luna is probably my second-favorite character in the entire series. As much as I love Hermione as a character, I have a harder time “ranking” her, probably because I’m a fellow Virgo and our birthdays are 3 days apart… there are just too many glaring similarities, she resonates so very loudly on a personal/personality level, for me to be truly objective about her as a character. As for Luna, I too love about her all the things you mention above. I never fail to get a kick out of the fact that she can tell Harry/the trio things that, coming from anyone else, they’d scoff or scorn or feel unjustly picked on for.
Thanks, Fricka.
Coming late to this discussion as well. Haven’t had a chance to read the article, but I did faithfully read (well, skim) all the comments above.
My first reaction, on reading Travis’ intro was: my goodness but HP has come a long way that researchers (?) in unrelated fields are using the text to make their own points. It’s almost as if HP has become one of those common cultural reference points, one of those books that most educated people in a culture have read, or at least been exposed to and so know about, so that other educated people can make points by referring to them. It’s almost like HP has become a …. Great Book.
Imagine that.
Shocker, Red Rocker.
Lily Luna, I neglected to comment on your hilarious satire above (#20). This could have been written by Dolores Umbridge!
Okay, so I haven’t read all the comments (just looked through them quickly, which still took me several minutes
), so sorry if I say something that has already been said.
Personally, I just think it makes HP readers aawre that they should not just believe anything they read, but realise it could also not be real at all. Which I don’t think is wrong at all.
Reading Harry Potter doesn’t make me any more negative about journalism than anything else.
I think journalism here (in the Netherlands) is pretty okay. Being a HP fan makes me have to do more with journalism than I would if I wasn’t a fan (reading the latest HP news..).
{ 3 trackbacks }