There’s too much hack-job journalism circulating the Internet.
It seems several factors are contributing to the current subpar standard of the Fourth Estate—apathetic consumers, skewed personal value systems, the need for immediacy above accuracy and enlightened commentary, our obsession with certain polarized, categorical arguments which, more often than not, entirely miss the greater picture—and legitimate discourse is suffering because of them.
But one aspect almost always overlooked is the byline. I think it might be responsible for more examples of poor reporting and editorializing than we are willing to admit.
For anyone not in the know with media lingo, a byline is where a writer’s name goes, usually right below the headline. Usually, it’s the second thing someone sees when reading an article, and herein rests the problem.
Especially in the age of social media, someone writing for a major media outlet can easily have their name circulated hundreds of thousands of times. In a best-case marketplace of ideas, the premier writers, reporters and analysts should naturally become the most prominent, as they, more often than not, will come closest to finding truth. From this perspective, a pseudo-laissez-faire system makes sense, because it spurs the uber-talented to live up to their potential.
Looking at this situation with a capitalist mindset, my argument—bylines are sacrificing the integrity of contemporary journalistic standards—seems not only far-fetched, but blatantly wrong. And I respect that line of thought.
Let us, just for this article, take another approach though: one in which we consider any form of self-promotion, even as facially innocuous as attaching one’s name to something, an innate flaw.
As someone constantly under public scrutiny, sometimes, whether it’s conscious or not, one will morph their work for the sake of self-preservation. Because when your name is pasted on something that will be seen, and possibly hated, by an unknowable number of people, playing it safe becomes an appealing option.
This is something plaguing all forms of media—no one is taking appropriate risks. Reporters and editorialists are too concerned with making an argument or following stories to which their audience will respond well above what actually needs to be said or exposed. Are money-needy media outlets, willing to post anything that will generate hits, partially to blame for this? Undoubtedly, yes. Regardless, bylines create an environment in which a writer’s personal interests can become more important to them than informing people reading their stories. And that can’t be tolerated.
Now, I don’t think every single person who writes for a media outlet needs to or should get rid of their byline. The New Yorker shouldn’t force Andy Borowitz to retag his column as “The Anonymous Satirist Report.” If Neil deGrasse Tyson makes a guest appearance in The Chicago Tribune, I want to know I’m not reading some staff reporter’s explanation of astrophysics. And I certainly don’t expect bloggers to drop everything and become totally faceless because, well, bloggers should keep doing their thing.
Major news producers, however, should seriously consider eliminating their bylines—not because it will have any immediate fiscal benefit, but because it can potentially produce far superior work to what is coming out of the current media field. This is something maybe worth adding to the ethics lexicon. We need editorialists willing to say, “Fuck this;” we need reporters and journalists who aren’t afraid to think outside of the box. Both species seem to be endangered at the moment because they’re paralyzed by the prospect of blemishing their careers.
So what will motivate talented writers to become journalists if they won’t even get to see their name attached to everything they put out? First off, you don’t need to be a Tom Wolfe or a Hunter S. Thompson or a Joan Didion to be a good reporter. And maybe this issue doesn’t exist at all if fewer people convince themselves their destiny is to become the next big thing.
But then again, there may be no escaping our 21st century narcissistic tailspin. I’m hopeful there are enough people who legitimately care about the truth to sacrifice their own personal fame.
Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
