Time for newspapers to abandon the 'ought' factor

Recent encounters with some extremely successful bloggers and mobilisers of online communities made me question some fundamental elements I'd previously taken for granted about the necessity of a publisher's 'role'; that is, the things media 'ought' to be doing.

Two of this week's new Journalism.co.uk features look at 'trial and error' community journalism approaches, where editors and citizen journalists aren't afraid of failing, capturing the very spirit of abandoning the 'ought factor'.

The fact is, there is no 'ought'. We're in new territory and it's ours, as online journalists, to carve out. There is no set quota for types, lengths or formulae of stories.

At last week's AOP forum on communities one of the speakers made the same point that I've heard many times before: the Guardian braved it and tried investing time and money in online engagement, while the Independent held back. Assess the results for yourself.

Two of the bloggers I've spoken to recently, Iain Dale (full interview here) and Paul Staines, aka Guido Fawkes, simply laughed when I asked them about 'oughts' and 'roles'.

"It's not my role to do anything," Dale told me. "If I get a story - something I think is a story - then sure, I'll write about it, but it's not my role."

"It's really pretentious for bloggers to think they have a mission."

Then he stopped himself and added that maybe Guido Fawkes had a 'mission' to expose hypocrisy and corruption, though he seemed loathe to label Staines as pretentious (they do have a common commercial interest after all).

At an academic conference discussing ethical practice in the media, I asked Guido the same thing.

"I'm here to have a bit of fun. Because it [the blog] has now got a big following I can contribute to the news agenda, which is great for my ego," he said.

That's from the blogger who has a reputation for the biggest political exposés in the UK, outside of the so-called mainstream media.

These bloggers don't see themselves as journalists and don't see themselves as having a 'role'.

Yet, their readerships rival those of many newspapers and they make their livings directly or indirectly from online publications.

While I don't think Staines's or Dale's blogs are alternatives to newsgathering operations, it made me think about this notion of 'role'. Why are their MSM counterparts (the newspaper op-ed columnists) so caught up on their 'duty' or roles?

MSM is deeply entrenched in this idea of defining its 'role' and 'duty' - that's what underpinned Paul Dacre's privacy speech last month. 

However suspect you might consider some of the moral duties the tabloid editors claim, the 'ought factor' is what frames much of the discussion around media development and survival.

Perhaps it was not meant entirely seriously, but a recent blog post on Press Gazette suggested that media commentator Roy Greenslade should not be neglecting the newspaper job cuts in the UK, while he talked about murdered journalists in the Philippines.

In this case, Greenslade apologised for neglecting to comment on the British news.

But why should he? Greenslade's not earning his money from licence payers. If he wants to have a more international approach, in line with the Guardian's move to cater for the US audience, then why not? If people don't like it they'll stop reading and he can re-focus if necessary.

Media outlets can still be trusted for content and opinion when leaving the 'patch'. It seems to me that it's not so much about redefining the 'role' in the online age, but moving on from that debate altogether, to more important questions about online ethics.

You can still be responsible and representative in your online practice without a clearly defined 'role'. In fact, it seems to me that maybe the whole notion of 'role' has helped build a fixed agenda with formulaic stories and maybe, just maybe, that's where the industry's gone wrong.

I met an arts undergraduate this week who told me he'd like to get into journalism, but he'd prefer a print job, because he's suspicious of the quality and ethical grounding of online content.

As we were speaking I received a text message from my colleague telling me that the Tribune Co. had filed for bankruptcy. Do you buy a newspaper each day? I asked the student. No, I read it online, he told me.

There lies the economic problem, summed up in a contradictory two-minute conversation.

As we witness the brutality of the media downturn, time and time again, we return to the question of the 'role of newspapers'. It's time to leave behind the notion of a fixed 'duty'. An ethical and fair approach to journalism can exist in new, experimental formats.

Free daily newsletter

If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).