Since its emergence several years ago, few topics have generated as much controversy in the media business as public journalism. In fact, the Inquirer may have been guilty of nothing so much as sloppiness. According to Inquirer editor Maxwell King, the reporter who covered the story simply didn't have the time to pursue all the leads. Since the editorial page ran the project, with no newsroom involvement whatsoever, King says it was not exactly public journalism, which is generally known as a program carried out on the news pages. The swelling ranks of public journalists around the country would do well to consider King's experience in Philadelphia.
Public journalism holds out the promise of reinvigorating the news with community purpose.
At a time when much of the public is alienated from the press and downright uncivil discourse fills the airwaves, any efforts to bring writers and readers closer together while promoting constructive community debate deserve some praise. But there's a fine line between addressing community concerns and pandering to dominant local opinion, and an even finer one between encouraging the democratic process and becoming a stakeholder in particular outcomes. Public journalism's high-profile gurus have more cautious views of these issues than their critics usually credit, but in practice at least some public journalism initiatives threaten to subvert the very causes they claim to serve. Around the country, reporters and editors shared the public's frustration with the meaningless debate about national priorities they had witnessed. Most just drowned their sorrow in cynicism about elected officials, but a few began to wonder if they, too, weren't part of the problem.