That, it seems to me, is the question that ought to be on the table, and if I have any influence over our discussion I intend to place it on the table. For it seems to me that the debate over public journalism, our subject here, has gotten considerably off track. We are arguing about advocacy journalism, when we should be talking about democracy and journalism. We debate whether readers should drive the agenda when we should be discussing what makes a reader into a citizen. We talk about what's good for journalism, what journalism is and is not, when the real issue is what communities, regions and the republic as a whole need in order to solve their problems.
Public journalism puts life first.
This, if anything, is what's radical about it. Among the casualties will be journalism itself. It is also the habits of the mind and heart that permit people to understand each other, discuss their views, and get along despite their differences. Public life is public conversation, in the degree that we endeavor to have it. What public journalism is fundamentally about is using the power of the press to re-engage people in public life, in the belief that a disengaged, complacent or cynical people cannot make use of what journalists have to offer.