I'm not going to add hot takes on the Northwestern student paper's decisions; there are plenty. But I am going to raise a few higher issues this episode brings out: 1/
First, I worry that journalism will cease to protect, to fight for, that which is public. That is what we report on, monitor, witness, share. The presumption of a right to privacy in public could kill journalism faster than any bad business model. 2/
I wrote "Public Parts" because I was celebrating the expansion of the public, the spreading of the franchise of publicness, the generosity of sharing. I was also defending that which is public for the sake of journalism. These were not popular positions; less popular now. 3/
Next: Whom do we as journalists serve: he public or the subject? We debate that constantly in #socialj. We should not be extractive. We should be empathetic. We must listen. But sometimes we also must tell uncomfortable truths, truths that can be inconvenient for subjects. 4/
So who dictates the journalism we do? Do our subjects? It's not an easy question. But it's a question that goes to the heart of our definition of independence as journalists. Independent of advertisers, corporate overlords, powerful sources? Yes. Of our subjects? 5/
Whether they realize it or not, these are the issues the NU students are grappling with. I don't agree with all their answers. But we, their Twitter elders, should engage at a higher level. 6/
I tell my students constantly that it is their job to reimagine, redefine journalism, to question how we got here and find a better path. It's my job as a teacher and an elder to help them. The NU story is an opportunity for debate and learning. 7/
Much more difficult than any of that, of course, are matters of race, including mainstream media's still-appalling record in diversity and the net's role in finally empowering voices too long not heard in media. 8/
That is part of what the editor of the Northwestern paper is grappling with. We need to listen to him about that. 9/
