McKay Coppins

One of the primary goals of a contemporary journalism degree is to scare the living bejeebeez out of journalism students (since, as you know, journalism students tend to have an excess of bejeebeez).

That is the only reason I can fathom for one of our fine communications professors at BYU showing the video below to his students. Now, put yourself in the shoes of a bejeebeez-filled journalism student, watch this video and then try to tell me you wouldn’t be considering law school by the time it’s over.

The video, though probably a bit over-dramatic, does bring up one important concern about the age of new media: the shallowness and vapidity that dominsates so much of the “citizen journalism” out there.

Independent bloggers, even the most famous and respected ones, tend to be big on the snark and skimpy on the original reporting. The blogosphere is saturated with commentary and opinion, much of it entertaining and some of it well-informed, granted, but very little of it actually contibutes anything substantial or important to the public’s awareness. And, if I’m not mistaken, that is the whole point of our constitutionally-protected press.

And thus, my ethical dilemma. I started this blog, at least in part, because I knew the journalism industry was quickly moving online and I wanted to participate. But do I really want to be one of the millions of bloggers contibuting the abysmal mess of redundant, ill-conceived, often factually inaccurate commentary that makes up the majority of citizen journalism?

Since I started this blog a couple weeks ago, I’ve started and then panned at least five different posts after getting halway through them. Why? Because after spending three or four paragraphs beating around the bush and trying to sound clever, I would realize: “Wait a second, what’s the point of my writing this? Am I saying anything that hasn’t already been said in at least 72 different ways?”

And the answer was no.

I suppose I could try and actually get some original reporting onto this blog at some point, but between The Daily Universe, classes and my column at the Deseret News, there doesn’t usually end up being a whole lot of time for investigative blogging.

More on this to come…

Shortly after Mitt Romney’s gubernatorial election in Massachusetts, the Boston Stake planned a “mini-mission,” in which 60 LDS teenagers spent a weekend proselyting with the full-time missionaries in Eastern Massachusetts. In the testimony meeting that followed the activity, everyone took turns swapping their best rejection stories. The winner came from a kid who had spent the afternoon knocking on doors near Cambridge:

“This really isn’t a good day for you guys to talk to me,” a woman told them after glancing at their nametags. “I’m a Democrat.”

With the 2012 presidential elections just around the corner (read: “about three years away”), many are speculating as to whom the GOP will pick to challenge President Obama. Romney’s name inevitably comes up in these discussions.

Of course, much has been written  about the role Romney’s Mormon faith played in his failed 2008 presidential bid, but few have been willing to ask what it would mean for the Mormon church if Romney were to win this time around.

Remember, for all the church’s efforts to be seen as a mainstream Christian religion, Mormonism is still a somewhat obscure sect in the minds of most Americans. It is quite likely that if a Mormon became president, lots of people would get curious about his beliefs. And given the well-oiled LDS missionary machine, I bet more than a few of those people would end up converting.

(Full disclosure: I also happen to believe Mormonsim is true and that God would play a role in their conversion, but even if you don’t share that belief, the scenario is not implausible.)

The real question is, who would be converting?

With the tone of American politics dictated these days by the likes of Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann, it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which a president is consistently well-liked and approved of by more than half the country’s population. If the past year has taught us anything, it’s that presidents will be relentlessly demonized by the opposing party no matter what he does.

Bottom line: Fox News and conservative talk radio would make Romney look very good, while the liberal pundits would try to harpoon him every chance they get.

Maybe after four years of Mitt-lovin’ from Sean Hannity, politically conservative Evangelicals and Baptists would be a bit more open to Mormon teachings. But I’m also guessing that in this environment, liberal Democrats would have a very hard time investigating the LDS church when their political arch-nemesis is a devout Mormon.

As a fierce independent and a faithful Mormon, I would welcome more converts to the church regardless of their political affiliation (as long as their conversions are sincere and not based on political idol-worship). But I can’t help but wonder whether a Mormon president would alienate a significant pool of potential investigators. What do you think?

You know what Sean Hannity likes to complain about? Well, a lot of things I guess, but especially the “mainstream media.”

Now, forget for a second the cognitive dissonance required to boast about the dominating popularity of your own radio and TV shows and then, in the next breath, demonize the “mainstream media” for being elitist, out-of-touch snobs. That’s a heck of a thing, to be sure, but it’s not what we’re talking about right now.

The fact is, Hannity and his Fox News counterparts are not alone in their disdain for American journalism. A study conducted by the Pew Research Center last year shows that a full two-thirds of Americans think the news stories they consume are “often inaccurate.”  And a We Media/Zogby poll conducted in 2008 shows that 70 percent of Americans think the traditional news media is “out of touch.”

As far as the “often inaccurate” complaint, there’s really no defense. In truth, news stories ARE often inaccurate. That’s why they call journalism “the first draft of history.” It is implied that there will be future edits. And not to harp on this, but the more money news outlets lose, the more the chances increase that they will get a story wrong. Reporters and editors are spread too thin at most newspapers/TV stations and things are getting missed. If you want a more accurate press, pay for it!

But then there’s the “out of touch” accusation. We hear this talking point a lot: ”The mainstream media is made up of pompous, self-righteous elitists!” “

Having only dabbled in the world of professional journalism, I have yet to test the truth of such a claim. But, to be honest, I can easily see how reporters would be tempted to elevate themselves above their readership/viewership. It doesn’t have so much to do with an innate sense of intellectual superiority as it does with the fundamental human need to preserve one’s ego.

Think about it: in what other profession is your day’s work immediately handed over to thousands or even millions of people to critique, correct, complain about and outright mock? There are singers and movie stars, sure, but they typically have months to work on their “art” before they present it to the world. Journalists have five or six hours in most cases. And with the advent of online comment boards, snarky people who hide behind screen names can then go online and blast away at every bylined reporter they want to with no real expectation of quality or even coherence.

In such a scenario, journalists essentially have three options:

1) They can take everything personally and seek to please everyone with their reporting

2) They can spend every second of their free time responding to their critics with logic and reason (which, in most cases, will fall on deaf ears)

OR…

3) They can disregard their critics as ignorant and reassure themselves that they are talented, ethical, world-changing reporters who are acting as watchdogs for the (unappreciative) masses.

Now, of course, you could argue that there is a fourth option: namely, accept the criticism, develop a thick skin and continue doing your job the best you know how. But really, isn’t that the same as the third option? Prospective reporters are often told they need to develop “a thick skin” to be enter the news business. What they are basically being told is that lots of people are going to complain about your work, and you’ll just have to deal with that, preferably by ignoring them.

Maybe most journalists are arrogant elitsts and maybe they aren’t, but if there’s anyone in the world who has an excuse to be, isn’t it the American reporter?

If I’ve learned anything as a BYU journalism student, it’s that the news business is sinking fast and if would-be reporters don’t want to drown in a sea of free online news aggregates, they’d better grab hold of the first blogging life preserver they can find.

Yes, I beat that metaphor to death. Just go with it.

First, an abbreviated resume: I’m the Mormon Twentyomsething columnist for the Deseret News and MormonTimes.com, as well as the editor of BYU’s The Daily Universe. I freelance for various print and online publications, and this spring I will be interning at Newsweek Magazine in NYC.

In addition to weighing in on issues of faith, politics and media, I will use this site to post links to published pieces I’ve written.

But more importantly, I’d like to use this site to interact with readers. Those who follow my Mormon Twentysomething column have probably noticed that the message boards on deseretnews.com, while interesting and even thought-provoking, can sometimes get a little out of hand. I have, therefore, made it a policy not to participate in the discussion there.

However, that doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear your feedback, answer your questions or field your article ideas. On the contrary, I would encourage you to use the comments section liberally here.

That’s all for now, but check back again soon.