What do you think?
Rate this book
Informing the News: The Need for Knowledge-Based Journalism
As the journalist Walter Lippmann noted nearly a century ago, democracy falters “if there is no steady supply of trustworthy and relevant news.” Today’s journalists are not providing it. Too often, reporters give equal weight to facts and biased opinion, stir up small controversies, and substitute infotainment for real news. Even when they get the facts rights, they often misjudge the context in which they belong.
Information is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy. Public opinion and debate suffer when citizens are misinformed about current affairs, as is increasingly the case. Though the failures of today’s communication system cannot be blamed solely on the news media, they are part of the problem, and the best hope for something better.
Patterson proposes “knowledge-based journalism” as a corrective. Unless journalists are more deeply informed about the subjects they cover, they will continue to misinterpret them and to be vulnerable to manipulation by their sources. In this book, derived from a multi-year initiative of the Carnegie Corporation and the Knight Foundation, Patterson calls for nothing less than a major overhaul of journalism practice and education. The book speaks not only to journalists but to all who are concerned about the integrity of the information on which America’s democracy depends.
Information is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy. Public opinion and debate suffer when citizens are misinformed about current affairs, as is increasingly the case. Though the failures of today’s communication system cannot be blamed solely on the news media, they are part of the problem, and the best hope for something better.
Patterson proposes “knowledge-based journalism” as a corrective. Unless journalists are more deeply informed about the subjects they cover, they will continue to misinterpret them and to be vulnerable to manipulation by their sources. In this book, derived from a multi-year initiative of the Carnegie Corporation and the Knight Foundation, Patterson calls for nothing less than a major overhaul of journalism practice and education. The book speaks not only to journalists but to all who are concerned about the integrity of the information on which America’s democracy depends.
252 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2013
19 people are currently reading
186 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
October 20, 2013
An interesting report on some of the things that are wrong with today's news reporting, but it ignores the big elephant in the room.
I particularly liked the discussion of negative reporting vs. biased reporting: the press has a preference for negative reporting which, although it may seem objective, is itself a form of bias. It alienates the audience and leaves us with the notion that government and politicians never get along and never do anything right, which is untrue. In this sense, the unrelenting stream of negative reporting about Congress must bear some responsibility for the Tea Party phenomenon (although not the largest share of blame--for that, we should look to the wealthy donors who support Tea Party groups).
The book also addresses the pitfalls of "objective reporting" as practiced in the US today. By quoting all sides on an issue, equal weight is often given to views that are marginal and should remain so. People who deny the existence of global warming is a good example.
To address these problems, the author recommends shifting from an "objective reporting" model to a "knowledge-based reporting" model that would involve requiring reporters to completely master a topic of body of knowledge before they begin writing about it. This might be possible in some utopian future when we can download information directly into our brains, or when college educations become free and students are paid to take classes. Otherwise, don't hold your breath.
This brings us to the elephant in the room: the profit motive. Patterson grudgingly admits "The press' civil obligation has always sat uneasily with its determination to make money." (p. 108.) No kidding. But there's no chapter in this book on the economics of the newsroom. He barely addresses such issues as pressure from advertisers or the need to pay shareholders a double-digit rate of return. This is a major flaw in this work.
Seymour Hersh has a much better idea of what's needed in the modern newsroom. In a recent interview he suggested that editors should be removed from the newsroom entirely or demoted to copyediting positions in order to avoid the undue influence of economics on reporting. Reporters should be required to pair their "objective reporting" skills with an outsider's attitude that questions every quote and document they collect from official sources. And they need to continually ask themselves if the whole issue that they're covering is being presented in the right context and from the right angle.
Hersh's solution is much more straightforward than Patterson's. And it may explain the rise in popularity of news blogs and nontraditional Internet news sites.
I particularly liked the discussion of negative reporting vs. biased reporting: the press has a preference for negative reporting which, although it may seem objective, is itself a form of bias. It alienates the audience and leaves us with the notion that government and politicians never get along and never do anything right, which is untrue. In this sense, the unrelenting stream of negative reporting about Congress must bear some responsibility for the Tea Party phenomenon (although not the largest share of blame--for that, we should look to the wealthy donors who support Tea Party groups).
The book also addresses the pitfalls of "objective reporting" as practiced in the US today. By quoting all sides on an issue, equal weight is often given to views that are marginal and should remain so. People who deny the existence of global warming is a good example.
To address these problems, the author recommends shifting from an "objective reporting" model to a "knowledge-based reporting" model that would involve requiring reporters to completely master a topic of body of knowledge before they begin writing about it. This might be possible in some utopian future when we can download information directly into our brains, or when college educations become free and students are paid to take classes. Otherwise, don't hold your breath.
This brings us to the elephant in the room: the profit motive. Patterson grudgingly admits "The press' civil obligation has always sat uneasily with its determination to make money." (p. 108.) No kidding. But there's no chapter in this book on the economics of the newsroom. He barely addresses such issues as pressure from advertisers or the need to pay shareholders a double-digit rate of return. This is a major flaw in this work.
Seymour Hersh has a much better idea of what's needed in the modern newsroom. In a recent interview he suggested that editors should be removed from the newsroom entirely or demoted to copyediting positions in order to avoid the undue influence of economics on reporting. Reporters should be required to pair their "objective reporting" skills with an outsider's attitude that questions every quote and document they collect from official sources. And they need to continually ask themselves if the whole issue that they're covering is being presented in the right context and from the right angle.
Hersh's solution is much more straightforward than Patterson's. And it may explain the rise in popularity of news blogs and nontraditional Internet news sites.
October 13, 2017
An immensely useful resource for students, teachers and practitioners of journalism that brings together a wealth of extant and contemporary research.
August 16, 2021
19. Informing the News, by Thomas E. Patterson. This was both an excellent and insightful read- and extremely depressing. The author outlines where covering the news went wrong, why, and some possible myths behind what audiences are looking for (although I do wonder if parts of that research would hold today, this was published in 2013). I've realized myself, as a working journalist, that more specialists in various topics are needed, even before reading this. Patterson puts it in better terms than I could articulate. One phrase that stuck with me is that we are at a unique disadvantage in that our profession relies so heavily on other professionals to get information to write about- but without always fully understanding the situation. At best this can lead to vital topics being oversimplified. At worst, it could lead to scenarios where professionals with an agenda could outright lie, and we don't know enough to catch on to that until it's too late. I don't disagree, Patterson is right. However, is this realistic? Maybe in the 2010s, when this was being compiled. Maybe. But now? The hard reality is if you want journalists with true expertise in a field (medicine, science, and math are three that immediately spring to mind), you need to start paying at least double, and possibly triple, what journalists are being paid now. I realize not having expertise is costly, but smaller, news outlets don't have the budgets, and the larger corporately owned news industries don't have the interest (quite the contrary, but that's another topic for another day). Parts of this were a needed gut check, personally, but it made me think of my job and how I might improve. That's a good thing. What I really like is the list of journalism resources towards the back. Also, Patterson focuses on journalism in general, but especially newspapers and television. So yes, this is a worthwhile read, no doubt. But it's not an easy read, especially for those who care about the field.
June 26, 2018
4.5*
One of the better reads I've come across in a while on the topic of what can be done to improve journalism.
Patterson really drives for the importance of journalists to be more specialized in their reporting and have significant knowledge in a field to understand the context and significance in their reporting. The need for relational stories that connect in a common thread as opposed to brief, content-light episodic and soft stories that fail to contribute, meaningfully, to public discourse.
The ideals he holds are high, but something a policy wonk like me thinks we should be striving for. Especially, as I've begged for in the past 16yrs or so ~ less of the 'horse-race' coverage of politics and how moves impact individual political actors, and more substance in policy and how laws / policies / legal decisions impact the lives of those outside of the political elite. The on-going problem of couching policy changes as "a win for President X" or a "loss for Speaker Y" instead of actually informing the Citizens is a major reason for the lack of significant knowledge and sophistication in voters.
I was heartened by the fact that some studies have shown that true, long-form, journalism is some of the most popular journalism on-line and that people actively seek it out (and share it, if relevant / strong reporting). Any move beyond the sound-bites and tweets should be welcomed.
Strongly recommend this for my journalist friends, policy makers, and those often asked to be on the news.
One of the better reads I've come across in a while on the topic of what can be done to improve journalism.
Patterson really drives for the importance of journalists to be more specialized in their reporting and have significant knowledge in a field to understand the context and significance in their reporting. The need for relational stories that connect in a common thread as opposed to brief, content-light episodic and soft stories that fail to contribute, meaningfully, to public discourse.
The ideals he holds are high, but something a policy wonk like me thinks we should be striving for. Especially, as I've begged for in the past 16yrs or so ~ less of the 'horse-race' coverage of politics and how moves impact individual political actors, and more substance in policy and how laws / policies / legal decisions impact the lives of those outside of the political elite. The on-going problem of couching policy changes as "a win for President X" or a "loss for Speaker Y" instead of actually informing the Citizens is a major reason for the lack of significant knowledge and sophistication in voters.
I was heartened by the fact that some studies have shown that true, long-form, journalism is some of the most popular journalism on-line and that people actively seek it out (and share it, if relevant / strong reporting). Any move beyond the sound-bites and tweets should be welcomed.
Strongly recommend this for my journalist friends, policy makers, and those often asked to be on the news.
May 27, 2024
4 estrellas por útil y bien documentado.
Pero... entre tanto dato se pierde el argumento central de cada capítulo.
Y, otro pero... El libro define un problema ("corrupción de la información" y desinformación), señala culpables (casi siempre el periodismo o las y los periodistas o a veces los medios en general) y señala una solución que significa varias cosas: "el periodismo basado en el conocimiento".
Me faltó que el autor volteara a ver los cambios en la economía política de los medios que han llevado a las nuevas dinámicas de comunicación que producen esta desinformación. Así como está enmarcado en el libro, pareciera que se trata exclusivamente de un problema de periodistas y de audiencias distraídas (a la Walter Lippmann). Hay un capítulo titulado "El problema de la educación" que habla sobre los debates sobre la educación periodística. Y no hay ningún problema que nos hable de las disrupciones producidas por la tecnología, de la transformación del mercado publicitario (y por ende del modelo de negocios de los medios) acarreada por Google y Facebook, etc.
Pero... entre tanto dato se pierde el argumento central de cada capítulo.
Y, otro pero... El libro define un problema ("corrupción de la información" y desinformación), señala culpables (casi siempre el periodismo o las y los periodistas o a veces los medios en general) y señala una solución que significa varias cosas: "el periodismo basado en el conocimiento".
Me faltó que el autor volteara a ver los cambios en la economía política de los medios que han llevado a las nuevas dinámicas de comunicación que producen esta desinformación. Así como está enmarcado en el libro, pareciera que se trata exclusivamente de un problema de periodistas y de audiencias distraídas (a la Walter Lippmann). Hay un capítulo titulado "El problema de la educación" que habla sobre los debates sobre la educación periodística. Y no hay ningún problema que nos hable de las disrupciones producidas por la tecnología, de la transformación del mercado publicitario (y por ende del modelo de negocios de los medios) acarreada por Google y Facebook, etc.
November 7, 2025
Could've been 75 pages. Quite redundant.
Quotes Walter Lipperman a lot so maybe I should've just read a book by him instead?
Patterson spends a lot of time emphasizing the importance of journalism...along with the modern pitfalls. However offers no resolutions or ideas.
Still insightful and interesting albeit already a bit dated...a lot has happened since 2013.
Quotes Walter Lipperman a lot so maybe I should've just read a book by him instead?
Patterson spends a lot of time emphasizing the importance of journalism...along with the modern pitfalls. However offers no resolutions or ideas.
Still insightful and interesting albeit already a bit dated...a lot has happened since 2013.
November 11, 2019
This book had some very interesting points, especially about the need for and important of well researched news (articles, media). However since it was written in 2013, I think a lot of the data and examples used, are a bit outdated.
November 30, 2018
We NEED this. NEEDNEEDNEED.
March 25, 2019
This book has really good insights about how politics and the press have really discredited each other. It also talks a out the importance of well researched articles and media.
August 8, 2017
The cure for the distrust the modern news media has generated is for journalists to become more knowledgeable about what they are reporting on and go beyond being simply "witnesses". This is, in fact, an old idea suggested in the early twentieth century by Walter Lippmann, who is quoted liberally throughout the book. Philosopher John Dewey objected in part because he felt that would make journalists too far removed from the audience they were covering. However, Patterson seems to think modern journalists can do this without becoming too academic. He suggests incorporating the baseline subjects into undergraduate an journalism curriculum and proposes asking graduate students to specialize. Such a course of study might prevent a journalist who lacks basic numeracy from covering finance and economics or another who doesn't understand the basics of U.S. civics from covering politics.
Patterson's proposals, like the rest of the book, are simply laid out and easy to follow. Just as simply put but arguably more compelling is the story behind how the modern news media found itself in the current predicament in which it is regarded with almost as much distrust as the subjects it covers. That traditional outlets now find themselves unable to sustain their financial model is only the impetus to examine its loss of popularity; it is not the cause. Patterson makes the argument that two trends were responsible for the loss of trust: one, television news itself, which led broadcasts to focus on newsmakers, in many instances at the exclusion of the story and eventually to a preference for covering "the game" and not the substance; and two, the continued bias of the news media. And what is that bias? Neither Democrat/liberal nor Republican/conservative but negative, regardless of the story being covered. While we can understand why that trend developed during the Watergate era, that it persisted beyond that is more attributable to the impression it gave of the authority of the news media than a public need for continuing skepticism and cynicism.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy Patterson lays out is that while both broadcast and cable (and, I would argue, print) have increased their output of soft news with the justification that the public wants these stories, numerous surveys have shown that celebrity news, scandals and "insider baseball" are among the least interesting to the public. What they-we-really want is news about events that affect our lives (war, terrorism, natural disasters) and policy. "Giving the people what they want" would both elevate the conversation and improve the news media's bottom line. That some might choose to specialize should be welcomed; that has already proven profitable for some outlets.
The most quietly damning part of the book was Patterson's demonstration that coverage does indeed change what people think. Between 1992 and 1994, despite the fact that crime rates had fallen, the news focused on sensational crime stories; by 1994, Congress passed President Clinton's "tough on crime" legislation. The news and its slant does matter, and because of that both should be treated carefully. Which is not a defense of "objective" journalism, which Patterson points out was originally intended as a device to help sift facts from a journalist's opinion, not a complete pass on passing any judgment once those facts were made clear.
Highly recommended for anyone who follows the news.
Patterson's proposals, like the rest of the book, are simply laid out and easy to follow. Just as simply put but arguably more compelling is the story behind how the modern news media found itself in the current predicament in which it is regarded with almost as much distrust as the subjects it covers. That traditional outlets now find themselves unable to sustain their financial model is only the impetus to examine its loss of popularity; it is not the cause. Patterson makes the argument that two trends were responsible for the loss of trust: one, television news itself, which led broadcasts to focus on newsmakers, in many instances at the exclusion of the story and eventually to a preference for covering "the game" and not the substance; and two, the continued bias of the news media. And what is that bias? Neither Democrat/liberal nor Republican/conservative but negative, regardless of the story being covered. While we can understand why that trend developed during the Watergate era, that it persisted beyond that is more attributable to the impression it gave of the authority of the news media than a public need for continuing skepticism and cynicism.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy Patterson lays out is that while both broadcast and cable (and, I would argue, print) have increased their output of soft news with the justification that the public wants these stories, numerous surveys have shown that celebrity news, scandals and "insider baseball" are among the least interesting to the public. What they-we-really want is news about events that affect our lives (war, terrorism, natural disasters) and policy. "Giving the people what they want" would both elevate the conversation and improve the news media's bottom line. That some might choose to specialize should be welcomed; that has already proven profitable for some outlets.
The most quietly damning part of the book was Patterson's demonstration that coverage does indeed change what people think. Between 1992 and 1994, despite the fact that crime rates had fallen, the news focused on sensational crime stories; by 1994, Congress passed President Clinton's "tough on crime" legislation. The news and its slant does matter, and because of that both should be treated carefully. Which is not a defense of "objective" journalism, which Patterson points out was originally intended as a device to help sift facts from a journalist's opinion, not a complete pass on passing any judgment once those facts were made clear.
Highly recommended for anyone who follows the news.
February 19, 2014
An infuriating mishmash of generic platitudes about journalism with little sense of a coherent purpose.
The pitch behind the book, or at least the one that made it to the cover, is that a new kind of knowledge-based journalism is the panacea for what ails the modern publication. Journalists are not subject matter experts on the topics that they cover. When you combine that with modern journalism's penchant for "he said, she said" manufactured equivalence reporting, you get some lazy and ill-formed work.
I'm willing to take Patterson's point that the over-dependence on political leaders and subject matter experts dilutes the diversity of coverage. It also leads to a kind of reporting that under-serves those at the bottom of society's rungs.
At the same time, I honestly think he grossly underestimates the knowledge base of reporters. Maybe the reporters I've worked with have just been unusually talented, but almost without exception they are among the best informed people I know on their respective beats. That's why beats exist. And sure, there are occasions when circumstances conspire to push reporters outside their areas of expertise, which leads to a shallower kind of story, but it's the exception and not the rule.
What's more, smart journalism students are already specializing before they get out of J school. Not that that's a big fix anyway. Journalism students are hired for their skills as reporters, not their explicit subject matter expertise. So advocating that these secondary areas of knowledge be put at the fore of an education ignores the reality of the journalism job market, which in the mainstream media casts a much wider net.
Just to illustrate how out of touch Patterson seems, it wasn't until page 123, out of a book no more than 150 pages long, that he even mentions "Internet sites" and how their dynamics might be different than the news business as a whole. Were you not talking about the Internet this whole time!? How are you possibly offering prescriptions for the future of this business and you only mention the Internet in passing?
I'm just not sure who he is talking to here. Maybe it's the mainstream consumer, since he still treats cable talk shows like they're in the same category as newspapers? That's the only theory that makes sense. If so, however, this is a seriously boring book for John Q. Public.
I feel bad for whoever picks it up when I donate it to the book swap.
The pitch behind the book, or at least the one that made it to the cover, is that a new kind of knowledge-based journalism is the panacea for what ails the modern publication. Journalists are not subject matter experts on the topics that they cover. When you combine that with modern journalism's penchant for "he said, she said" manufactured equivalence reporting, you get some lazy and ill-formed work.
I'm willing to take Patterson's point that the over-dependence on political leaders and subject matter experts dilutes the diversity of coverage. It also leads to a kind of reporting that under-serves those at the bottom of society's rungs.
At the same time, I honestly think he grossly underestimates the knowledge base of reporters. Maybe the reporters I've worked with have just been unusually talented, but almost without exception they are among the best informed people I know on their respective beats. That's why beats exist. And sure, there are occasions when circumstances conspire to push reporters outside their areas of expertise, which leads to a shallower kind of story, but it's the exception and not the rule.
What's more, smart journalism students are already specializing before they get out of J school. Not that that's a big fix anyway. Journalism students are hired for their skills as reporters, not their explicit subject matter expertise. So advocating that these secondary areas of knowledge be put at the fore of an education ignores the reality of the journalism job market, which in the mainstream media casts a much wider net.
Just to illustrate how out of touch Patterson seems, it wasn't until page 123, out of a book no more than 150 pages long, that he even mentions "Internet sites" and how their dynamics might be different than the news business as a whole. Were you not talking about the Internet this whole time!? How are you possibly offering prescriptions for the future of this business and you only mention the Internet in passing?
I'm just not sure who he is talking to here. Maybe it's the mainstream consumer, since he still treats cable talk shows like they're in the same category as newspapers? That's the only theory that makes sense. If so, however, this is a seriously boring book for John Q. Public.
I feel bad for whoever picks it up when I donate it to the book swap.
January 9, 2017
This book was written to make the case for "knowledge-based" journalism. It was sponsored by an initiative that is trying to establish that kind of journalism. The author believes strongly in the cause ans has been a crucial part of the initiative that sponsored his work here.
But despite the fact that this is very much a work of advocacy, it is a compelling and informative read, touching on the history of American journalism (print, radio, TV and internet) as it explores the issues that have arisen with the rise of "Infotainment" and "Citizen journalism." Though I question the methodologies of some of the studies cited, and I am not as optimistic as the author, I think he makes a good case for a journalism revival through better education of journalists.
I will say he loves Walter Lippman way too much, and the complete American focus is also a bit of a downside for someone who isn't living in the US.
But despite the fact that this is very much a work of advocacy, it is a compelling and informative read, touching on the history of American journalism (print, radio, TV and internet) as it explores the issues that have arisen with the rise of "Infotainment" and "Citizen journalism." Though I question the methodologies of some of the studies cited, and I am not as optimistic as the author, I think he makes a good case for a journalism revival through better education of journalists.
I will say he loves Walter Lippman way too much, and the complete American focus is also a bit of a downside for someone who isn't living in the US.
November 19, 2013
Powerful and clear, the book mounts a persuasive argument that the news media has been weakened by the belief that journalistic skill can substitute for content knowledge. That's a state of affairs, Patterson argues, in which sources have excessive power over stories and readers end up ill-served. The book is much weaker on prescription than on diagnosis, but then, "learn about the thing you're writing about" isn't the hardest advice to put into action.
July 24, 2014
From the beginning, nothing but lazy analysis informed by convenient survey results, an academic detachment from the subject, and an over-reliance on outdated premises. Also had the nerve to cite Neil Postman early on by mentioning "Amusing Ourselves To Death" with no further context. Too frustrating to trudge through.
February 2, 2014
This is an excellent book for anyone interested in PR, journalism, the news, or just being better informed. The author advocates for "knowledge-based" journalism and backs it up with significant examples of how and why our news isn't based that way now.
April 23, 2014
Not a terrible read (very short), just lacking in depth analysis.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews