<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"FacebookPinterest\n\nIt seems like an eon ago, but it still rankles.\n\nDuring the first Presidential debate, in Denver, when Mitt Romney laughingly suggested, that if elected he\u2019d be firing moderator Jim Lehrer. To make matters worse, the next day, every pundit with a cable-news contract and every wannabe pundit with a Twitter account lambasted his performance as passive and ineffectual. Earlier in the week, the PBS newsman talked to us about what he saw as the &amp;quot;unfair&amp;quot; criticism, and offered up his advice for the other presidential-debate moderators.\n\nBut he also talked about the fourth estate in general, and how he plans to devote his life to solving the issues facing the media and public broadcasting today. One gets the sense he\u2019s the right guy for the job, too, seeing as he (with unintended help from Romney) just made public funding and the role of the media in society, if not sexy, at least hashtaggable again. Here is the rest of our interview with Lehrer.\n\nGQ: I was reading recently that 60 percent of local-news jobs have been lost in the last four years. That\u2019s astonishing to me. What do you think is happening in the Fourth Estate? What is the state of news?\n\nWell, I\u2019m no expert on this. I\u2019ve followed it loosely; it\u2019s in my blood, so I have to. I\u2019ve traveled around the country and I read local newspapers and all of that, and it\u2019s a sad, sad thing to go from city to city and see the small newspapers and they\u2019re tiny. They\u2019re tiny not only in size but also in scope. What happened to them? Everybody knows what happened. They lived for years and years and years on a bed of display advertising, display advertising selling cars and groceries and dry goods and all of that, and then: boom! It all went away, and they panicked and said, &amp;quot;Okay, well, we\u2019re going to go online and put our newspaper online.&amp;quot; Well, they put their newspaper online: they gave away the one thing of value they had, which was their news and their special take on it. They\u2019re trying to put that back in the bottle, and it\u2019s hard to do.\n\n And local television news has moved almost completely out of serious news; very, very few cities have local-news programs that deal with the city government and county government and state government and the school board and that sort of stuff. That\u2019s all a tragedy.\n\nGQ: It is. A debate on the value of information and news quickly segues into public broadcasting and the funding of public broadcasting. What do you think the future of public broadcasting is?\n\nI think if public broadcasting and its supporters understand where we are and what the problem is in this country about information and the revolution that\u2019s going on, the opportunity\u2014and not only opportunity, but the responsibility of public broadcasting to step to the plate is enormous. Because we are there. We have television\u2014there are public television stations in every city in this country, of all sizes. And they should be doing things like collaborating with their local newspapers, both on television and print and online and all of that and kind of muster the journalistic resources that exist in these cities and towns and get together. And instead of shrinking, we should be expanding and quit complaining about our funding and go out and sell our message and tell people: &amp;quot;Hey, now more than ever, public broadcasting is needed at all levels!&amp;quot; It\u2019s easy for me to say, but it\u2019s really, really true.\n\nAnd also the\u2014I think the pendulum is beginning to swing, with this enormous revolution. So much stuff is available to everybody: but being available is not the same thing as having access to it and having the ability to access this information. That\u2019s where professionals called journalists\u2014now called \u2019curators\u2019 or \u2019aggregators\u2019; call them anything you want, but the people where you develop a trust and you can go and where the stuff will not only\u2014not necessarily be all together in one website, but all the links will be there. For instance, if you hear something about a story: &amp;quot;Okay, alright, what happened?&amp;quot; Well, then, here you\u2014&amp;quot;Okay, what\u2019s the background? Where the hell is this damn country, and how did it get in&amp;quot;\u2014in other words, you keep going, keep going, keep going, and you don\u2019t\u2014because people don\u2019t want to spend all day in front of a television set or in front of a computer screen. They need some help. It\u2019s the old-fashioned gatekeeper in a new world. I\u2019m a gatekeeper, and the gatekeepers all used to be mostly old, white men. That\u2019s not going to be true anymore, but a whole new generation of gatekeepers are coming up, and public broadcasting is where those gatekeepers can be, should be. &amp;quot;Okay, look: I want to know what the hell\u2019s going on here; I\u2019ll go to my local public television station, either on air or online, and I can start there, and I can go as far and deep as I want to go. And if I want to end up finding a chapter from a book that\u2019s in a library at the University of Minnesota, I can start at my computer in McKinney, Texas on a particular piece of information of interest to me.&amp;quot; That\u2019s where we gotta go, and it\u2019s hard to get that organized; it\u2019s going to be difficult, but it\u2019s\u2014I think it\u2019s going to happen. And I\u2019m very optimistic.\n\nGQ: There are a lot of things being said about public funding of news and broadcasting. One of them is that it\u2019s not worth the cost, and no one seems to me to be responding and saying, &amp;quot;Here\u2019s the value.&amp;quot;\n\nWell, I agree with you. I agree with you. The case is not being made, and it must be made. Now that I\u2019m freer from other things, my daily work and all of that, and now this debate, I\u2019m going to\u2014I\u2019m a small voice, but I\u2019m going to be talking about this all the time.\n\nGQ: You talk about the pundit class and the things that are going on in our culture, and obviously there\u2019s this splintering, sort of a factioning of news among different brands. You know, if I want a certain kind of a news story that spins things a certain way, I know where to go for that news.\n\nSure. Well, I think the pendulum\u2019s swinging back toward\u2014the need pendulum is what\u2019s swinging. People know that they need some help; they need some help going through this, sorting through this information. A story breaks: I want to know what the left wing thinks; I want to know what the right wing thinks. I want to see the actuality of what he actually\u2014he or she actually said, in other words, in the news story. I want to know some background. What\u2019s the history here? And I want to know all of that, and I just don\u2019t want to spend all day finding it, doing it. That\u2019s the new media; we just haven\u2019t gotten there yet.\n\nGQ: Why do we as a culture pay for other things so much and not news?\n\nI don\u2019t know. Good question. We haven\u2019t sold our message. We haven\u2019t told people how important this is. We go out\u2014you know, it\u2019s always been kind of a sausage-factory operation: &amp;quot;Oh, no, I don\u2019t\u2014don\u2019t ask me any questions. I don\u2019t have to explain this. Hey, come on! Leave me alone! It violates the First Amendment; you just ask me too many questions.&amp;quot; We have to bring the people in under the tent and say, &amp;quot;Hey, hey, hey: democracy depends on this stuff.&amp;quot; This isn\u2019t about entertaining people; this isn\u2019t about making people laugh or cry. This is about making people be able to have enough information to vote, right?\n\nGQ: Are there stories you\u2019re feeling like are underreported right now, that you want to see being reported right now? For instance, do you think the Afghanistan War is still being covered enough? \n\nWe\u2019ve got Americans still at risk and dying every day, and the only place you\u2019d ever find that out would be on the NewsHour when we print the names and show pictures of the kids who are dying. That\u2019s a result of not involving the country; the country\u2019s not involved in our wars anymore. A few volunteer soldiers and Marines and airmen and navy people, navy personnel\u2014sailors\u2014are involved, and their families. That\u2019s the reason that you don\u2019t hear about Afghanistan. If you had\u2014anyhow, that is just part of what\u2019s going on now, and\u2014\n\nGQ: I was struck by how long you\u2019ve been doing this. It seems like you\u2019ve been a reporter since forever, and I wondering: We\u2019re talking about two candidates now, but you\u2019ve seen Reagan; you\u2019ve seen Nixon; you\u2019ve seen Clinton. Reagan and Nixon are the ones I wanted to ask you about, if you had impressions of those two men as\u2014\n\nNo, no.\n\nGQ: As a reporter?\n\nNo. No, that\u2019s someplace I don\u2019t go. You know, my impressions of a particular candidate at a particular time are not the kinds that are part of my repertoire. I just don\u2019t\u2014you know, I have them, whatever they are, at any given moment, but reporting them and talking about them, it\u2019s not what I do.\n\nGQ: But you do vote. I mean, you obviously have personal politics and feelings and stuff. But as a professional, you don\u2019t ever make those public.\n\n\n\nNo, I don\u2019t. Never.\n\nGQ: But is it\u2014just in a more general, generalist sense, do you think it\u2019s possible for a newsperson to be utterly objective? I mean, there\u2019s always going to be some subjectivity or point of view.\n\nWell, I don\u2019t know about objectivity, but I know for certain that it\u2019s always possible for a professional journalist who understands what he or she\u2019s up to to be fair, and that\u2019s the key word. Fairness to individuals, fairness to ideas, and to issues and whatever\u2014that is critical, and that is also part and parcel of what the job... Objectivity as an individual\u2014you know, is a doctor objective? All you want to know is: can the doctor cut the right thing in or out, if he or she is a surgeon. For a journalist, the crucial thing is: can you be fair? Can you report fairly? Do you come at it with an idea of\u2014not necessarily of a bias, but do you already know where you\u2019re coming out before you\u2019ve even done your first interview or whatever? It\u2019s the way you approach a story, and if you approach it fairly, with the idea that you\u2019re going to allow the facts and the words and the whatever\u2014and your eyes, even your own eyes\u2014to dictate where the story goes, then you\u2019ll be fine. Objectivity doesn\u2019t even come into it as far as I\u2019m concerned.\n\nGQ: I wondered what your thoughts are about the role of facts, factuality and fact-checking in the campaign, in news, in reporting. We have fact-check.org and we have guys trying to parse whether there\u2019s a trillion-dollar tax cut or $800 billion. Are we at a point where people just don\u2019t even care about the specifics and the facts anymore? Is there a way to preserve\u2014\n\nYou know, I don\u2019t know. I honestly don\u2019t know. I think there are probably some people that have gotten to that point, but my impression is that people still want to know what the facts are, and that\u2019s the role of the serious journalist, the serious journalism organizations. But they\u2019ve got to be in that business. So they\u2019ve got to\u2014if they\u2019re going to go from a fact-checking story to an opinion piece, it better be carefully labeled so the people know what they\u2019re doing\u2014I mean, what they\u2019re seeing, what their expectation is. I think that is--I describe it sometimes even to the people on the NewsHour: Hey, look, we used to be what you\u2019d call a first responder to the news. We still are in some ways, but now we are a second or third responder. Somebody may\u2014by the time they watch the NewsHour, say, at 6 o\u2019clock Eastern Time, they may already know the headlines. They want to know more about that story, or they want to\u2014&amp;quot;Wait a minute: what did Billy Bob say?&amp;quot; That sort of stuff. They\u2019ve already heard the stuff, seen it on a blog or seen it on a website, you know, Yahoo News or Google News or something. But you want more; you want more. And that\u2019s the second responder function of American\u2014of serious American journalism.\n\nGQ: That\u2019s verified.\n\nYes.\n\nGQ: You don\u2019t want to be first word on the story; you want to be the last word on the story.\n\nExactly, you got it. Well said. Beautifully said. I\u2019m with you.\n\nRead the first The GQ+A with Jim Lehrer here"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.gq.com/story/the-gqa-with-jim-lehrer-part-ii-the-future-of-journalism>