Why are journalists stuck in 1984?

J. Patrick Coolican, a writer for the Las Vegas Sun, has recently confessed one of the major slip-ups of journalists that especially tends to show itself in the campaign season. In an article for Poynter Online, Coolican admits the influence of "groupthink" when journalists spend too much time together on the trail. This constant interaction often leads to the group coming to a consensus about an issue, i.e.~ Clinton is winning, Obama was hurt in the long run by Reverend Wright's comments, McCain is too old to assume the presidency, etc. Instead of each journalist providing their own view of the action, they rely on each other to come to a conclusion of how the story will be presented. While this is mostly unintentional on the part of the journalist, the temptation to follow what the crowd is thinking is strong.

The effect of groupthink, or as journalists call it, a "narrative", is that the many nuances of a story are lost to the public when all of the storytellers seems to be saying the same thing. At the very worst, journalists could ultimately agree on certain "truths" that later prove themselves to be false, to the major disadvantage or detriment of the public. While several journalistic ethical codes warn of aligning with people and companies outside of who the journalist works for, this aspect seems more difficult to prevent. Journalists have a responsibility to the public, but they are only human and are open to the influences of others. In a time when fewer people are trusting journalists, it seems that the they are more willing to put more trust in each other.