KET Public Affairs Director Renee Shaw will headline the second ever McGaughey Lecture on Press Freedom and Responsibility at Murray State University.
Shaw believes one of public media’s greatest missions is to create a more informed public. The veteran journalist has spent over three decades doing just that.
Shaw will speak Thursday evening at 7:30 p.m. on the stage of MSU's Lovett Auditorium. She plans to talk about misinformation, the public’s role in our own media literacy and much more. The event is free and all are welcome.
She spoke with News Director Derek Operle on the value of public media journalism, especially in an election year.
Derek Operle: So Renee, you've been active in public media for many years now. Talk to me about how you see the role of public media in the media sphere, which I think is in a different place than it ever has been before right now.
Renee Shaw: Well, thank you, Derek, and you're absolutely right. If you count before I got to KET, I've been in public media probably 30 years. And so it's been my life's work really. You know, I did a brief little stint in commercial, but knew that my heart and my passion was really with the work that public broadcasting does, both the radio space and the television space. And so I've been able to see the evolution of media, just in general. But of course, how public media is responding and it's interesting, there are some things that don't change: such as the values of providing access. Public media, we don't send you a bill. It's not a subscription service. It is really by viewers and listeners like you, right? You hear that all the time during pledge pitches, but it is fundamental to how we operate. I don't take that for granted either, that we have an enormous commitment to making sure that people are engaged and informed citizens. And I think one of the shifts that you've seen in the lexicon of how we talk about what journalism's role is, is to provide a public service that helps restore, elevate and maintain democracy. And we know that a lot of institutions in society are looked at with distrustful eyes, from our judicial system, even our educational system, certainly the political system, and I dare say, even the Fourth Estate. But I do think when you look at recent polls from Pew or Knight Foundation or others that have studied, what media do people trust? Public Broadcasting has always had a substantial share of the trust, and so I think we have an opportunity, because we have the bandwidth, if you will, to go deeper and to tell stories that are also impactful. And if there's one thing that I've noticed, a more of an evolution in how we present is making sure that the crux of the story, even if it's about a public policy issue or an emerging issue of a different type ... that you focus on the people, that you focus on the person. And it's not just these abstract ideas that we're trying to tease out with academicians and scholars and other stakeholders but, at the crux of it, it needs to be about how people are affected. And I think we also have to find a way to better meet people where they are, what it is they are hungry for when it comes to information. It's not always about politics. Sometimes it's about how to plan for such unfortunate circumstances as end of life, how to deal with wills and how to manage all of those medical directives. I think we have to just meet people at their everyday spaces and try to connect with them, and that will reaffirm our value as the leader in journalism. Public media, I believe, is the leader in journalism.
DO: Yeah, I think that the idea that you meet people where they are, and also that public media is immediately responsive to what's happening in a community or in a region that not only do we rely, usually on donors and on people in our communities to tell us what they want to hear from the news. What are they concerned about? What's worrying them? And the ability to pivot and not worry about advertising, not worry about things like that. Just worry about how stories are going to impact individuals, how they're going to impact families in the communities that we cover. That's one of the great strengths of public media.
RS: Absolutely. And I think the balance in which we do that as well, right? We know that we are a fragmented society, and we have been so since its founding, right? And so being able to, even if, perhaps personally and every journalist has their own frame of reference, they have their own set of biases because of their life experiences and backgrounds. The point is not to not own those biases. The point is to make sure they don't interfere with what you present. And I think as long as journalists do their due diligence in making sure that the complete story is told, I've often said there are more than two sides to a coin. We've learned that in these last few years that there are fractions within factions. And it's up to us, even though it may seem fringe by some people's view, we know and have learned that perhaps there's a growing cacophony of ideas and perspectives that once were marginalized. And it's up to us to present that information in a responsible way, not just give free reign to lunacy, but to frame it in proper context and let people decide. And I think that you know that is what I hear most often [that] many viewers, listeners fear that they're being are trying to be persuaded, and advocacy is not part of our Hippocratic Oath. And I think we have to be very careful, because we are in such tenuous times to not pick a side, and it can be hard. But I think in order to execute that very well, it's presenting those disparate voices and those differing opinions to show a collective whole of a story. We say that we are absent some of the commercial stakeholders that our non-public broadcasting folks endure, but we still have some of those imperatives right with with donors and sponsors, and depending on whether you're a university licensee or there's a state appropriation ... all of that is very sensitive terrain to navigate, and to be able to do it where you still get respect because of fairness doesn't mean everybody's happy. I think sometimes we want to say that fairness means that nobody complained about your work. It's quite the opposite. My experience is the more one side complains and the other side also complains about the same thing. That's how I know I've been fair. And so I think that we cannot equate fairness to applause and approval. Those are dissonant concepts and and I think, you know, we have to also do a better job. I'll say this too, Derek, about news literacy. I really feel at this point in my career I don't know how ... we help the community engage about their news diet and not telling them, "You need to listen to this source or watch this show." I don't mean to be that myopic or granular about it at all, but it's like: How do we help people with their news literacy and and then you know what to do with their knowledge? Or, how do they also proselytize to others about being engaged informed citizens. And I think that's where, if journalism ever had a movement and an advocacy arm to it, I think it's really helping citizens understand what it means to be informed and to understand why a news diet of different ideas that are outside your comfort zone and your zip code are really important. And if we can find a way to really move that needle some, I think we can go a long way in restoring trust and journalists, whether they're in the public space or the commercial space,
DO: Talk to me about about public media's role when it comes to something like a presidential election here in Kentucky, in Tennessee and in Illinois. We're seeing people bring national politics onto local stages. People are bringing up things that happen states away as points in like a county judge-executive race. Now, that's a thing that we're seeing happen.
RS: You know, that's a very good point to take it not just from the top of the ticket. I think sometimes we dwell so much on what's happening in the White House, when what's happening at City Hall, what's happening at the school board meeting, and what's happening at the state house impact you far more than what happens at the beltway. And I think we have to do a better job of helping people understand ... look at those races that you don't understand constable, right? That has had various degrees of conversation about whether it's even necessary or viable or relevant in the 21st century, right? But it's still there in many places. So to understand what the functions are ... don't just understand who the people are and investigate the people ... but look at the function of the office and understand how it impacts you. You're paying tax dollars to support that, what it means, what it does, how it functions, and how it can maintain some accountability, how accountability can be exercised. So I think, while I appreciate that we are in a historic election, which we say that every four years when it comes to the presidential contest, we cannot lose sight. But in Kentucky, we've got a couple of consequential ballot amendments that are before Kentucky voters. One in particular in Amendment Two. We have a host of judicial races that are very impactful, Kentucky Supreme Court, elsewhere you've got your local races: school board, city hall, your congressional races, state legislative races. All of these are incredibly important, and we really need to do a better job. I think all media does the the job they can do, right? I you know, newsrooms are smaller from top to bottom, regardless of the platform. That's just a fact and and I think people are stretching themselves to tell [stories about] these issues in very compelling, engaging and meaningful ways. You're bedeviled by time and so many other issues, but the commitment needs to remain strong. And I look at the Kentucky media team ... whether that's in big cities in Louisville or in smaller places like Murray or Bowling Green or in Eastern Kentucky ... and they're doing tremendous work and trying to help people understand the critical issues in that community, and we just have to help our citizens engage in that to the same degree that they are glued to the screen when it comes to presidential races. I don't know how you make that transference of importance, but we'd go a long way with even dealing with some 'hyperpartisanness,' if we were able to really help people go a few notches down the ballot to really understand what's going on.
