A newsroom is always a hectic place, where the daily grind of pumping out content inevitably clashes with stratospheric expectations. In the gestation of a story from idea to article, reporters often find that the outcome of their research completely contradicts the assumptions they had going into the piece. Responsible journalism should reflect this, noting the nuance of a topic and acknowledging that different viewpoints exist. Unfortunately, many writers often take the easy route by generalizing an issue to the point of caricature.
Case in point is the seemingly never-ending stream of articles published recently on how much today’s youth have changed since the last time a particular publication dredged the subject. From magazines and newspapers to television specials, experts have proclaimed this the age of narcissism and selfishness — as well as volunteerism and tolerance. These media outlets also scramble to explain how trends like social networking have corrupted an entire generation.
A Jan. 17 New York Times article “revisited” the generational “debate” by questioning whether some university surveys that found the college set more self-centered than their elders really represented narcissism or simply mislabeled healthy self-awareness. Affirmative answers to questions like “I am going to be a great person” have been misconstrued in one national publication after another to indict an entire generation of self-absorption. Writers point to the age group’s obsessive relationship with social networking sites, like Facebook, on which users often post hundreds of photos themselves for the world to scrutinize as signs of a narcissistic epidemic.
Other talking heads claim the complete opposite, noting today’s youth participate in more community service activities at home and abroad than any of their forebears. To be sure, empirical evidence shows more youth have enrolled in programs like Habitat for Humanity, Teach for America and alternative spring breaks than ever before. Yet other articles call the same cohort miserable, greedy or — in a stunning new development for the nation’s youth — irresponsible. Which is it?
The answer is of course none of the above. Ultimately, these inaccurate articles only serve to confirm the personal perspectives people already hold rather than to present the truth. The media still pay much of their bills with eye-catching headlines and other attention grabbers, so if the parent of a self-absorbed teenager finds a magazine lamenting the vanity of kids these days, that publication will gain a new reader. Likewise, a student who volunteers at a food bank would be pleased to read how youth in general are tackling the world’s problems like never before.
For better or worse, today’s college generation makes for a less thrilling read. The adage little changes under the sun may not fill a broadsheet, but when it hits closer to the heart of the matter than most headlines. Parents have always complained how showy and shiftless other young people seem, but they like to praise the selflessness of their own children. Technology may change faster than one can imagine, but intergenerational prejudices remain remarkably constant.
Even while new technologies like text messaging and online profiles change people’s behavior, squeezing an entire generation into a single profile proves a fool’s errand. If anything defines this generation, it is the social fragmentation that makes generalizing one age group impossible. Different people spend their time in all sorts of different pursuits. If media outlets want to maintain a hold on their shrinking audiences, they should respect these differences.