Respect Journalists: They Can Make You A Star Or A Nonentity. The Choice Is Yours -By Isaac Asabor

There is a quiet truth that seasoned public figures eventually learn: respect journalists. Not out of fear, flattery, or convenience, but out of recognition of the role journalism plays in shaping public memory. The press does not simply report events; it frames significance, distributes attention, and constructs the narratives through which societies understand people and power. In an era where visibility is inseparable from influence, that role carries immense consequence.

This is not a romantic claim about media omnipotence. It is a practical observation about how public reputation is formed. In a world flooded with information, most facts go unnoticed. What becomes known, discussed, and remembered depends largely on what journalists investigate, verify, and amplify. Reputation is rarely self-made in the public sphere. It is co-produced by conduct and coverage. Mass communication theory explains this well: agenda-setting theory posits that media do not tell people what to think, but they do influence what people think about and how they think about it. By prioritizing certain events, people, or issues, journalists guide collective attention, constructing social reality through the topics they highlight. To respect journalists, then, is to respect the architecture of public accountability itself.

Without any iota of exaggeration, journalism has remained a maker of public identity. At its most constructive, journalism creates recognition where obscurity once prevailed. It shines sustained light on individuals and ideas that might otherwise remain peripheral. A profile, an investigative feature, or a sustained series of reports can transform scattered achievements into a coherent public identity. Visibility confers legitimacy; repetition confers authority. This is closely aligned with framing theory, which argues that the way information is presented, the frame used, shapes audience perception. How a journalist frames your story can determine whether the public sees you as a visionary, a villain, or somewhere in between.

This is not merely about fame. It is about narrative formation. When journalists document a person’s work over time, contextualizing actions, explaining impact, and presenting evidence, they help transform private accomplishment into public contribution. The press provides the connective tissue between effort and acknowledgment. According to symbolic interactionism, media not only reflect reality but actively participate in constructing the social meanings attached to individuals and actions.

Journalists also serve as amplifiers for those without direct access to power. Communities on the margins often rely on reporting to bring their struggles into national conversation. An entrepreneur, a reformer, a researcher, or a community organizer becomes influential not solely because of what they do, but because their work is made visible, understandable, and relevant to a wider audience.

History offers enduring examples of journalism’s ability to elevate both subjects and practitioners. Investigative reporting by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein at The Washington Post did more than uncover wrongdoing; it demonstrated how sustained reporting can shape public consciousness and redefine institutional accountability. Journalism did not merely observe events; it established their meaning within democratic life.

Media attention, when earned and sustained, builds reputational capital. It signals that an individual’s actions matter beyond immediate circles. Over time, this attention can crystallize into public trust, a resource more durable than popularity and more consequential than recognition. Here, uses and gratifications theory helps explain why audiences pay attention: they seek reliable narratives that help them understand the social world. The journalist mediates access to that understanding.

Looking at the issue through the eyes of the other side of visibility, it is not out of place to opine that the same mechanisms that elevate can also diminish. Journalism’s obligation is not to protect reputations but to test them against evidence. When misconduct, deception, or abuse of trust is uncovered, exposure becomes a public service. Reputation collapses not because journalists wield destructive power, but because scrutiny replaces image with verified fact.

The exposure of misconduct during Watergate stands as a defining illustration of journalism’s corrective force. Sustained investigation did not create wrongdoing; it revealed it. Once revealed, public standing shifted irreversibly. Authority without accountability proved unsustainable under persistent, evidence-based reporting.

Modern media dynamics accelerate this process. Information now travels instantly across platforms such as X and Facebook, where reporting is replicated, discussed, archived, and reinterpreted in real time. A verified story does not remain confined to a single publication; it becomes a distributed public record. Reputation, once destabilized, faces not a momentary crisis but an enduring digital footprint.

Crucially, negative coverage is not inherently punitive, it is evidentiary. Journalism functions as a mirror. For those who stand before it with integrity, the reflection affirms credibility. For those who do not, the reflection corrects illusion. The discomfort lies not in the mirror, but in what it reveals. Here, the spiral of silence theory underscores that public opinion often follows what is perceived as dominant reporting, further amplifying the consequences of coverage.

Respecting journalists means understanding the discipline of scrutiny. Public life invites examination. Influence attracts questions. Authority demands explanation. Those who seek visibility, whether in politics, business, culture, or civic leadership, enter a domain where actions acquire public consequence.

Transparency is not merely a defensive posture; it is a strategic necessity. Openness narrows speculation. Consistency builds trust. Evidence stabilizes narrative. When information flows willingly, journalism becomes interpretive rather than adversarial. When information is withheld, inquiry intensifies.

Engagement with the press, therefore, is not capitulation but participation in the formation of the public record. Silence communicates. Evasion communicates. Hostility communicates. Each shapes coverage just as clearly as statements do.

This does not imply that media relations guarantee favorable portrayal. Journalism is not public relations. But respectful engagement fosters accuracy, context, and fairness, conditions under which reputation can be evaluated on substance rather than conjecture.

The power dynamic between journalists and subjects is not unilateral. Responsibility operates on both sides of the relationship. Journalism carries ethical obligations: verification, independence, fairness, and courage. These principles exist precisely to prevent the abuse of media influence. When journalists uphold them, they reinforce public trust not only in reporting but in the institutions that depend on informed scrutiny.

Subjects of coverage, however, bear parallel responsibilities. Conduct must withstand examination. Claims must withstand evidence. Leadership must withstand transparency. Reputation built on performance endures scrutiny; reputation built on perception alone rarely does.

Respect, in this context, is not deference. It is recognition of role. Journalists are neither adversaries to be neutralized nor allies to be manipulated. They are intermediaries between action and public understanding. Agenda-setting and gatekeeping theories remind us that what journalists choose to cover, or ignore, directly shapes public perception and discourse.

The digital environment has intensified journalism’s reach and compressed its timelines. Reputation that once evolved gradually now pivots rapidly. A single investigation can define a career. A single verified contradiction can overshadow years of achievement. Information permanence ensures that public memory rarely resets.

Yet the acceleration of visibility does not alter the underlying principle: coverage follows conduct. The press amplifies what exists. Where integrity is consistent, scrutiny affirms. Where inconsistency persists, scrutiny exposes.

The proliferation of platforms has also expanded who participates in reputational formation. Journalists remain central because verification distinguishes reporting from rumor. In a landscape crowded with opinion and speculation, the authority of documented fact becomes more, not less, valuable. This is consistent with media systems dependency theory: the more a public depends on media for information, the more influence media has in shaping perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors.

To respect journalists is to accept realism about public life. Influence attracts attention. Attention invites scrutiny. Scrutiny produces record. Record becomes legacy.

Respect does not mean uncritical acceptance of every report. Journalism itself benefits from examination and accountability. But dismissing the press as irrelevant while seeking public influence is a contradiction. Visibility without verification is unstable. Authority without accountability is temporary.

Public figures who understand this dynamic do not merely manage media relations; they cultivate credibility through conduct. They recognize that narrative is shaped not only by what they say, but by what can be demonstrated. They prepare for scrutiny not by resisting it, but by aligning actions with standards that withstand examination.

“The choice is yours” is neither threat nor reassurance. It is an acknowledgment of agency within structure. Journalism provides the lens; individuals determine what appears within its frame.

Fame and obscurity are not purely media creations. They are outcomes of behavior intersecting with attention. The press cannot manufacture integrity, nor can it permanently conceal its absence. What journalism can do, and consistently does, is decide what becomes publicly visible, what is contextualized, and what endures in collective memory.

Respect journalists because they document the passage from action to reputation. Respect them because they preserve the public record in real time. Respect them because they do not merely observe history, they help determine what history remembers.

The spotlight exists. Its presence is constant. What it illuminates, and how brightly, remains shaped, still and always, by choice.