Journalism is the essence of democracy. Without an informed public, democracy cannot exist. I think democracy is as strong as ever with the advent of social media and blogging. Information that is valuable to the public is everywhere. Journalism provides a voice to the voiceless. We are seeing reform in so many countries because of the new outlets for citizen journalism (namely Twitter, Facebook) and some seem to be on their way to democracy with the help of these outlets.
I said before this class that I didn't think blogging was the same as being a journalist. However, my thinking has changed a bit from that first post. Blogging is more of a way to comment on certain issues, however, if a blog shows a dedication to truth-seeking and accuracy, then it is a form of journalism. I believe that if a journalist of any kind shows dedication to the public and a strong desire to find the truth and report it, then what they publish can be considered journalism.
Now, more than ever, citizens have the chance to be journalists. The voiceless now have a voice thanks to the many outlets available, and it is a civic duty to let one's voice be heard.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Making the News Comprehensive and Proportional
"In the name of efficiency and profit margins we did nothing to help create a new generation interested in news." -Kovacs and Rosenthiel, p. 211
The above quote is all too true. Ratings, ratings, ratings. They sometimes seem like the most important thing on some news organizations minds.
The pressure to hype certain stories is very common in today's journalistic world. News organizations today follow a thrillist model, which mixes advertising and news content. Go to the grocery store, and in most magazines, and even some newspapers the front page is covered with stories of scandal, sex and betrayal. With all these choices, especially the choice between infotainment and hard news, what do you think the celebrity obsessed and click happy younger generations are going to choose?
As journalists, we need to learn to strike a balance between the two and make news comprehensive for all viewers and readers. As mentioned before, I feel like CNN does a good job at balancing the two, whereas Fox News seems to be more determined to be sensational. Their content, while sometimes very good, is blown out of proportion sometimes and that in many cases makes their ratings very good.
The swine flu scare was, in my opinion, the most hyped up story of the decade. Some say the hype was in order to get ratings:
http://www.why100.info/article/20110306210658AAtIQZi.html
As discussed in the presentation, if you are a GOOD journalist, you won't succumb to the pressure to overhype a story.
Here's an article about the recent Charlie Sheen scandal: Hyped? You decide.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110301/ts_yblog_thecutline/9216
The above quote is all too true. Ratings, ratings, ratings. They sometimes seem like the most important thing on some news organizations minds.
The pressure to hype certain stories is very common in today's journalistic world. News organizations today follow a thrillist model, which mixes advertising and news content. Go to the grocery store, and in most magazines, and even some newspapers the front page is covered with stories of scandal, sex and betrayal. With all these choices, especially the choice between infotainment and hard news, what do you think the celebrity obsessed and click happy younger generations are going to choose?
As journalists, we need to learn to strike a balance between the two and make news comprehensive for all viewers and readers. As mentioned before, I feel like CNN does a good job at balancing the two, whereas Fox News seems to be more determined to be sensational. Their content, while sometimes very good, is blown out of proportion sometimes and that in many cases makes their ratings very good.
The swine flu scare was, in my opinion, the most hyped up story of the decade. Some say the hype was in order to get ratings:
http://www.why100.info/article/20110306210658AAtIQZi.html
As discussed in the presentation, if you are a GOOD journalist, you won't succumb to the pressure to overhype a story.
Here's an article about the recent Charlie Sheen scandal: Hyped? You decide.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110301/ts_yblog_thecutline/9216
Engagement and Relevance in Journalism
In today's world, it is sometimes hard to strike a balance between infotainment and information. Some news organizations (cough cough Fox News cough) are very good at sensationalizing everything. This obviously works for them, since they are rated very highly among the American public. I prefer more serious journalism, and I think that CNN does a relatively good job of balancing entertainment and sensationalism with news.
As mentioned in the presentation, the public seems to want both. We have to give them that, or they won't watch us or read us. I loved the quote "When you're bored, you stop learning and communication fails." This is very true. Making a story interesting and engaging for your audience is an art. I have struggled with this with some of my broadcast pieces. There are some stories that are simply boring. In the newsroom, if they are incredibly dull stories, we are encouraged to condense them into something quick and painless, for our viewers' sake.
Relevance is also very important in journalism; if you're story is outdated or irrelevant, you lose credibility. That's why many networks and affiliates preach being the first on the scene. If you're the first or only station with coverage, you gain credibility with your viewers.
Infotainment can be just what it is meant to be, entertaining. The stories really don't matter. They are interesting and they feed the public's desire for celebrity gossip. But in the grand scheme of things, they aren't newsworthy. Now, if a story is big enough, it does merit attention from real news organizations.
The availability of mass infotainment and mass news has created a rift in the political knowledge contained by one person to another:
http://www.princeton.edu/~mprior/Prior2005.News%20v%20Entertainment.AJPS.pdf
Some argue that real news is "boring" and in the world of mass communications that we live, since choices of media are so replete, it is not surprising that many younger viewers/readers prefer entertainment and celebrity news.
Some media consumers are annoyed by those who call themselves "journalists" who mix sensationalism with real newsworthy items.
http://www.uvent.info/political-news-vs-infotainment
In short, there was a time when most everything was just news. The advent of the magazine and gossip columns changed all that. Now we live in a world where the two mass media worlds of infotainment and news have mixed.
As mentioned in the presentation, the public seems to want both. We have to give them that, or they won't watch us or read us. I loved the quote "When you're bored, you stop learning and communication fails." This is very true. Making a story interesting and engaging for your audience is an art. I have struggled with this with some of my broadcast pieces. There are some stories that are simply boring. In the newsroom, if they are incredibly dull stories, we are encouraged to condense them into something quick and painless, for our viewers' sake.
Relevance is also very important in journalism; if you're story is outdated or irrelevant, you lose credibility. That's why many networks and affiliates preach being the first on the scene. If you're the first or only station with coverage, you gain credibility with your viewers.
Infotainment can be just what it is meant to be, entertaining. The stories really don't matter. They are interesting and they feed the public's desire for celebrity gossip. But in the grand scheme of things, they aren't newsworthy. Now, if a story is big enough, it does merit attention from real news organizations.
The availability of mass infotainment and mass news has created a rift in the political knowledge contained by one person to another:
http://www.princeton.edu/~mprior/Prior2005.News%20v%20Entertainment.AJPS.pdf
Some argue that real news is "boring" and in the world of mass communications that we live, since choices of media are so replete, it is not surprising that many younger viewers/readers prefer entertainment and celebrity news.
Some media consumers are annoyed by those who call themselves "journalists" who mix sensationalism with real newsworthy items.
http://www.uvent.info/political-news-vs-infotainment
In short, there was a time when most everything was just news. The advent of the magazine and gossip columns changed all that. Now we live in a world where the two mass media worlds of infotainment and news have mixed.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Journalists and Religion
As a budding journalist, one of my main fears is going into the big bad world of the mainstream media and losing sight of what is most important to me: my faith. However, after this presentation and the reading, I feel comforted in knowing that being religious and being a journalist doesn't have to be an oxymoron.
In the book the author mentioned that religion can provide an invaluable context like nothing else can on certain issues. For example, the controversial film The Passion of the Christ raised many eyebrows because of its violence and because of its so-called "anti-Semitic" tone. Journalists seemed to only focus on those aspects, and not on the reasons for the film's success among many Christians. A great story would have been to go to a local theater and get audience reactions to the film. An in-depth look at the film's spiritual impact on people of faith would have been a story that could have developed out of all the controversy, and maybe shed some more positive light on the film, rather than on the negative. I think the mainstream media's rejection of religion is a sign of where our world is headed, and personally I believe their criticism of The Passion of the Christ shows just how scared many in journalism are of religion and faith.
As a Latter-day Saint, I understand it is important for me to check my personal beliefs at the door when covering a story on the Church. I see this on KSL frequently. I know some of the reporters on KSL personally, and am always interested to see how their being Mormon does not interfere with them reporting the facts. Controversial issues surrounding the Church are normally not sugar-coated, but they are reported as thoroughly as possible (in most cases).
The following article gives some interesting tips on covering religion:
http://www.religionwriters.com/tools-resources/reporting-on-religion-a-primer-on-journalisms-best-beat
Religion's presence in the lifestyles of many people constitutes more coverage of religious subjects in journalism. The following article discusses this:
http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=793
In the book the author mentioned that religion can provide an invaluable context like nothing else can on certain issues. For example, the controversial film The Passion of the Christ raised many eyebrows because of its violence and because of its so-called "anti-Semitic" tone. Journalists seemed to only focus on those aspects, and not on the reasons for the film's success among many Christians. A great story would have been to go to a local theater and get audience reactions to the film. An in-depth look at the film's spiritual impact on people of faith would have been a story that could have developed out of all the controversy, and maybe shed some more positive light on the film, rather than on the negative. I think the mainstream media's rejection of religion is a sign of where our world is headed, and personally I believe their criticism of The Passion of the Christ shows just how scared many in journalism are of religion and faith.
As a Latter-day Saint, I understand it is important for me to check my personal beliefs at the door when covering a story on the Church. I see this on KSL frequently. I know some of the reporters on KSL personally, and am always interested to see how their being Mormon does not interfere with them reporting the facts. Controversial issues surrounding the Church are normally not sugar-coated, but they are reported as thoroughly as possible (in most cases).
The following article gives some interesting tips on covering religion:
http://www.religionwriters.com/tools-resources/reporting-on-religion-a-primer-on-journalisms-best-beat
Religion's presence in the lifestyles of many people constitutes more coverage of religious subjects in journalism. The following article discusses this:
http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=793
Monday, March 21, 2011
Journalism as a Public Forum
Journalism plays an important role in helping to initiate public discussion. As journalists, our role is not to tell people what to think, but what to think about--and what to talk about.
Radio call-in shows, talk shows, chat rooms and blogs all help make journalism in all its forms a public forum. You can see this on many of the cable news networks and even some of the major networks. A question will be posed, such as how the nation feels about a certain thing the President is doing. People can go online and vote on whether they approve or disapprove. This initiates discussion.
News organizations must be able to find the balance between reflecting the values of society and leading people from their own preconceptions and comfortable beliefs. I don't think newspapers or broadcast companies need to push social reform in their newsrooms, but a large part of how a society will be remembered will be based on their journalistic records. Do we want to be remembered as a society that was spoon-fed what to believe? Or that we never advanced in our opinions and preconceptions?
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/101687/Is-Journalism-Losing-Its-Place-in-the-Boisterous-Public-Forum.aspx
The above article explores journalism's seemingly diminishing role in the public discussion. I think, to an extent, what was considered journalism is being lost in an ocean of opinion and editorial. As effective and useful as talk shows, interactive media, and social media are--we cannot forget that truth can sometimes be distorted by these means.
Again, while public discussion is important, it is also important that journalists reel in the discussion and present the facts. Opinion can be useful, but can also be detrimental as explained in this article.
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/100747/Opinions-Place-in-Journalism.aspx
Radio call-in shows, talk shows, chat rooms and blogs all help make journalism in all its forms a public forum. You can see this on many of the cable news networks and even some of the major networks. A question will be posed, such as how the nation feels about a certain thing the President is doing. People can go online and vote on whether they approve or disapprove. This initiates discussion.
News organizations must be able to find the balance between reflecting the values of society and leading people from their own preconceptions and comfortable beliefs. I don't think newspapers or broadcast companies need to push social reform in their newsrooms, but a large part of how a society will be remembered will be based on their journalistic records. Do we want to be remembered as a society that was spoon-fed what to believe? Or that we never advanced in our opinions and preconceptions?
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/101687/Is-Journalism-Losing-Its-Place-in-the-Boisterous-Public-Forum.aspx
The above article explores journalism's seemingly diminishing role in the public discussion. I think, to an extent, what was considered journalism is being lost in an ocean of opinion and editorial. As effective and useful as talk shows, interactive media, and social media are--we cannot forget that truth can sometimes be distorted by these means.
Again, while public discussion is important, it is also important that journalists reel in the discussion and present the facts. Opinion can be useful, but can also be detrimental as explained in this article.
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/100747/Opinions-Place-in-Journalism.aspx
Ethics in journalism
There are few things more important as a journalist than a code of ethics. As has been stated before in this blog, our role as journalists is to seek the TRUTH and report it. But what is the truth? Truth in journalism is based on facts given and corroborated by multiple sources. One of the most important aspects of being an ethical journalist is minimizing harm.
Minimizing harm means that you treat your sources, subjects and colleagues with respect. You have the power to destroy someone's reputation and change their life forever. It is power that we should never take lightly. A journalist must take his/her personal beliefs and feelings out of the equation if he/she wants to minimize harm. Bias in any story could potentially result in damage to someone's reputation even if they don't deserve that damage.
Journalists need to also act independently of other interests, especially of other journalists. The public's right to know needs to be the first and foremost obligation.
They must also be held accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and employers. As we have seen in recent months, several journalists have lost their jobs because of irresponsible comments both on and off the air.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39573726/ns/today-entertainment/
In the above link, Rick Sanchez of CNN expresses his remorse for remarks he made. Like it or not, as a journalist, you are a public figure. Unprofessional comments no matter where you are will get you in trouble. In this world of mass communication, anything you say or do can be put online.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/07/08/CNN-correspondent-fired-over-Twitter-post/UPI-53241278605232/
This article talks about a CNN correspondent who was fired over a Twitter post praising an alleged terrorist. Bad publicity arises from these types of situations, and when bad publicity comes at your hand, the company you work for will have to save face by letting you go.
Bottom line: Bite your tongue. Freedom of speech is real, but it can get you into big trouble as a journalist. We live and die, almost literally, by the first amendment. Our jobs as journalists exist because of it and can be taken away when we abuse it.
Other ethical responsibilities outlined in the book say we must exercise personal conscience and strive for intellectual diversity.
Minimizing harm means that you treat your sources, subjects and colleagues with respect. You have the power to destroy someone's reputation and change their life forever. It is power that we should never take lightly. A journalist must take his/her personal beliefs and feelings out of the equation if he/she wants to minimize harm. Bias in any story could potentially result in damage to someone's reputation even if they don't deserve that damage.
Journalists need to also act independently of other interests, especially of other journalists. The public's right to know needs to be the first and foremost obligation.
They must also be held accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and employers. As we have seen in recent months, several journalists have lost their jobs because of irresponsible comments both on and off the air.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39573726/ns/today-entertainment/
In the above link, Rick Sanchez of CNN expresses his remorse for remarks he made. Like it or not, as a journalist, you are a public figure. Unprofessional comments no matter where you are will get you in trouble. In this world of mass communication, anything you say or do can be put online.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/07/08/CNN-correspondent-fired-over-Twitter-post/UPI-53241278605232/
This article talks about a CNN correspondent who was fired over a Twitter post praising an alleged terrorist. Bad publicity arises from these types of situations, and when bad publicity comes at your hand, the company you work for will have to save face by letting you go.
Bottom line: Bite your tongue. Freedom of speech is real, but it can get you into big trouble as a journalist. We live and die, almost literally, by the first amendment. Our jobs as journalists exist because of it and can be taken away when we abuse it.
Other ethical responsibilities outlined in the book say we must exercise personal conscience and strive for intellectual diversity.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Monitor Power and Offer a Voice to the Voiceless
Journalism's power to monitor situations and provide a voice to the voiceless is one of its primary responsibilities. I have watched investigative reports where people who have struggled because of some bureaucratic issue, or even because of a larger-scale corrupt situation. Many times, going to the press is their last resort. However, going to the press in many cases seems to be the way to win the battle. The press has the power to expose corruption and injustice in a way that few other media can.
I can think of a prime example in my lifetime where the media offered a voice to the voiceless is when Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped. Her family was able to go to the media, and the press provided a very important tool for everyone to keep an eye out for her. Because of the myriad of images splashed across the TV screens for that horrific nine-month period that she was missing, someone was able to spot her in Salt Lake City. The Smart family may not have ever been reunited with their daughter if the media hadn't been such an effective tool for them. The press was able to give a voice to that family in a time that I'm sure they felt completely voiceless.
Monitor power and the media's ability to offer a voice to the voiceless are illustrated in this link:
Without journalistic help, this problem may never have come to the attention of the public.
Another example:
The media has a powerful ability to bring issues to the forefront that otherwise might go unnoticed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)