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.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Independence in Journalism
As a journalist, it is important to understand the line between journalism and activism. A journalist’s job is to find the truth, or find other people’s side of the truth, and report it. It is to expose beliefs and opinions and let the public make decisions for themselves. Activism crosses that line. Activism is detrimental to the credibility of a journalist because if a viewer or reader doesn’t agree with that journalist’s point of view, then they will stop watching or reading them. Before covering a story, full disclosure of possible biases should be given to the news director.
For a reporter to remain free of crossing this line, they must adhere to the following guidelines.
1. Stick to the facts
2. Maintain truthful conclusions
3. Remain loyal to readers
Following these guidelines are invaluable to the credibility and trust that people place in the journalist. Activism usually makes you lose viewers or readers. Being a true journalist and maintaining independence from activism of any kind will help you maintain them.
However, below is a link that shows some positive sides of being an activist and a journalist at the same time:
http://ajws.org/who_we_are/news/archives/viewpoints/journalism_as_activism.html
There are times when journalists can use their far-reaching voices to promote social justice for the good of humanity. Let's not forget that journalists are still human beings. It is when trivial ideologies get tangled with news that journalists may lose viewers or readers.
Many argue that Fox News is not journalistic because of its seemingly activist persona. Here is a link:
http://themoderatevoice.com/75824/political-activism-masquerading-as-ambush-journalism/
It is important to remember that some journalists have an agenda based on the political views of their employers. They are trying to keep their jobs. I would like to be able to keep myself independent from these "entangling alliances" and just find the TRUTH and report it, and let the public make their own opinion on what I report.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Who do Journalists Work For?
This is an interesting question that has come up many times as I have studied journalism. In the beginning of my career at BYU, I was taught that a journalist's charge is to find the truth and report it. I have been taught the the most important loyalty I have is with the American public. However, as I have seen more and more examples in the history of journalism, I realize that there are instances in which journalists must choose between their loyalty to the public and their loyalty to other interests, such as their employers.
Journalistic integrity is key to credibility, and most organizations know that. However, in a very famous instance, a huge network had to choose between telling the whole story or saving their own face. As depicted in the 1999 film The Insider, CBS faced a big dilemma. Either run a potentially detrimental story about Big Tobacco, and potentially get bought out by Brown and Williamson Tobacco. Lowell Bergman, played by Al Pacino, rails against CBS for their decision to not run an interview with an important insider formerly employed by Brown and Williamson.
Here is a clip from the film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIjpP-XngKA
If its newsworthy and important to the American public, shouldn't we be thorough in our coverage, even if it means possible hazard to the company we work for?
I think each situation is different. If there is any shadow of doubt on such a sensitive story, I personally would be cautious in running the story.
Another example of a sensitive situation is provided below:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianopinion/2008/01/sandra_duffy_journalisms_first.html
In that situation, journalism as a check and balance for the government, in my opinion, would be of utmost importance.
So who do journalists work for? The answer: citizens AND their employers. The latter cannot ever be taken out of the equation. Caution is important.
Journalistic integrity is key to credibility, and most organizations know that. However, in a very famous instance, a huge network had to choose between telling the whole story or saving their own face. As depicted in the 1999 film The Insider, CBS faced a big dilemma. Either run a potentially detrimental story about Big Tobacco, and potentially get bought out by Brown and Williamson Tobacco. Lowell Bergman, played by Al Pacino, rails against CBS for their decision to not run an interview with an important insider formerly employed by Brown and Williamson.
Here is a clip from the film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIjpP-XngKA
If its newsworthy and important to the American public, shouldn't we be thorough in our coverage, even if it means possible hazard to the company we work for?
I think each situation is different. If there is any shadow of doubt on such a sensitive story, I personally would be cautious in running the story.
Another example of a sensitive situation is provided below:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianopinion/2008/01/sandra_duffy_journalisms_first.html
In that situation, journalism as a check and balance for the government, in my opinion, would be of utmost importance.
So who do journalists work for? The answer: citizens AND their employers. The latter cannot ever be taken out of the equation. Caution is important.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Loyalty as a Journalist
Objectivity in journalism has been destroyed because of the argument that no one can truly be objective. Everyone has their own personal biases and therefore, their work will in some way reflect that. I had a problem with objectivity recently when doing a story on the Utah illegal immigration debate. I found that I leaned a certain way on the issue, and before I knew it I had interviews lined up with people who were on my side, but no interviews with people from the opposing side. I caught my error and fixed it before the story aired, but I found it interesting that my first subconscious instincts were to talk to people on my side of the issue. Maybe I subconsciously did not want to have an argument or a confrontation with the person on the other side, and that’s why I avoided them. I don’t know what the reason was.
Infotainment today does this. Some argue that Fox News or MSNBC are not “real” news organizations because they are not as objective as others. They present the facts in a sometimes distorted or sensational way. Hollywood does this as well. The book mentions an example of this, which I found ironic. Mike Wallace was angry at Michael Mann for Christopher Plummer’s portrayal of him in the 1999 film The Insider. Wallace is painted in this film to be an egotistical old phogie who doesn’t care about the objectivity or accuracy of CBS through fear of corporate threats. I found this to be ironic because I feel that Wallace, in his real career, no matter how invented or distorted his portrayal in The Insider may have been, has done this same thing with many of his interviewees. Newspeople today distort the facts to a small, almost unnoticeable degree, so as to avoid slander or libel charges.
As a journalist, one can avoid trouble and loss of credibility by following the guidelines given in the book, such as:
1. Never add anything that was not there.
2. Never deceive the audience.
3. Be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives.
4. Rely on your own original reporting.
5. Exercise humility.
Following these guidelines allow journalist to be loyal to the public and to their boss.
Infotainment today does this. Some argue that Fox News or MSNBC are not “real” news organizations because they are not as objective as others. They present the facts in a sometimes distorted or sensational way. Hollywood does this as well. The book mentions an example of this, which I found ironic. Mike Wallace was angry at Michael Mann for Christopher Plummer’s portrayal of him in the 1999 film The Insider. Wallace is painted in this film to be an egotistical old phogie who doesn’t care about the objectivity or accuracy of CBS through fear of corporate threats. I found this to be ironic because I feel that Wallace, in his real career, no matter how invented or distorted his portrayal in The Insider may have been, has done this same thing with many of his interviewees. Newspeople today distort the facts to a small, almost unnoticeable degree, so as to avoid slander or libel charges.
As a journalist, one can avoid trouble and loss of credibility by following the guidelines given in the book, such as:
1. Never add anything that was not there.
2. Never deceive the audience.
3. Be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives.
4. Rely on your own original reporting.
5. Exercise humility.
Following these guidelines allow journalist to be loyal to the public and to their boss.
Journalism as a Profession
Who is a professional journalist There are those who argue that journalists have a sole responsibility to the public and their interests, but in truth it is very difficult for journalists to maintain that responsibility to the public with corporate business people breathing down their necks. For example, Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News, and it has been very apparent in recent years that Murdoch’s political and social agenda is what the news organization pushes. This creates a conflict between Fox and its viewers. Those who do not subscribe to Fox’s viewpoints will change the channel. However, Fox’s ratings have been good enough in recent years, so the corporation probably doesn’t see a need to change their ways.
In my opinion, it is near impossible for journalists to truly do their public duty because of news corporations. The corporations create revenue, which is important for the survival of the news organization; but that means sacrifice of journalistic values sometimes. Objectivity gets put on the backburner and viewers are left to decide whether to watch or change the channel.
Ways to combat this are mentioned in the book, such as hiring business managers and journalists who put citizens first. Unfortunately when dealing with money, journalistic values aren’t always put first. In an ideal world, this would not be the case.
In my opinion, it is near impossible for journalists to truly do their public duty because of news corporations. The corporations create revenue, which is important for the survival of the news organization; but that means sacrifice of journalistic values sometimes. Objectivity gets put on the backburner and viewers are left to decide whether to watch or change the channel.
Ways to combat this are mentioned in the book, such as hiring business managers and journalists who put citizens first. Unfortunately when dealing with money, journalistic values aren’t always put first. In an ideal world, this would not be the case.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Truth and Journalism: Can They Coexist?
Truth is a very important part of a Latter-day Saint's life. At this university and in our personal lives we are admonished to seek truth in all things, and if we cannot find truth in something, we are to shun that something. However, as a Latter-day Saint journalist, our quest for truth may be somewhat different when our careers are concerned.
The job of a journalist is to find the truth and report it. But what is truth? That question has been asked throughout time, and even though many have found large portions of universal truth, the difficult part is finding truth in the goings-on of our everyday lives and in our communities.Truth is the basis upon which people make their decisions. This is why it is so important for journalists to find the truth and report it with accuracy.
The text gives the definition of "functional truth" and its importance in journalism. For example, police arrest a suspect of a crime based on the facts that they are given by witnesses and by circumstantial evidence. This does not necessarily mean the person is, in truth, guilty. However, in the meantime, police use this functional truth to carry out their jobs.
Journalists are expected to do the same. We are given a set of facts. We check the reliability of those facts. If reliable, we go with them. Sometimes, however these so-called "facts" may not be "facts." It's sort of like the childhood game of telephone. One person tells me something, but facts can get distorted once they get to someone else. If we attribute them to the person who gave the facts, we are not guilty of libel or slander. The facts given may end up not being truth, and if that happens we are forced to look for the truth elsewhere.
The question is this: Can truth and journalism coexist? I believe they can. Maybe not truth in the eternal or the philosophical sense, but journalists can uncover the truth of a certain situation or event based on facts they are given. The journalist may encounter roadblocks and detours to the truth along the way, but if he or she can finally find the truth, they have done their job.
The job of a journalist is to find the truth and report it. But what is truth? That question has been asked throughout time, and even though many have found large portions of universal truth, the difficult part is finding truth in the goings-on of our everyday lives and in our communities.Truth is the basis upon which people make their decisions. This is why it is so important for journalists to find the truth and report it with accuracy.
The text gives the definition of "functional truth" and its importance in journalism. For example, police arrest a suspect of a crime based on the facts that they are given by witnesses and by circumstantial evidence. This does not necessarily mean the person is, in truth, guilty. However, in the meantime, police use this functional truth to carry out their jobs.
Journalists are expected to do the same. We are given a set of facts. We check the reliability of those facts. If reliable, we go with them. Sometimes, however these so-called "facts" may not be "facts." It's sort of like the childhood game of telephone. One person tells me something, but facts can get distorted once they get to someone else. If we attribute them to the person who gave the facts, we are not guilty of libel or slander. The facts given may end up not being truth, and if that happens we are forced to look for the truth elsewhere.
The question is this: Can truth and journalism coexist? I believe they can. Maybe not truth in the eternal or the philosophical sense, but journalists can uncover the truth of a certain situation or event based on facts they are given. The journalist may encounter roadblocks and detours to the truth along the way, but if he or she can finally find the truth, they have done their job.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Who is a Journalist?
Blogging Experience
This was not my first blogging experience, although I have never been a huge blogger. My first experience with blogging came when I decided to make a film blog in which I critiqued certain films I had recently seen. Being a film buff, this was a fun way to tell people what I liked and did not like and maybe get my friends out to see the movies I endorsed. I believe there are two main reasons for blogging: 1) depending on the blog, it is a way to put your opinions out there and sway others’ opinions. 2) It is also a way to let people see into your own personal life.
From a journalist perspective, I do not believe that blogging is a very effective way to be a journalist, given the reasons I listed for blogging above. The purpose of journalism is not to sway public opinion or to give people a glimpse inside your life. The purpose of journalism is to find the truth and report it, and let the public decide for themselves. In this regard, I think that despite our social networking and blogging world, not everyone can be labeled a “journalist.”
Many argue that anyone can be a journalist nowadays with Twitter and Facebook. While this is an effective way to get word out to people about goings-on in the community, state and country, many people abuse this title of “citizen journalist” by putting their own opinions in their posts. People may do this because of cable news networks and the so-called “journalists” on Fox News and CNN (namely Glenn Beck and Joy Behar to name a few). Many personalities on cable news networks, and even some of the main networks, are commentators. I think people who post about issues on Facebook, Twitter, and Blogger are “citizen commentators,” not “citizen journalists.
What is Journalism?
I think that is a loaded question, nevertheless it can be answered on a number of different levels. Journalism, to me, is the act of finding topics that are of interest to the public and publishing them; one can publish nowadays in a variety of media, for example: Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, etc. Journalism in the 21st century is no longer limited to newspaper or broadcast organizations.
Journalism brings people together. An informed public is the strength of any nation. The first Amendment is one of the most important writings in history. I believe the American example of what journalism is and can be is a shining example for nations around the world.
Journalism is the creator of public opinion. It can sway voters. It can invoke powerful emotions in people: anger, sadness, happiness, etc. The power of journalism is great, and unfortunately I think journalists today know that and take advantage of it. I believe that journalists have a responsibility to find the truth and report it and let the public make their own opinion.
Journalism brings people together. An informed public is the strength of any nation. The first Amendment is one of the most important writings in history. I believe the American example of what journalism is and can be is a shining example for nations around the world.
Journalism is the creator of public opinion. It can sway voters. It can invoke powerful emotions in people: anger, sadness, happiness, etc. The power of journalism is great, and unfortunately I think journalists today know that and take advantage of it. I believe that journalists have a responsibility to find the truth and report it and let the public make their own opinion.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)