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

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

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.

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:

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=78265

Without journalistic help, this problem may never have come to the attention of the public.

Another example:

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=309&sid=125223

The media has a powerful ability to bring issues to the forefront that otherwise might go unnoticed. 

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. 

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.