"So what?" is one of the most important questions a journalist needs to answer and they need to do so in every single story they tell. Answering that question tells the public why you, the journalist, felt the need to do the work to tell them this story in the first place. If a citizen feels as though the question is not being answered, they won't be watching or reading your stories for very long.
So how do we know what is relevant? Is relevant what the public needs to hear? Or what they want to hear?
The answer is both. People come to the news to find out important information about the world around them so they can keep up to date on current events, but they also come to read things that are interesting and attention grabbing. The key is making sure both those types of stories, the hard news and the attention grabbing, focus on only the most relevant facts.
Diana Sugg was able to do just that. She took a story that at face value could have been a feature on a twelve year old boy struggling with sickness, on the verge of death, and the pain he and his family were going through. But she was able to turn the story into piece that was based on Rj (the twelve year old boy) but explored the larger issue of the pain that families have to face when going through situations like this. It explored whether there was a productive way that families could deal with their pain and help their dying child. (The story is found at the Diana Sugg link above). Sugg took an attention grabbing story and made it very relevant to those who read it. This is what we as reporters need to do for every story we write. Sugg answered the question, "So What?" by bringing in the bigger picture.
Writing coaches Roy Peter Clark and Chip Scanlan explain that there is a type of scale to follow to keep your story relevant and interesting. On one end of the scale is civic clarity which is information citizens need to know. On the other end is literary grace which is more storytelling. The perfect journalistic piece is found in between these two, in the middle of the scale. For instance, a hard news story on an upcoming election that would usually be on the civic clarity side could bring in humanizing elements of the candidates (their family, etc.) that would give it a little more of a story telling element and lead it towards the middle of the scale. A feature story on a church youth group donating their hair for those in need could take a deeper look into the lives of those who need the hair for wigs, and their conditions. That gives it a little more of an edge and more people can relate to the relevance because someone they know, or themselves, might be going through the same thing.
A journalist needs to make any kind of story relevant in the lives of the audience. Otherwise the audience won't be interested anymore. Always remember to answer the question "So what?" before the audience decides that your story doesn't apply to them.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Map of Journalism
"Journalism is our modern cartography. It creates a map for citizens to navigate society."
This quote helps to explain the responsibility that journalism has to cover the news. Journalism must cover things that will informative to citizens so that they can 'navigate society.' But just as a map that isn't correct will make it so that someone gets lost, if a news story is not correct, people will figuratively get lost, and not trust that news institution anymore.Almost as important as being truthful and accurate, journalism needs to be in proportion to what is important. A journalist who focuses on celebrity scandal because it will sell more is like a cartographer in the old days drawing England as big as Greenland because it is a popular place to be. Eventually it will catch up with them because it misleads the traveler/or the reader of the newspaper which will hurt there credibility for not covering for most pertinent information.
In this sense, proportion is they key to accuracy in journalism just as it is in map making. The job of the journalist is to predict what is most pertinent in the lives of the public so that they can get the information they need. It is possible that a celebrity gossip story will initially sell a newspaper, but people will look to other articles in the newspaper for more in depth and serious stories. If those stories aren't there, then people will start looking other places for them. Because people really do crave the information and stories that are more pertinent and relevant to their lives, I am surprised that magazines like Star sell at all.Although I guess that people who are going to buy magazines like Star are really only looking for entertainment news. Weekly World News on the other hand is a complete mystery to me. Do people actually believe the stuff that they print? There are no actual hard news stories. They are all just crazy 'mutant'-type stories. They have no credibility whatsoever.
As a journalist I obviously will not be working for Weekly World News, or Star for that matter. But I will make sure that no matter what my specific beat is, I will look for stories that will fulfill the public's need for hard news and help them to 'navigate society.'
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Journalism and Faith
As far as this class and this blog is concerned, I have two main responsibilities and roles in my life: a journalist and a Mormon. The key is to make the two mesh. In class we brought up several compelling questions.
Should a journalist's views on religion exist?
How can they stay neutral?
Should a journalist disclose their religion?
In response to the first question, how can they not exist? Every person in this world, whether particularly religious or not, has some sort of religious view. Their religious view might be that there is no true religion or higher power (AKA Atheism) or it could be a view in which every hour on the hour they have to stop whatever they're doing and say their prayers. Whichever end of the spectrum a person's religious views fall they do exist. Since journalists are in fact people, deductive reasoning would show that they have to have a religious view. So the question that should be asked is less should they exist and more how they can stay neutral in their stories? Which brings us to the next question.
As mentioned before, journalists are indeed human. This means that they not only have religious views and biases but they also have biases on everything else they have an opinion on. So they (we) should keep our religious views neutral the same way that we should keep all our other views and opinions neutral. It's important to look all sides of a story or argument and make sure that you are not putting your own spin on it. Research all the facts, leave out your personal opinions and biases (as much as possible) and if the occasion calls for it, disclose what your biases may be so that the audience watching/reading your story will understand where you are coming from on this topic and they can make their own opinions based on all the facts.
Which brings us to the next question: should a journalist disclose their religion. On this topic, I am slightly torn. Part of me thinks that it shouldn't matter what your religion is; if you are a reporter your job is to report the news as plain as possible without any hidden agenda. The audience should not care what the reporter's personal life is. However, in cases in which the reporter is doing a story on a religious topic, it might be necessary for them to disclose what their religion is. That way the audience has all the facts about the story and the person who wrote it and they can decide for themselves whether they will take it with a grain of salt or believe the story more because it was written by a religious person. Although I have to wonder, if a person discloses their religion when they do a religious story, do they need to disclose their political views when they do a political story? I think it all comes down to what the editor/producer wants. So when in doubt, ask them.
Well for those who want to read a little more about the effects that religion plays in the media click here. I think in the long run that it is practically impossible to ignore religious beliefs since it is more of a lifestyle than just an event on Sundays. Maybe that is why it's more important to disclose religion rather than political views. The person who writes the website listed above talks all about religion in news and how to handle it.
We discussed in class how when religious views and other biases enter a story but are not brought up they are considered 'ghosts' in the story. Here is one news story that we looked at about a book called "To Train up Your Child" in which two of the followers of the books guidelines beat their children to death.
Take a look at the video and determine for yourself what you think the ghosts in the story are. Should they have discussed more about religious beliefs or background for the book? Should the reporter have mentioned his religious beliefs?
I want to end this post with my religious beliefs since this is not a news story and I can do that. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints otherwise known as a Mormon. I believe that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. I believe that he died for the sins of the world. I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that he restored the true and everlasting gospel. I believe in eternal families. To find out more information about what our church believes visit our website mormon.org.
Should a journalist's views on religion exist?
How can they stay neutral?
Should a journalist disclose their religion?
In response to the first question, how can they not exist? Every person in this world, whether particularly religious or not, has some sort of religious view. Their religious view might be that there is no true religion or higher power (AKA Atheism) or it could be a view in which every hour on the hour they have to stop whatever they're doing and say their prayers. Whichever end of the spectrum a person's religious views fall they do exist. Since journalists are in fact people, deductive reasoning would show that they have to have a religious view. So the question that should be asked is less should they exist and more how they can stay neutral in their stories? Which brings us to the next question.
As mentioned before, journalists are indeed human. This means that they not only have religious views and biases but they also have biases on everything else they have an opinion on. So they (we) should keep our religious views neutral the same way that we should keep all our other views and opinions neutral. It's important to look all sides of a story or argument and make sure that you are not putting your own spin on it. Research all the facts, leave out your personal opinions and biases (as much as possible) and if the occasion calls for it, disclose what your biases may be so that the audience watching/reading your story will understand where you are coming from on this topic and they can make their own opinions based on all the facts.
Which brings us to the next question: should a journalist disclose their religion. On this topic, I am slightly torn. Part of me thinks that it shouldn't matter what your religion is; if you are a reporter your job is to report the news as plain as possible without any hidden agenda. The audience should not care what the reporter's personal life is. However, in cases in which the reporter is doing a story on a religious topic, it might be necessary for them to disclose what their religion is. That way the audience has all the facts about the story and the person who wrote it and they can decide for themselves whether they will take it with a grain of salt or believe the story more because it was written by a religious person. Although I have to wonder, if a person discloses their religion when they do a religious story, do they need to disclose their political views when they do a political story? I think it all comes down to what the editor/producer wants. So when in doubt, ask them.
Well for those who want to read a little more about the effects that religion plays in the media click here. I think in the long run that it is practically impossible to ignore religious beliefs since it is more of a lifestyle than just an event on Sundays. Maybe that is why it's more important to disclose religion rather than political views. The person who writes the website listed above talks all about religion in news and how to handle it.
We discussed in class how when religious views and other biases enter a story but are not brought up they are considered 'ghosts' in the story. Here is one news story that we looked at about a book called "To Train up Your Child" in which two of the followers of the books guidelines beat their children to death.
Take a look at the video and determine for yourself what you think the ghosts in the story are. Should they have discussed more about religious beliefs or background for the book? Should the reporter have mentioned his religious beliefs?
I want to end this post with my religious beliefs since this is not a news story and I can do that. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints otherwise known as a Mormon. I believe that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. I believe that he died for the sins of the world. I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that he restored the true and everlasting gospel. I believe in eternal families. To find out more information about what our church believes visit our website mormon.org.
Monday, November 14, 2011
A Journalist's Conscience
All year we have been talking about trust. That is what all these conversations about a journalists responsibility to the public. In the end, no matter what, the public must trust them or they are going to get their news elsewhere. A journalist cannot be trusted if they don't have a conscience to deter them from making decisions that could potentially lose the trust of the public.
Take for example Jayson Blair who worked for the New York Times in 2002. Come to find out he plagiarized articles and gave eyewitness accounts for places he had never been. Not only did he not deserve the trust of the public, but he lost the trust of all his colleagues. Because of his mistakes, people started rethinking how much they could trust journalists, since Blair had gone through several editors who loved his work before they realized that it wasn't his.
Now if Blair had a conscience he never would have lied about all these things and tested the trust of the public. His personal code of ethics would have told him to actually do work and write his own stories.
We, as journalists, need to have that personal code of ethics and it is up to those in the newsroom (producers, editors, etc.) to make the atmosphere one that allows people to feel comfortable being open about their ethics and values. So to all you future producers and editors: Don't shoot people down when they say, "I think that story is racist." or "That is just wrong."
If journalists feel comfortable talking about these things and they aren't blackballed and if those in charge will listen to journalists when they make a complaint about something (like the journalists who had suspicions about Jayson Blair but didn't have their voices heard in the newsroom) then it is more likely that things won't (or shouldn't) happen that could cause the public to reconsider where their trust lies.
Take for example Jayson Blair who worked for the New York Times in 2002. Come to find out he plagiarized articles and gave eyewitness accounts for places he had never been. Not only did he not deserve the trust of the public, but he lost the trust of all his colleagues. Because of his mistakes, people started rethinking how much they could trust journalists, since Blair had gone through several editors who loved his work before they realized that it wasn't his.
Now if Blair had a conscience he never would have lied about all these things and tested the trust of the public. His personal code of ethics would have told him to actually do work and write his own stories.
We, as journalists, need to have that personal code of ethics and it is up to those in the newsroom (producers, editors, etc.) to make the atmosphere one that allows people to feel comfortable being open about their ethics and values. So to all you future producers and editors: Don't shoot people down when they say, "I think that story is racist." or "That is just wrong."
If journalists feel comfortable talking about these things and they aren't blackballed and if those in charge will listen to journalists when they make a complaint about something (like the journalists who had suspicions about Jayson Blair but didn't have their voices heard in the newsroom) then it is more likely that things won't (or shouldn't) happen that could cause the public to reconsider where their trust lies.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Journalism is the Watchdog!
Last week in class we talked about journalism as the watchdog of society. In essence this means that it the journalist's job to to pay attention to the happenings in the world and inform society of all the important details. But as was mentioned in class, since journalists are indeed human, they have the tendency to be biased towards their stories. Because of that, journalists cannot ever be completely objective and objectivity is something that's really important to be a watchdog. So are journalists actually the watchdogs of society? Can they actually fulfill their job as watchdogs? And does the public actually want journalists to fulfill this role?
Journalism has certainly changed since it was named watchdog of society. Now that the public can be journalists for themselves they don't need professional journalists to watch out for them. Because of this the watchdog role is certainly weakened. In the elements of journalism it says that watchdogism is being turned into a form of amusement.
The question comes down to: What is the role of a journalist? I think that they are still watchdogs. The public has the ability to report on their blogs and their twitter and facebook on whatever they want. It is the journalists that have the training to step back and look at the bigger picture. Yes, they might be biased, but who isn't? At least this way they can look at all the stories and put them out for the public to hear instead of a person on their blog who is only going to post an even more biased entry about the piece of news of their choice.
Journalism has certainly changed since it was named watchdog of society. Now that the public can be journalists for themselves they don't need professional journalists to watch out for them. Because of this the watchdog role is certainly weakened. In the elements of journalism it says that watchdogism is being turned into a form of amusement.
The question comes down to: What is the role of a journalist? I think that they are still watchdogs. The public has the ability to report on their blogs and their twitter and facebook on whatever they want. It is the journalists that have the training to step back and look at the bigger picture. Yes, they might be biased, but who isn't? At least this way they can look at all the stories and put them out for the public to hear instead of a person on their blog who is only going to post an even more biased entry about the piece of news of their choice.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Just to Verify...
Everything I'm learning about journalism comes back to one main principle (which reminds me a lot of the 'there is one story' theme in How to Read Literature Like a Professor---check it out, awesome book!): Truth. All in all I have to make sure that what I am presenting to the public is truth, which takes us to today's topic of discussion...Verification.
A lot of the time journalists are forced to republish news. In this day there are so many outlets that publish news there is a good chance that every story is getting told in some form or another. The important part is to make sure that what you are republishing is true and to do that you must VERIFY.
One great rule of thumb to live by: IF YOU CAN'T VERIFY IT, THEN DON'T USE IT.
But this can be more than just checking sources. Verification goes into you personally interviewing someone. Make sure you're not taking something they say and twisting it to work for your story. Check with them on what they said and then double check to make sure it is what they meant.
Also be as transparent as possible. You want the viewers/readers/listeners to completely understand what you are talking about and be able to see through every point you are making. Journalism is not the business of confusing people. If there is a point that isn't clearly outlined or presented then make it more clear. Don't leave anything to question.
A great way to do this is by anticipating the questions that your viewers/readers/listeners will ask. If you can accurately do that, then you can answer those questions before they have time to formulate the complete thought.
Like I mentioned before, it all comes back to truth which comes back to trust. Your audience needs to trust you. If they don't, then they won't be your audience for very long. Even if you are displaying accurate information but they have questions that often go unanswered people will not trust you. Not only do you have to deserve the trust by being honest, but you have to prove to the audience that you are being honest.
Now in closing I am leaving you with an example of what not to do. This is a totally real person and some other (really clever) people went and wrote a song to explain what is going on in his head. (In case you're a little slow that's what you shouldn't do. Be truthful and transparent).
A lot of the time journalists are forced to republish news. In this day there are so many outlets that publish news there is a good chance that every story is getting told in some form or another. The important part is to make sure that what you are republishing is true and to do that you must VERIFY.
One great rule of thumb to live by: IF YOU CAN'T VERIFY IT, THEN DON'T USE IT.
But this can be more than just checking sources. Verification goes into you personally interviewing someone. Make sure you're not taking something they say and twisting it to work for your story. Check with them on what they said and then double check to make sure it is what they meant.
Also be as transparent as possible. You want the viewers/readers/listeners to completely understand what you are talking about and be able to see through every point you are making. Journalism is not the business of confusing people. If there is a point that isn't clearly outlined or presented then make it more clear. Don't leave anything to question.
A great way to do this is by anticipating the questions that your viewers/readers/listeners will ask. If you can accurately do that, then you can answer those questions before they have time to formulate the complete thought.
Like I mentioned before, it all comes back to truth which comes back to trust. Your audience needs to trust you. If they don't, then they won't be your audience for very long. Even if you are displaying accurate information but they have questions that often go unanswered people will not trust you. Not only do you have to deserve the trust by being honest, but you have to prove to the audience that you are being honest.
Now in closing I am leaving you with an example of what not to do. This is a totally real person and some other (really clever) people went and wrote a song to explain what is going on in his head. (In case you're a little slow that's what you shouldn't do. Be truthful and transparent).
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Separation Anxiety
As a journalist I have been taught to delve into a story to find the nitty gritty facts that might otherwise go unnoticed. And yet at the same time I am told to keep my distance from stories and not get to close because I don't want them to be biased. So my question is: Where is the line??
Isn't all journalism biased to some extent? I mean, it has to be.
I report for BYU Eleven News. When I go to find a story, I am looking for something that the public will find interesting and want to know. But I can't possible know what the public (namely my viewers) are going to want to see. I am biased in that I am the one who is choosing what to do a story on. Obviously I'm going to find stories that interest me to some extent. Recently I have found stories that I am passionate about. Is that wrong? If I find a story that I am truly passionate about won't that make the story better? Won't it make it more interesting to watch because my passion will force me to tell it in a way that people can relate to?
Or am I ruining the story? I don't know how to find the line.
Is my passion for the stories I am telling skewing the truth? Think of Anderson Cooper. When he reported on Hurricane Katrina he was very passionate about it.I think that his passion helped him to find elements of the story that people wanted to hear about. Isn't there a way to incorporate your passion for the better? As long as your staying objective with the facts and not blatantly putting your opinion in your story, does it matter?
One of my favorite stories that I did was on a campaign project called Beauty Redefined. Their goal was to teach women how the media is skewing what beauty really is. I think that part of the reason that it was my favorite story was because I became an advocate for their cause. Now the story didn't air so I can look at it from another point of view. Was my story skewed because I was an advocate for the cause? I think in this case, the answer is yes.
I didn't talk to a professional to see if what this program was promoting was based on fact or opinion. I instantly believed what Lexie (the co-founder I interviewed) had to say and I even stayed after the interview to chat with her. Little did I know then, that was a big No-No in the professional news world.
Lucky for me I am just learning and it is time to make my mistakes now. But I still need help finding that line between getting good facts and being a full out advocate for the story. Maybe this is something that people can't teach me. Maybe I have to figure this out myself with trial and error. I don't want to have a lawsuit on my hands in the future for being seen having a friendship with people I use as sources. If I am going to be a reporter, I am going to do it the right way. I guess its a good thing I'm in school so I can figure out what the right way is.
Isn't all journalism biased to some extent? I mean, it has to be.
I report for BYU Eleven News. When I go to find a story, I am looking for something that the public will find interesting and want to know. But I can't possible know what the public (namely my viewers) are going to want to see. I am biased in that I am the one who is choosing what to do a story on. Obviously I'm going to find stories that interest me to some extent. Recently I have found stories that I am passionate about. Is that wrong? If I find a story that I am truly passionate about won't that make the story better? Won't it make it more interesting to watch because my passion will force me to tell it in a way that people can relate to?
Or am I ruining the story? I don't know how to find the line.
Is my passion for the stories I am telling skewing the truth? Think of Anderson Cooper. When he reported on Hurricane Katrina he was very passionate about it.I think that his passion helped him to find elements of the story that people wanted to hear about. Isn't there a way to incorporate your passion for the better? As long as your staying objective with the facts and not blatantly putting your opinion in your story, does it matter?
One of my favorite stories that I did was on a campaign project called Beauty Redefined. Their goal was to teach women how the media is skewing what beauty really is. I think that part of the reason that it was my favorite story was because I became an advocate for their cause. Now the story didn't air so I can look at it from another point of view. Was my story skewed because I was an advocate for the cause? I think in this case, the answer is yes.
I didn't talk to a professional to see if what this program was promoting was based on fact or opinion. I instantly believed what Lexie (the co-founder I interviewed) had to say and I even stayed after the interview to chat with her. Little did I know then, that was a big No-No in the professional news world.
Lucky for me I am just learning and it is time to make my mistakes now. But I still need help finding that line between getting good facts and being a full out advocate for the story. Maybe this is something that people can't teach me. Maybe I have to figure this out myself with trial and error. I don't want to have a lawsuit on my hands in the future for being seen having a friendship with people I use as sources. If I am going to be a reporter, I am going to do it the right way. I guess its a good thing I'm in school so I can figure out what the right way is.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Don't Diss the Printed Press
The Pew Research Center recently did a study to determine the outlets that the people were getting their news from. It concluded that people go to different sources depending on the topic they want to know more about. For instance, TV is most popular for weather, traffic and breaking news. This surprises me. I would think that people would go to the radio for weather and traffic. Or at least traffic. But I guess both radio and TV are a form of broadcast news.
Written papers and their websites are most popular for local government updates and crime reports. I think the key part of that statement is "and their websites." It very much goes to show that technology is moving write along and written papers are getting lost. Obviously people are still reading those papers online...it's more convenient that way. But in a world that is so 'green' conscious, why not just nix the actual newspapers altogether?
I have to admit, there is something to be said for the sensory input associated with a newspaper. But it is cheaper and faster to look online. I can search what I want to know more about in Google and find every news source that has info on the topic, instead of flipping through an awkward to hold paper that I had to pay for and I might only have time to read certain sections.
Now the study also found that word of mouth (which in this generation means twitter and texting) is the second most popular for local news. Uhm Duh. That's not surprising. People want to know what their peers are talking about. It also showed that young adults rely on the Internet more than TV or papers. Well I could have told you that.
But by far the most atrocious thing that this study found is that the public does not trust their media sources. They believe that the media is heavily influenced by powerful people and groups, that they only cover one side and that reporters try to cover up their mistakes. That is entirely unacceptable. The public should be able to trust reporters and the media.The loyalty of the media lies first and foremost to the citizen. So why are we putting up with this? There were revolts back in the day when the media was controlled by the government. If we're not happy with the way out media is telling the news why don't we do the same? Is it because of power?
All I know is that if I ever make it into the field of journalism and become a reporter, I will have a code of ethics, I will be loyal to the citizen and I will be a reporter people can trust.
Written papers and their websites are most popular for local government updates and crime reports. I think the key part of that statement is "and their websites." It very much goes to show that technology is moving write along and written papers are getting lost. Obviously people are still reading those papers online...it's more convenient that way. But in a world that is so 'green' conscious, why not just nix the actual newspapers altogether?
I have to admit, there is something to be said for the sensory input associated with a newspaper. But it is cheaper and faster to look online. I can search what I want to know more about in Google and find every news source that has info on the topic, instead of flipping through an awkward to hold paper that I had to pay for and I might only have time to read certain sections.
Now the study also found that word of mouth (which in this generation means twitter and texting) is the second most popular for local news. Uhm Duh. That's not surprising. People want to know what their peers are talking about. It also showed that young adults rely on the Internet more than TV or papers. Well I could have told you that.
But by far the most atrocious thing that this study found is that the public does not trust their media sources. They believe that the media is heavily influenced by powerful people and groups, that they only cover one side and that reporters try to cover up their mistakes. That is entirely unacceptable. The public should be able to trust reporters and the media.The loyalty of the media lies first and foremost to the citizen. So why are we putting up with this? There were revolts back in the day when the media was controlled by the government. If we're not happy with the way out media is telling the news why don't we do the same? Is it because of power?
All I know is that if I ever make it into the field of journalism and become a reporter, I will have a code of ethics, I will be loyal to the citizen and I will be a reporter people can trust.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Loyal Journalists
A big part of being a trustworthy news source is being loyal to the readers, watchers, and listeners.First and foremost we have to, as our book explained, 'Commit to the Citizen First'. This means that as a journalist I need to report news in a way that is completely truthful and doesn't hurt any person's rights to privacy. It isn't right to tell a news story that breaks a law or code of ethics in order to make money.
One example of this is Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch unlawfully hacked into a girl's phone to get information. Not only did he work the information he received to give it the twist he wanted, but he even harmed families effected in 9/11 in the process.
He is the perfect example of what not to do when it comes to loyalty to the citizens. We talked a lot in class about how in order to be loyal we need to have a code of ethics. Many major newspapers do and they are available for the public to look at. The New York Times is one such paper. I really think it awesome that they created a code for their entire company to live by. That way the company can be unified in purpose and stick to the same ideas in whatever they do. The more we talked about having a code ethics, the more I realized that I should create one for myself. Not only for my job as a reporter and a journalist but also in my life.
A new study shows that people get most of their news from their televisions but there are still certain topics that people go to their newspapers for. It just goes to show that no matter what field of journalism a person is in, and whether or not the print newspaper dies, it is still important for a journalist to be loyal to the citizen, the consumer, the reader and not harm their rights in the process of giving them the news. Even if it was just one person reading or watching or listening to the news program, it is enough to be loyal to that person and the person that the news involves.
One example of this is Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch unlawfully hacked into a girl's phone to get information. Not only did he work the information he received to give it the twist he wanted, but he even harmed families effected in 9/11 in the process.
He is the perfect example of what not to do when it comes to loyalty to the citizens. We talked a lot in class about how in order to be loyal we need to have a code of ethics. Many major newspapers do and they are available for the public to look at. The New York Times is one such paper. I really think it awesome that they created a code for their entire company to live by. That way the company can be unified in purpose and stick to the same ideas in whatever they do. The more we talked about having a code ethics, the more I realized that I should create one for myself. Not only for my job as a reporter and a journalist but also in my life.
A new study shows that people get most of their news from their televisions but there are still certain topics that people go to their newspapers for. It just goes to show that no matter what field of journalism a person is in, and whether or not the print newspaper dies, it is still important for a journalist to be loyal to the citizen, the consumer, the reader and not harm their rights in the process of giving them the news. Even if it was just one person reading or watching or listening to the news program, it is enough to be loyal to that person and the person that the news involves.
Monday, September 26, 2011
The Truth the Whole Truth and Nothing But.
A Journalists first obligation is to tell the truth. The readers, viewers and listeners are counting on the journalists to provide them with truthful information. As soon as a journalist stops telling the truth or starts stretching the truth the public can no longer trust them. And when a journalist loses their audience base...they lose their job.
But what is the truth?
News and truth are not the same thing. (Article)
News signals and event and the truth brings something to light.
There have been times in certain places where the government regulates what 'truth' is told.
But a community loses their power when they lose their voice. They need truth to bring them together and keep them strong. There are advantages to government censorship like rights to privacy and preventing plagiarism. And then there are disadvantages: for instance Hitler censored the news which is why many people still refuse to believe that the Holocaust actually happened.
But where is the line?
The line between the truth the public needs to know and the things that need to be censored seems to be very thin. And who gets to decide? The government? The news station? The reporter?
I think that the reporter really just needs to be out in the world and very observant. If the reporter is spending time out in their community and listening to what people are interested in then they will know what they need to report on. They can then decide what the public needs and wants to hear. And there is a way to present it so that no copyright or laws are being broken and still get the full story told.
But what is the truth?
News and truth are not the same thing. (Article)
News signals and event and the truth brings something to light.
There have been times in certain places where the government regulates what 'truth' is told.
But a community loses their power when they lose their voice. They need truth to bring them together and keep them strong. There are advantages to government censorship like rights to privacy and preventing plagiarism. And then there are disadvantages: for instance Hitler censored the news which is why many people still refuse to believe that the Holocaust actually happened.
But where is the line?
The line between the truth the public needs to know and the things that need to be censored seems to be very thin. And who gets to decide? The government? The news station? The reporter?
I think that the reporter really just needs to be out in the world and very observant. If the reporter is spending time out in their community and listening to what people are interested in then they will know what they need to report on. They can then decide what the public needs and wants to hear. And there is a way to present it so that no copyright or laws are being broken and still get the full story told.
Monday, September 19, 2011
The Future of News
During the Industrial Revolution people lost jobs because they created machinery that could do the work that people were doing by hand. Now as technology is evolving at such a rapid pace, journalism and the news must do the same to keep up.
This is an excellent video that we watched in class that shows just how quickly the world is changing. If Journalism does not keep up with the changing world, it will become a thing of the past.
The new technology might mean that things have to change, but in many ways they are making it more convenient to read the news. I have an app on my phone for CNN, New York Times, and ABC. I have the opportunity to read the headlines of each of these news sites whenever and where ever I want. I most likely would not read these news sites otherwise. So this technological advance to mobile phone applications is good for these news stations because more people like me are reading on their phones who otherwise would not.
Twitter is another example. I just got a twitter account for my communications class. The next thing I did was started following all my favorite news sites. Then I downloaded the handy dandy Twitter app to my phone. So if for some reason my news apps were not working on my phone, I could scroll through my twitter feed and find out from that.
If you ask me, all this technology is a beautiful thing. Especially for my generation who was born with a cell phone in their hand updating their facebook status about the birth experience. (Obviously I'm exaggerating...facebook wasn't invented in the early 90s. But you get the point.)
But with all good things comes the opportunity to do evil. With the internet people have the opportunity to edit and change thing to try and deceive the people who view it. Take this picture for example:
Someone took this picture from the top of the World Trade Center and then edited it to make it look like it was taken right as the plane was about to crash into it.
Well now it is out in the open. This picture is a fake. But what about when it was first released? How do you suppose that made people feel after seeing it and then discovering it wasn't real. It all comes down to an inappropriate use of resources. You take something awesome like the internet and photoshop and you misuse it. So the bottom line here is that the internet is not always credible. Yes you can read news from blogs if you want but you just have to realize that it might not always be true.
In my personal opinion the advances in technology have done wonderful things for journalism. I am much more up to date and current events because of said advances. But now that everything is online is does leave some question as to what will happen to the print newspaper. There will always be people (those from an older generation) who want their newspaper that they can touch and smell and hold. But what about when that generation passes? What then? Will newspapers still be published at all? Will my children know what a newspaper is?
Despite the questions about what will happen to things like the newspaper and the future of broadcast news even, my future in journalism is clear. Because journalists now have to learn how to do everything, not only find their story but write it and film it and edit it, I will have a wider skill set that will help me in my ultimate goal to create documentaries. I am grateful for the technological advances because they have given me the chance to learn about all the different forms of technology and how they will benefit me in my future career.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)