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).
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)