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.

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.

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.