What is a journalist?

Now that my journalism class is almost over, we were asked to once again blog about what we thought a journalist was and compare that with what we thought at the beginning of the semester to see how our opinions changed after everything we have learned.

However, I don't think my definition of what a journalist is has changed at all since the beginning of the semester. In my first post, I said:

"With each passing day, the media and technology are evolving more and more, making it easier for people to allow their voices to be heard. Because of this, almost everyone has some means of informing the public, just as journalists do. Maybe you aren’t on TV or don’t have an article in a newspaper, but you still have ways to spread information, such as Twitter, Facebook, etc. So as long as that information is both true and ethical, wouldn’t that make you a journalist as well? I believe so."

I still stand by this. Every single person has the opportunity to be a journalist. Of course, there is a difference between being a journalist as your career and being a citizen journalist. In fact, if a professional journalist writes something that isn't quite truthful, or maybe it's not very ethical, does that still make them a journalist? No. Sure, they'll have that title, but they aren't a real journalist. They aren't living up to what that title claims. They are a disgrace to journalism as a whole.
 
Throughout this semester I have learned a lot about principles many journalists live by. However, there are so many exceptions to each of these principles that it is hard to know when it is appropriate to apply each concept. I felt like there were many contradictory messages being presented to us, such as you must remain completely unbiased, but sometimes it's all right to put emotion and yourself into the story. Wait, how is that possible? I felt like almost everything being presented to us was like, "Sometimes it's ok to do this, but sometimes it's not." It all just seemed like suggestions rather than rules.
 
I spent a lot of time thinking about this and why there are so many exceptions to everything and why so many conflicting messages are being presented. I think I finally came up with a conclusion.
 
Journalists don't have rules that they live by. At least they shouldn't. Obviously there are the basics -- be truthful, be ethical -- but other than that, it's unclear. Journalism just takes experience. No one is going to be perfect when they first start. But the more you do it, the more you begin to realize when each of these concepts and principles are acceptable and when it is all right to make exceptions. That is something I don't completely understand now because I haven't had much experience with it yet.
 
The same thing applies for citizen journalists. Most blogs are going to be biased, and that is perfectly acceptable. They won't all be the same format, or have the same writing style, etc. Still journalism? Most definitely, because the circumstance allows for all of these exceptions.
 
I hope this post made sense. Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that not only can anyone be a journalist, but there are very few solid rules that journalists should have to follow. Just make sure that it is truthful and ethical, and you're good to go.

The Journalist as a Celebrity

Often times journalists are seen as celebrities rather than reporters. Journalists can become celebrities by covering other celebrities, putting on a certain image that appeals to the public, or by covering a touching story, such as when Anderson Cooper covered Hurricane Katrina, the story that gained him his fame.

So a journalist being well-known isn't that big of a deal, right? Wrong. In fact, it can cause various problems for both the reporter and the public. How?

Let's discuss the reporter first. When a celebrity shows up at a scene, his or her presence can change that scene dramatically. This makes the role of being a celebrity journalist much more difficult because their purpose is to report what is happening naturally in the world without it being contaminated by the presence of a celebrity.

One example of a celebrity journalist is Diane Willis, who was a television news anchor. Many of the stories she covered were designed to enhance her image, even though those were not the stories that she wanted to cover. When she was asked about sports, she was supposed to smile, giggle, and get the answer wrong. Her management made her put on a fake image regardless of what she wanted. Is this ok?

Personally, I don't think it is. As journalists, we are supposed to present the truth to our audience, and acting like someone you are not and covering stories that make you look better is not being completely truthful to your viewers. People want to see real reporters acting like real people, not some made up personality that doesn't exist.

The following is a video of when anchors Clyde Lee and Diane Willis retired, which thoroughly portrays them as the celebrity journalists they were.

Now let's talk about the public. What kind of problems can celebrity journalists cause them?

First of all, the public has no idea whether that reporter is actually credible or just acting like they are. People want to believe that the reporter is genuine, but that is not always the case, such as with Diane Willis, whose image was created for her. Also, people will begin to look at at you as being part of the entertainment medium rather than being reporters presenting real news. Having the appearance of a celebrity journalist, especially when they are interviewing another celebrity, combines the news with entertainment. Is this a problem? Has the focus of news moved too far to the coverage of celebrities and lightweight issues?

I think that this can definitely be a problem. When all reporting suddenly becomes entertainment, people will no longer be informed about the important things going on in the world. However, some entertainment can be ok as long as it is used with judgment and not to excess. This allows people to receive the important information without getting bored.

Another problem occurring today is that celebrities have become more credible with young people as reporters. For example, MTV had celebrities such as Christina Aguilera and Drew Barrymore interview presidential candidates in order to appeal to the younger generation. Reporters that are not well-known are slowly losing the interest of their viewers.

Overall, the journalist as a celebrity is not necessarily a bad thing, but they need to be aware of the problems that it can cause and learn how to handle them properly.

Journalism & Faith

The people journalists are reporting on are often inspired or affected by faith. As Jim Robertson, the editor of the Columbia Daily Tribune, said, "Journalism and religion is a tough mix. Religion depends on faith, and journalism demands proof."

We must remember that context is the key to complete reporting. When it comes to religion, people can get offended very easily. We have to be careful that we are not letting our own faith come through or sounding biased towards the faith portrayed in the story.

However, should journalists be expected to report on something that they do not believe in? How about something that they do believe in but the majority does not?

To answer the first question, I would have to say no. However, journalists should know coming into the job that they may be asked to write about things that maybe they don't want to. If a journalist feels extremely uncomfortable writing about a topic, however, I don't think they should be required to report on it.

When I was on the yearbook staff on high school, someone on the staff wrote a paragraph that I did not feel comfortable including in the yearbook because it went against my personal values and beliefs. I felt like by including that paragraph, it would say that I was ok with or even supported that type of behavior. In addition, I knew many other people at the school who I knew had similar views as me and would also feel uncomfortable reading it.

I went to my advisor and told her how I felt about it. She told me it was up to me and the other editors. Unfortunately, none of the other editors agreed with me, so we kept it. When the yearbook came out, a few people told me they weren't happy about that particular thing being included.

Did I do the right thing as a journalist? Should I never have said anything about it in the first place? Should I have fought harder for mine and others' beliefs?

I feel like I handled the situation the best I could have. I realize now that inserting that paragraph into the yearbook was in no way saying that I supported that behavior. I wasn't the one who had to report on it, or put my name on that page, etc. I had to respect what everyone else wanted, because in the end I was overruled.

However, not saying anything at all would not have been the right decision either. I needed to let the staff know that people were going to be uncomfortable with that paragraph. Maybe they should have taken that fact more into consideration, but that was not in my hands. As a journalist, I accepted it and moved on.

In answer to the second question, once again I would have to say no. If you write about something that the majority of people are going to be uncomfortable with, then it is probably best not to say it at all. I realize that it depends on the situation. I realize sometimes saying things that make people uncomfortable is for their own good - it gets them thinking, it introduces them to different views, etc. But if this is not the case, such as that paragraph in my yearbook, then it is probably best kept to yourself.

Being a journalist doesn't mean you have to go against your own faith. It just means that you might have to be more understanding and tolerant of other faiths. As David Waters, the On Faith Web site producer, said, "Religion is the most important topic out there. It matters to nearly everyone, even to atheists and agnostics. It affects nearly everything - from how we raise and educate kids, to how we make and spend our money, to how we run corporations, communities, and even countries."

Journalism as a Public Forum

A public forum is a place open to public expression and assembly. So how is this used in journalism?

Journalism must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise. However, this comes with rules. It must be truthful, factual, and verified. In addition, it must be for all parts of the community and include broad areas of agreement, where most of the public resides and solutions can be found.

So what falls under this category? Are blogs journalism? How about Wikipedia?

I've discussed blogs before, but I'll say it again. If blogs are truthful, factual, and ethical, then I don't see why they wouldn't count as journalism. However, the problem is figuring out what is true and what is not. Blogs cannot always be trusted. You just have to be careful. Anyone can post whatever they want on their blogs, so I wouldn't rely on them too much unless you know for a fact that they can be trusted.

So what about Wikipedia?

Personally, I don't want to admit that Wikipedia is unreliable because I use it so much and get a lot of my information from there. I think a lot of people feel the same way, especially college students who go straight to Wikipedia when they need information for writing a paper. However, the truth is that while the majority of the facts on Wikipedia are accurate, there are definitely some things that are not. And how are you supposed to know what is true and what isn't? The good thing though is that Wikipedia is definitely getting better at letting you know when sources are missing and when something is questionable.

I think blogs, Wikipedia, and other social media can be good sources of information. But I wouldn't use them as my main sources. I wouldn't trust everything I read and hear. Sure, they are good starting places, but follow them up with different sources that for sure can be trusted. The more you do this, the more you'll learn who you can and cannot trust in the public forum.

Problems + Solutions = ?

This past week I listened to journalist David Bornstein of the New York Times speak. He talked about how journalism these days is not depicting reality and is telling us our problems rather than solving them. This is because most journalists in the U.S. are not interested in writing stories about solutions.

Bornstein asked the question, "What is the role of the journalist in covering the world today?"

The role of the journalist is to inform the public. However, as time goes on, people are finding easier ways of informing themselves, thus diminishing the role of the journalist. Perhaps this is because getting our information from a journalist rather than finding it for ourselves provides no benefit.

What do journalists do for us that we can't do for ourselves? Journalists are supposed to make a difference, but how do they do that if they are only spotlighting wrongdoing? As Bornstein asked, "How does spotlighting wrongdoing provide a solution?"

We as journalists must balance hard news with solutions to those problems surrounding us in the world today. Spotlighting wrongdoing almost never provides an actual solution. Good news (aka solution news) is a lot harder to write than just telling about the problem, but it is also way more beneficial. Not as many people pay to hear about problems as much as they would to have their problems solved.

We must give the public what they can't give themselves. That is what will make our stories memorable. That is what people will pay to hear. Problems with solutions. And once we can do that for them, we will gain more of their trust as well as their attention.

Watchdog Journalism

Watchdog journalism is making the affairs of the powerful intuitions more transparent to the public. Nine out of ten journalists believe that the press keeps political leaders from doing things that they shouldn’t do.

Watchdog journalism carries a greater responsibility for journalists because not only do they have to verify their facts, but they must also be careful in how they share the information. Journalism full of endless criticisms loses meaning, and the public will eventually have no basis for judging good from bad.

One example of successful watchdog journalism is the Watergate scandal. Without journalists, the scandal most likely would not have been uncovered and would have caused even greater damage than it did.

However, what is happening to watchdog journalism today?

Much of reporting these days consists of tabloid treatment of everyday circumstances. Is this OK? Do we really need to hear about Michael Jackson's death, or Kim Kardashian's 72-day marriage?

The tabloids are mainly entertainment and not news that will benefit the public in any way. However, sometimes it takes a little entertainment to keep your audience listening and interested. You just have to find a balance. A little entertainment here and there is all right, but when it begins to become more frequent and take the place of real news stories that could be of benefit to your audience, that is when it becomes too much.

However, you also have to be careful that when you include those types of things, you make sure that it is reliable. The public does not always have a way of discerning between gossip and fact, and lots of stories featured in tabloids end up just being gossip that gets spread around. Go out and actually find your facts for yourself. Don’t trust someone else to tell you what really happened.

To conclude, watchdog journalism, though still existent, is being seen less and less in the media. We should be making sure that we are keeping our priorities in order and delivering what is really important to the public. As Finley Peter Dunne from the Chicago Journalist & Humorist said, the job of journalists is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

Ethics.

To be a good journalist, you have to be know what ethics you need to follow and stick to them. The most difficult ethical challenge faced by journalists today is to get the facts right and tell the story fairly.

First, journalists must make sure that their facts are completely accurate. You can't just assume something or trust anything anyone says; you need evidence. You need multiple sources. You need to double-check your facts.

Second, you must present those facts fairly. This is where objectivity comes into play. We've talked about objectivity a lot before, but basically, journalists should best go about reporting issues by keeping their views to themselves and remaining impartial.

However, other concerns relating to the ethicality of journalism are also debated. For example, is the under-cover role acceptable? What counts as "crossing the line" in order to get a story?

This is a tricky question. Going under-cover could be the only way to get a story, but at the same time it could also cause harm if others feel violated when they find out. The under-cover role has been a source of both good (Nellie Bly) and bad in the past.

I don't have a solid view as to whether or not going under-cover is acceptable. However, if there is another way to get the same story, take it, even though it may be more difficult. If you go under-cover, you need to be very careful. If your actions are for the good of the general public, and you wouldn't feel guilty revealing your motives, then maybe it is all right. But don't just do it because it is the "easy way out" or because it will get you a really good story while harming many.

Another subject relating to ethicality is diversity in the newsroom. Should newsrooms be diverse?

Diversity in the newsroom gains numerous advantages, such as many different opinions, increased objectivity, and appeal to the masses. The more diverse people you have, the more people will be able to relate to what your publication has to say. If your newsroom contained people of all the same race, around the same age, with the same political views, then it is likely that you are going to come across as extremely biased.

However, problems could arise while trying to achieve such a diversity. For example, do you choose between the more diverse, or the better journalist? Quality or diversity? Personally, I would pick quality. If I can achieve both at the same time, that would be great. However, good journalism is more important to me than diverse journalism. If I hire quality journalists, they will know how to remain ethical and unbiased without having to be completely diverse.

The Society of Professional Journalists provides a list of ways that journalists can remain ethical. A few examples are:
-Be honest, fair, and courageous.
-Treat all with respect.
-Be accountable to your audience.
-Be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

The Journalist as an Ideologue

What is an ideologue, you ask? According to dictionary.com, it is "a person who zealously advocates an ideology." It is a person and the beliefs and values that lead their life. So how does this relate to journalism?

Let me ask you a question: can a journalist be completely objective?

I do not believe so. Each journalist is going to have their own set of beliefs and values that they follow, and it is going to come out in their writing whether they mean for it to or not. That doesn't mean their writing is going to come out biased. It just means that it is going to come out different than it would if you or I wrote it, because each person has a unique view of the world.

So when it comes to choosing a story, there are 8 values that journalists go by to determine if it is actually newsworthy. They are:

1) Altruistic Democracy
This is when the leaders of the nation pose a threat to the idea of being liaisons for the people. Citizens like to know when their leaders are acting out and what state their nation is in. One example of this would be the Watergate Scandal.

2) Responsible Capitalism
This is a capitalism in which the whole of the country becomes better. The public likes to hear about positive changes made to their country.

3) Order
Crime would fall under this category. This is because it is a threat to the order of our society. When something out of the ordinary happens, the public is going to be intrigued and want to hear about it, especially when it concerns their safety.

4) Moderation
Since most Americans consider themselves moderate thinkers, extremist thinking tends to be covered more because it is different than what most people are used to.

5) Leadership
Poor leaders and great leaders will be featured more prominently because leadership is a basic value in American culture. Citizens like to know who is leading their country and what decisions they are making.

6) Small-Town Pastoralism
Even though they center around cities, Americans love to hear small town stories. This could be because it is different than what they are used to and provides a sense of comfort and unity.

7) Rugged Individualism
This is when an individual or group stands up for a good cause, especially when it is freedom or liberty. Citizens like it when fellow citizens stand up for things that they also believe in and want.

8) Ethnocentrism
This is the belief that one's culture is superior to another. Ethnocentrism in journalism can be dangerous; you could come across as biased. People could see you as being insensitive to other cultures, ideas, or nations. Here is one example when ethnocentrism in the media came across as a problem.

Independence from Faction

One of the largely debated topics in journalism is independence from faction. Why?

The intent of journalism is to inform, not to manipulate. To accomplish this, journalists don't need to be neutral, just independent from what they are covering.

But how are journalists supposed to remain independent? How independent is independent enough? And when are exceptions allowed?

First of all, you should not be a journalist if you don't love your job. This will help you remain independent of monetary influences. But what about other influences? Such as what you are covering? Many famous reporters often included their opinions in their stories, such as Walter Cronkite. Anderson Cooper is also known for getting emotionally involved when he covered Hurricane Katrina. Is that ok?

Personally, I think it depends. Sometimes that added emotion can have large positive effects on the piece, but other times it can come off as biased and insensitive. You just have to be careful. People aren't reading the newspaper to have a million different opinions and emotions thrown in their faces. At the same time, they don't want to be reading something so completely void of emotion that it sounds like a robot. I think in Anderson Cooper's situation, it greatly added to the impact of the story. Although many criticized it, for me it was a breath of fresh air to see that he is a normal human being just like me who has feelings and emotions, and his feelings and emotions at that point in time were representing the feelings and emotions of everyone involved in the tragedy. It was raw, deep, touching emotion. It was real journalism. Completely real and nothing fake.

Here's another example: Linda Greenhouse was a journalist who worked for the New York Times. She attended a protest for "Freedom of Choice" -- on her own free time. When the New York Times found out, they reprimanded her because they didn't want the public to think she was representing the views and opinions of the paper. Was this fair?

This is where many disagree. In my opinion, I don't think what the New York Times did to her was fair. She did it on her own time, and in no way was she saying that those were the views of the New York Times. Journalists have lives too. They have opinions and feelings. They are a part of society. And they should have the same rights as everyone else. People need to realize that what journalists do on their own time is not connected to their jobs. I'm a Mormon. Does that mean I should be reprimanded because me going to church every Sunday shows that those are the views of whatever business I'm working for? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. My personal life is completely separate from my life as a journalist. My writing will remain independent of the fact that I'm a Mormon, no matter how devout I am.

Yes, certain things like me being a Mormon could have effects on my work, like not wanting to cover certain stories, or the language used in my writing, etc. While I don't come out and say, "I'm a Mormon and this is what I believe," people might still be able to notice the little differences between me and another journalist just based on factors that I have no control over. But that is what makes each and every journalist unique. That is what makes each person's writing unique -- the beliefs, values, and attributes that makes up each person and their writing. And I believe that is what makes each story stand out. That is what gets the public to keep reading.

The Professional

What makes a journalist professional? It's hard to say. While some things are easily agreed upon, others are not. For example, if someone is dying at your feet, do you help them or do you record it? How attached should you be to your sources?

The priesthood of journalism is often referred to as a "higher calling of serving others" or "the fourth estate." I suppose that could be interpreted differently, but the way I interpret it is that everything you do as a journalist is for the greater benefit of the public, no matter the cost. It may cost you a story, it may cost you your job, but that is something that you are going to have to be willing to risk. So in answer to the above question, I would help the person dying at my feet. Their life is more important than my job. However, not everyone would agree with me, which I find quite sad.

I do realize though that there is a point when we are getting too attached to our sources. We must separate ourselves from the story. We must keep a safe distance from becoming emotionally attached in order to still see both sides clearly.

However, there is also the concept of "New Journalism," where some believe that to get the most accurate information one must immerse themselves into the story. Is this true?

I think it's risky. The more involved you are in the story, the more attached you are going to be, and the easier it will be for your bias to appear whether you realize it or not. It's safer to be on the outside looking in, which allows you to see all sides and facts of the story that could otherwise be ignored.

Obviously I believe there will be some exceptions. I think there are times when immersing yourself in a story will add to the emotion presented and provide new insights. But like I said, it's risky. You have to be careful.

So back to the original question: what makes a journalist professional?

The thing I find troubling about this question is that everybody has their own opinion. Journalists learn all their skills from the journalists before them. So who makes the rules? Are there even rules in journalism? Should there be?

Sometimes I feel like people focus on the "don't ever do this" or "always do this" but they hardly ever mention the exceptions. I don't think there should be rules in journalism. Of course there are things you should and should not do. But there is almost always going to be an exception. Something that is horrible for one story could be what makes another story amazing. So when I asked myself what makes a journalist professional, I couldn't come up with a real answer. Because there is no real answer. Each journalist's beliefs, attitudes, and values make them unique. And what makes one journalist a professional could ruin another's career.

So use discretion. Make informed decisions. Be wise. And don't let other people tell you what to do. Do what you believe is best for YOU. Not what is best for journalists, not what is best for your company, but what is best for you and the public. Because after all, that's who you are serving.

Journalism of Verification

I feel like this post goes right along with the previous one on truth, but a little more in depth on how to get there.

Verification. What is it? Basically, it means that you make sure that everything you say is the absolute truth.  Never add anything that is not there, never deceive the audience, and rely on your own methods and reporting rather than others'.

Three points of verification were brought up in class this week:
-Objectivity
-Transparency
-Originality

Let's start with objectivity. This means that you remain completely unbiased and report the straight facts. This helps keep your writing accurate rather than saying what you think needs to be said.

But why is it so important to remain unbiased? First of all, if you only report one side of a story, you are going to have a lot of people upset at you for not representing the other side. In addition, when you insert your opinion, you are automatically going lose all of your audience who disagree. Second of all, people don't like being told how to feel about something. Give them the information and let them decide for themselves.

Here is an article written by John Stossel called "The Double Standard About Bias in Journalism." He talks about how when he got to the national level of reporting, he got criticized for not being objective and stopped winning Emmys - consequences for inserting personal opinions into writing.

Let's move on to transparency. This is when you disclose as much as you can about your sources. Use anonymous sources sparingly and only when you absolutely have to. The more you tell about your source, the more believable your information becomes. When you cite your source as being anonymous, it could have come from anywhere and anyone, including yourself.

It is also important that you use a variety of sources. If your story only has one source, the information is not going to be as believable as if you had three or more. In addition, people will realize that you did not make the effort to present multiple sides of the story, which could definitely cause them to lose all interest.

The last point is originality. This means doing your own work, finding the facts on your own, and not looking to other media. All of these things take away the credibility of your writing.

I think originality is the most important but also the most difficult of the three points of verification. You must be original to keep the attention of your audience. People don't want to read something they've read ten times before. Come up with new ways to look at a situation. Present facts that not many people know. Tell a story that's never been told. And it's not only what you say, but how you say it.

All three of these things - objectivity, transparency, and originality - contribute to the accuracy of your writing. And accuracy is extremely important when it comes to journalism. Not only is your reputation on the line, but so is your job.

Silence or Death?

Today I went to a presentation by journalist Luis Horacio Najera titled "Silence or Death: Journalism in the Context of Mexico's Drug War."

Najera began by talking about many problems in the world today, specifically in North and South America. He talked about cocaine consumption, and although it went down in the U.S. after 9/11, it is still a major problem. He also talked about firearm abuse and homicide problems.

The purpose of bringing all of this up was to make a point about how so many journalists are threatened, beaten, or put in danger while on the job. Between 1992 and 2012, 257 journalists were murdered. One of them was a friend of Najera. He found police officers drinking with gangsters and took pictures. They then proceeded to beat him.

He shared with us the following quote: "Journalism is an unappeasable passion that can be assimilated and humanized only through stark confrontation with reality."

He then asked us, "Are you prepared to die for this?"

That really made me think. Should journalists all over the world risk their lives just to get a story that will entertain the public for a few minutes? Is it really worth it?

I know that for me personally, I would not be willing to risk my life for a story. While I do enjoy journalism, it is not THAT important to me. However, if others are willing to put themselves in that position, then I completely respect their decision. If journalists did not risk their lives for stories, then we would not have a lot of the news that we do today. I don't think most people realize the danger and risk that journalists put themselves in. I don't think most people realize what life would be like without journalists.

After the presentation, I felt a lot more appreciation for journalists around the world today and for those who have been injured or died on the job. They have bravery and courage that not many do. They were prepared to die for their duty. They were prepared to die for what they truly loved. And that is something that we will never be able to repay them for.

Journalists' 1st Loyalty: The Public

The title says it all. Journalists' first loyalty is to the citizens. Easy? I think not.

Journalists should act as mediators rather than reporters. Therefore, they must become independent of their company and realize who they are truly working for. A commitment must be made.

Here is an article from Poynter called The Ethics of Civic Journalism: Independence as the Guide that discusses what it means to be independent as a journalist as well as their relationship with the public.

The business relationship of journalism is portrayed by a triangle. At one corner is the citizen. At another is the news organization. At the third is the advertiser/customer. A journalist must work between all three of these influences pulling at them. However, the citizen remains at the top of the triangle, where the journalist's first loyalty lies.

So why must journalists' first loyalty be to the public? Why is it so important?

Once again, that is how you gain trust and credibility. Besides, isn't that who we are serving? Isn't that the point of journalism? To inform the public? And if that is our job, then the citizens must be put above any other influences that we may have. That is also how you keep truth and ethics in your writing. If you let your news organization become your first loyalty, then maybe that will influence you to put something not completely truthful or ethical in your writing to make it more interesting, thus acquiring more readers and making your company more successful. But that is not right, and completely destroys the meaning of true journalism.

This slide show discusses some of the points I have made in this post as well as further thought into why problems may arise concerning the loyalty of a journalist.

Here are five ideas taken from the book The Elements of Journalism of how companies can protect journalists' allegiance to the public:
1. The owner/corporation must be committed to citizens first.
2. Hire business managers who also put citizens first.
3. Set and communicate clear standards.
4. Journalists have final say over news.
5. Communicate clear standards to the public.

I especially like the third and fifth points. Clear communication is extremely important when it comes to journalism, not only between you and your business, but especially between you and the public. If the citizens do not understand what your standards are or what your purpose is, then you are going to have a problem. You need to let them know that you are dedicated to them and you are there to tell them the absolute truth no matter what. You need to gain their trust. This includes admitting when you are wrong or have made a mistake. A lot of times when this happens, journalists just ignore it and hope no one will notice or remember. But this does not show your loyalty to them. Show them that you are willing to admit your faults, no matter how humiliating. It may be hard, but they will grow to see that you truly do care about them and are willing to put them first before anything else.

The Truth

There are NO real substitutes for the truth in journalism. Why?

Journalism's first obligation is to the truth. Always.

So why is the truth so important? Here are a few reasons:

-To gain the trust of your audience.

-To make your writing credible.

-To give your readers a sense of security.

However, you must be careful. Is there ever a time when the truth is not okay? I believe there is. For example, certain things are best not said at all in order to give people privacy. If something you say could damage a person's reputation and that certain fact is not relevant to the story, then maybe you should think twice about adding it. You need to find a balance between truth and ethics. However, NEVER make something up just to make your story more interesting. That is pretty much the worst thing you could do as a journalist.

Now I don't think that most journalists just flat out lie to the public without caring. There are those exceptions in the past, such as Steven Glass, who make up stories to gain the interest of their readers. But I believe most journalists have good intentions, but don't fully carry them out. For example, a journalist might think something happened a certain way when it actually didn't. The journalist didn't intentionally lie to the public, but their credibility is still damaged. This is where we have to be careful. This is where we have to be, what Robert Niles calls it, "truth vigilantes."

So what about bloggers? What is their obligation to the truth? Do they even have one?

What I have to say about blogs is this: blogs are people's personal websites. They can post anything they want on them. Should they post the truth and only the truth on their blogs? Yes. Should they be responsible if they do not? No. You have to understand that while blogs may be interesting and contain new points of view, they are not credible. People can post whatever they want on their blogs. It's unfortunate that those who post unreliable information on their sites ruin it for the rest of us, but that's how it is. They just can't be trusted.

I think this video clip makes a good point. Sometimes it is hard as journalists to distinguish what is the truth and what is not. But we have to keep in mind that there are always going to be opposing views and different ways to look at every situation. However, it is our duty to portray both of those sides as best and as truthfully as we possibly can. A good rule to follow is that if you're not sure if something is the complete truth, then just don't say it at all.

The Society of Professional Journalists' website contains a list of ways to "seek truth and report it." Click here to view it.

What is journalism?

Whenever someone finds out that I plan on majoring in journalism I always receive one of three responses:

1) Oh wow, that’s really neat!

2) Oh cool…what exactly is journalism?

or my personal favorite…

3) Is that like when you write in journals and stuff?

Not quite, my friend. But let me tell you what it is.

Journalism is a way to inform the public of what is going on in the world. There are different forms of journalism, such as broadcast, print, and online. Newspapers, magazines, and television news broadcasts are all examples of ways the media reaches out to the public.

So all you have to do is sit down and throw together a few paragraphs and then you’re done, right? Wrong. Journalism can be quite complicated sometimes. You have to make sure everything you say is not only 100% true, but also ethical. And that can be very difficult sometimes.

So what makes a journalist? Yes, many people practice journalism as a career, but are they the only ones?

With each passing day, the media and technology are evolving more and more, making it easier for people to allow their voices to be heard. Because of this, almost everyone has some means of informing the public, just as journalists do. Maybe you aren’t on TV or don’t have an article in a newspaper, but you still have ways to spread information, such as Twitter, Facebook, etc. So as long as that information is both true and ethical, wouldn’t that make you a journalist as well? I believe so.

So then wouldn’t that make us all journalists? In a way, yes. Unfortunately, it is becoming more and more difficult to identify between what is true and what is not. Therefore, we have to try even harder to gain credibility from the public, and once we gain that credibility we have to keep it. And how do we do that? Yes, by making sure what we post is true and ethical.

So in a nutshell, we all have the potential to become journalists as long as we are willing to take on the responsibilities that come with it and put the public first before searching for our own fame and attention.