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.