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.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
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 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.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, February 27, 2012
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.
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."
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)