What Journalism is to Me

According to Dictionary.com, journalism is “the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business.” While this is a fairly straightforward and generic definition of journalism, after taking this class, I feel as if I have a stronger grasp on what journalism really is and what kind of journalist I hope to be someday.

Joseph Pulitzer once said “put it before them briefly, so they will read it, clearly so they will appreciate it, picturesquely so they will remember it and, above all, accurately so they will be guided by its light.” As simple as it may be, this has become my motto as a journalist. I feel like the all of the different components of excellent journalism are encompassed in this quote.

Put it before them briefly so they will read it

In the world we live in, everyone is constantly moving. Not many people have time to just sit down and enjoy a nice, lengthy story in the newspaper. Journalists need to make sure we put the most important information out there, in the briefest way possible. That's not to say that journalists should be messy about the way they write articles. They need to be professional in form but also be written in a way that anyone could understand it.

While I may preach that this is important, I am nowhere near perfect. There are times where I write paragraphs describing a subject that could be easily summed up in a few sentences. Even though what I say may be insightful and interesting, it more than likely loses the attention of those that may have been reading to begin with.

When it comes to writing brief, but concisely, it is typically important to put the most important information in the beginning. A journalist can write more later on in the article for those dedicated readers, but for the general public who only reads the first few sentences, important aspects to the story should be put up front. There may be a very well-written article with crucial information, but if the beginning isn't to the point, valuable readers and viewers may get lost in the shuffle.

Clearly so they will appreciate it

The book, Elements of Journalism, states that “journalists must make the significant interesting and relevant.” Writing news clearly does not just mean putting things in layman's terms. It means we make sure that those who we are writing for can understand it. We can write the most wonderful piece, but if it's not written in a way that others will be able to understand it, it might well have never been written in the first place. No one wants to have a dictionary and encyclopedia while reading or watching the news, so we shouldn't write in such away where that might be necessary. Journalists are supposed to inform, but not confuse, their viewers

Picturesquely so they will remember it

Journalists don't need to use big, flowery words in order to paint a picture in the viewers mind. Some of the best stories I have read have used simple words, but the way they were worded and put together made it all the more memorable. Journalists are supposed to bring the news of the world to the homes of those they serve. While they could easily just write boring articles quickly, it's so important to take the time to make sure the story is interesting for those reading it. This doesn't mean that journalists need to be literary masters like Shakespeare or Charles Dickens in order to write good news, but it does mean they have to be somewhat creative in their writing. I mean, there's a lot of competition out there. The editors and managers of different journalism companies are going to want journalists that know how to write news that sells.

However, when writing these interesting stories, a journalist must always remember not to make things up. Not only will the inevitably find out and lose credibility for themselves and their company, but it shows a low sense of integrity. I think that one of the best qualities to say you have is that of integrity.

And, above all, accurately so they will be guided by its light

Journalists are obligated to tell the truth. Sometimes we may be faced with situations where it may be easier to look the other way, or to make something up to protect someone we are writing about. However, that is not the job of someone in journalism – that's what Public Relations is for. People come to news sources because they want to know what is going on in the world. It is up to us to give that to them, regardless of what the consequences may be. We should never make anything up. So many people rely on the news to tell them what's going on in the world. While it may be a good idea for these people to actually go out and experience the world, most aren't going too. If we feed them lies, they will more than likely believe us, and they will not be “guided by its light”.

Along the same lines, verification is so important. Sometimes there may be a deadline fast approaching, and we may think that it will just be easier to go back later and fix mistakes. However, this is not the case. The more mistakes there are, the less credibility to news outlet and the journalist have. Even if it does take a little bit longer to make sure facts, names and stories are correct, it will pay off in the end. I know that I am more likely to read newspapers or watch news programs that don't constantly have a section about “correcting previous mistakes.” When there are a lot of mistakes, it makes me feel like the reporters do not actually care about who they are reporting to, but more their compensation.

Journalists should not tell people what to believe but give them a basis for different situations and allow them to form their own opinion. We must make sure to stay unbiased. This will be hard. We will be given stories at times that we may have strong feelings about. Sometimes we are going to be faced with a situation that we may not agree with. However, we must report the facts and try not to let our bias get in the way.

One last topic I'd like to touch on is trauma and journalism. The discussion we had in class was very eye opening. While trauma is inevitable in the field of journalism, how we, as journalists, handle it, is crucial. There may be times that we will report on situations that will tug at the heartstrings, or may even traumatize us. It is important to know how to handle these situations, and to be sensitive to those that are being affected. We must always make sure that we do not put ourselves in danger for a story. As Dr. Cressman said, no story is worth risking your life.

I'm not sure what type of journalism I want to go in at this point. Sometimes I think it would be fun to be an international journalist, write for the Church magazines, or just be a local reporter. Whatever way I choose to go, I know that I will incorporate all of the principles I learned throughout this course in my career. I know I won't be the perfect journalist and at times I will make mistakes. However, good journalists become that way through trial and error and just making sure they do better the next time.

So what is journalism to me? Journalism is telling the truth. Journalism is investigating and giving a voice to the voiceless. Journalism is a career that may not bring about lots of money, but the other hidden “payments” are far worth it. Journalism is a career that I often get scoffed for going into, but I wouldn't change my mind for anything. Journalism is writing because I love it, but also because I want to help bring the world to the homes of those who can't go out and experience itself. As Dan Rather says, journalism is more addictive than crack cocaine. I can't wait to see if that's true.

Engagement and Relevance

It is a tough task to produce stories that are not only relevant to current situations around the world and in peoples lives, but to make them interesting at the same time. It is important to not fill the news with fluff that no one can relate too, even if it is entertaining, but at the same time, it is also important to not just throw out articles full of facts that no one wants to read. 


As the book said "Journalists must make the significant interesting and relevant". To do this, a journalist has to dig deeper and become an investigative journalists. Stories pertaining to significant material is not just going to jump out at any given moment. For the most part, it takes time and effort. While this might be time consuming every now and then, in the end it makes a journalist more credible and is more likely to ensure that a viewer will come back. 


The book talks about the "Infotainment strategy". While this will likely draw along a few viewers for awhile, there is no real substance to it. There is pretty much just facts being regurgitated to viewer. It's fast and it's fresh, but it doesn't last beyond that. There is no depth, emotional , or hard value to it. It may attract viewers in the beginning, but what keeps them coming back is the consistency of good, quality news. 


It is important for journalists to have a narrative approach when writing. This doesn't mean that a journalist should strictly just go for the emotional side of a topic, or make things up, but they should incorporate a style that will engage those that are viewing or reading it. 


Becoming an engaging journalist takes work. The best have to learn by failing at times. However, through trial-and-error, a journalist can perfect their work so it is interesting and people keep coming back to it. This is a goal that all journalists should have. 


Journalists also need to make sure that what they are reporting on is relevant to the people they are reporting too. If it is not, they will lose a fan base that will be hard and expensive to rebuild. It is best for a journalism company to have a wide variety of experienced journalists that are able to write articles that will be relevant to all. It is also important to create new information, and not just regurgitate information found online. In the world today, it might be easy to do just find information online and talk about it in a broadcast, but it is more important for a reporter to find new information and new stories to report on. 




Interesting links on this topic: 
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=162593
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2008/mar/03/relevantjournalismthedigita
http://www.innovationjournalism.org/ij6ac/papers/Uskaliweaksignalsdraft.pdf

Comprehensive and Proportion in Journalism

How many times have you opened up a newspaper or clicked on an article online, start to read, and after your finish, feel like you didn't learn or gain anything from the article? Everyone more than likely has. We live in a society where people want the most relevant information in as little time as possible. No one has time to read a long, drawn out article with difficult words. Therefore, the following rule is important for journalists to implement into their work:

Journalists should keep the news comprehensive and in proportion.

The journalist has to determine what is important for society to read, and what to just throw aside. Many times, journalists will find a story that really isn't important to write a big story about, but they will anyways because they know it will sell. I mean, how many times have Brad and Angelina been on the front of magazines, internet sites, and even newspapers? More than I can even count. Is the status of their relationship or how many children they've adopted really important to the well-being of society? Not at all. However, it sells, and so journalists will cover it. This is not right; Journalists need to write what needs to be said about a certain topic in proportion and then move on to something new. 

While it is usually up to the journalist to decide what is important, and what is not, there is room for biasm in stories. What one journalist might deem important may not be completely relevant to the vast majority of people. For instance, there are many religious topics that a journalist will find themselves drawn to, and may want to write a big story about. However, if the rest of the world doesn't share the same faith, it may be hard for anyone to want to read. 

In the book, Elements of Journalism, they talk about asking teenagers what they think the next big trend will be. The teenagers responded by saying that, it was the media's job to tell them. While this may seem like a big statement at first, it's very true. I can't think of very many trends that have started and weren't spread by flashy commercials or being featured in a popular show. The media has such a huge influence on what people want. They have a lot of power, that can be used for good or bad. 

Additional links on this topic:

http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles 

http://www.journalism.org/about_pej/about_us

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_Excellence_in_Journalism

Faith and the Journalist

This was probably my favorite presentation so far. Faith and religion is such an important part of my life, and I feel like no matter what my profession is, it will be incorporated into it. However, I've often heard that it's impossible to be a good Mormon (or member of any other religious sect, for that matter) and a journalist. When I first was told this, I was kind of bothered. I mean, why would someone have to foresake their beliefs in order to write. Is it not possible? In all honesty, I do think it is possible. Is it hard? Of course. But it is possible.

There may be times in which we may be asked to write a story that may not coincide with our Faith, or that we need to objective towards one particular group. There will be other times in which we may want to incorporate our own beliefs into certain statements that we fill would benefit from what we have to say, but we cannot. In these times, our beliefs may be tested. However, it is possible to be objective but not deny your faith. 

Journalists are supposed to portray the truth. With that being said, it should be universal truth that they report on, and not on what they personally believe to be true. There are so many different beliefs around the world, that what one person believes to be true won't be true to someone else. For instance, someone may be asked to report alcoholism. An LDS reporter may be tempted to bring in quotes from Prophets and from the World of Wisdom, because he or she believes that to be truth. However, a person who doesn't necessarily share the LDS faith may disregard any of that because he or she doesn't believe in the Church. Instead, the journalist should state facts that have been proven and support the argument that alcohol is bad for anyone.

I'm not saying we should completely leave faith out of our work. If asked to report on something that would compromise ones standards, we should stand strong and do the right thing. With most things, it's important to find a balance. Actions speak louder than words. If a journalist wants to make their faith apparent, they can show that by showing integrity and respect in the things they say and report on. Faith is important, and should not be abandoned with a career. Having faith and being a journalist at the same time is possible!

Here are some videos/links about faith/religion in journalism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jriJ44bxKgU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHKfBLjWths

Is journalism a religion itself?

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2004/01/07/press_religion.html

http://newscrucible.wordpress.com/category/religion-and-journalism/

Journalism as a Public Forum

I found this topic to be rather interesting. Mainly because the world is becoming more tech-savvy, and I am very much involved in online journalism and viewing the opinions of others, whether it be a stay-at-home mom or someone who has a degree in journalism. 

Is the increasing amount of people being allowed to write online appropriate? Should there be more moderation?

Blogs:

I'm all for blogs. There are tons of things I have found out because someone had written a blog about a certain topic, and I stumbled across it.  However, anyone can get a blog, and write whatever they want. There are "codes of ethics" for blogs, but it is impossible to make sure every single blog is factual and following the rules.

Comment Boards on websites:

I am definitely a frequenter on the comment sections of news sites. While many of the comments people make are unintelligent and are obviously just written to cause problems, there are often points brought up that do add to the article. I think that allowing reader comments makes it so certain elements are added to a story that may not have been brought to light, had only the original author of the story been involved.

Wikipedia:

I personally love wikipedia. It drives me crazy when teachers will not allow it as a source because there is a lot of relevant and accurate on the pages there. It is true that anyone is allowed to get on and edit the information. One particular account that I can remember is when I was looking up information on Murray, Utah. Someone had gone in and written that the city had been renamed "David Archuleta-City". Obviously, this was not true. I checked back awhile later, and it had been taken off, but this demonstrates the downfall of some public forums. However, as was said in the presentation, the philosophy of wikipedia is that people will catch these factual errors and then correct them. But can someone always count on this -- there is always the possibility that something will fall under the radar and inaccurate information will be presented as fact.

The issue with public forums is just that -- they are completely open to the public. Because there is no real way to moderate things beyond message boards and chat rooms, pretty much anyone can write whatever they want. I personally believe that people will say things online that they would never say in person. I follow many different twitter feeds of people I know, and I am shocked by some of the things posted. There is one person I know who is extremely friendly and nice in person, but everything they say online is so negative and critical. I think that having journalism as a public forum has good sides and bad sides, as do most things in the world. There should be public forums available, but moderation is essential -- not so much to weed out things a particular company or story doesn't want said, but to get rid of things that aren't true. Public forums allow the minority to have a voice. 

Many are worried that public forums are crowding out real journalism. This may be true, but it also may be just being blown out of proportion. I think that there will always be people who will only rely on the news given by a credible channel or website. Allowing public forums makes it so discussion happens and the voices of the unheard can be heard. 

Interesting links pertaining to the topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt-OLejGnXw

http://www.savethenews.org/blog/09/09/15/public-forum-journalism-denver

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:LiJcJ035CaEJ:jmsc.hku.hk/blogs/0101fall09/files/2009/09/0902141553.pdf+journalism+public+forum&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg5K5l7YzGv4YSYT1-I3kLyzf2zhbee6RjAOMbHIatOM54o1ZYD53feWThzuJd7szNE9FlV7KqekOJLCVKANJx12eWY2HMZbl5j5z-HNjH28Gl7TsQQBtKOUOeUmRwjGUmo-uaj&sig=AHIEtbRga1ojU4lGNd50IRWTDKQBuRPWNQ

Ethics and Journalism

Ethics are important in every area of life. In class, ethics was described as "the aspects, effects, and moral dilemma of diversity in the newsroom."


In a lot of my classes lately, ethics and integrity have been discussed. There will be points in all of our lives in which we will have to have our ethics tested and may have to defy those above us in order to do what we know is right. As said in the presentation, exercising conscience is not easy. As journalists, we will have to work in an environment where the manager of the newsroom has the final say. However, that does not mean that we need to sit back idly and allow all of his or her decisions be made based off of their opinion alone. 


There is a quote by President Gordon B. Hinckley that I really love. It says, "Wrong is still wrong even if everyone's doing it. Right is still right even if no one's doing it." While this can be applied to a lot of different scenarios, I think journalists' should apply it to their work and ethics as well. We cannot compromise what we know is right for the sake of getting a story. 


I really liked the quote in The Mind of a Journalist that said, "[Journalists] are dealing in nonfiction rather than fiction . . . You must always remember that you never make anything up." Sometimes it might be easy to make up a quote, or add an embellishment to a story, just to make it more appealing to the audience. This is NOT ethical in any way, shape or form. In the end, stories that lie will be made known, and the career of that journalist will be compromised and tainted. 


The media has such a huge influence on how the majority of citizens think and feel. For this fact alone, it is important for journalists to display a high level of ethics in what they do and say, because much of society is relying on what they say. While I don't believe that people should entirely base their beliefs on what they hear on the radio, tv, or through print mediums, a lot do. 


Newsrooms should have diversity and everyone should be able to express their opinion. As long as these opinions are based off of truth, it is good. But when certain opinions start getting pushed away, and the influence of not so ethical means start to come into play, problems arise. There needs to be communication within the newsroom, to, in a sense, seperate the wheat from the tares and create an environment where the best information gets out. 




Here are some good links pertaining to ethics in journalism:




Online Journalism Ethics--Sometimes people feel like because it's online, they can be less ethical. Far too many times, people will post things online that they would never dare say in person. This is not ethical at all. Online journalists should follow the same ethics as those reporting for newspapers or tv stations. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns8sv6kMIOk


Basic rules all journalists should follow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv-J_ArEJ8w


Code of Ethics for Professional Journalists: 
http://www.spj.org/ethics.asp


Ethics and Diversity: 
http://www.poynter.org/subject.asp?id=32 

Watchdog Journalism

Over the past few years, I have taken several different journalism classes. The one subject I always seem to remember is watchdog journalism. I can recall chapters in every book I've read on journalism completely dedicated to it, as well as mentions of it scattered throughout the remainder of the books. Obviously, it's important. So what exactly is Watchdog Journalism?


According to Wikipedia, Watchdog journalism "is a type of investigative journalism . . . Forms of activist journalism aimed at holding accountable public personalities and institutions whose functions impact social and political life." While that is the technical definition, I think it's basically looking out for the little guy; keeping the government in check; making sure the average, every day citizen doesn't get scammed. 


In almost every lecture we've had in class, journalist's obligation to find and tell the truth has been discussed. This is a major player in watchdog journalism. Journalists set out to find the truth on certain situations and stories. They investigate, sometimes undercover, and report on what they find. 


There are some risks to watchdog journalism. There is always the chance that the journalist may uncover something that may not completely be accurate. In order to be truly effective, watchdog journalists need to check out all their facts before displaying them to the public. This takes time, and in a world where everyone wants news fast, some journalists fail to do this.  The example used in class talked about the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. Had the person who got the leak that said Richard Jewell possibly planted the bomb checked more into the story, all the controversary may have been avoided. 


There were 3 types of watchdog journalism discussed in class; Original investigative reporting, interpretive investigative reporting, and reporting on investigations. 


Original investigative reporting is when the reporter actually uncovers and reports on things that the public previously did not know. 


The second type is interpretive investigative reporting. This is where an idea that has been carefully analyzed is developed into an investigative report, trying to piece together all of the pieces. 


Finally, there is reporting on investigations. This type of investigative reporting is developed from leaks of information from an investigative that is already going on. 


Overall, the public needs watchdog journalism. While it may uncover some untimely and sticky facts, it is what keeps the public informed.


For more information on watchdog journalism, click on these links for stories and videos:


How to do watchdog Journalism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxf90TXThY8


Watchdog team wins award:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbKqwSTD00g


Misc 
http://johntedesco.net/blog/tag/watchdog-journalism/

Ideology and the journalist

Being LDS, issues on ideology and beliefs are something that may come into play at one point or another. Some question whether or not a journalist should leave their beliefs out, and strictly report on the facts. Others ask the question, can journalists be completely objective? In my personal opinion, I don't think a journalist can be 100% objective, nor should they be. People watch the news because they want in-depth stories, heart warming acts, and the cold-hearted truth. When a person is completely objective, those emotions won't always show through.

Anderson Cooper's on-air "breakdown"  in 2005 is often discussed. Should journalists be able to show emotion during hard, emotionally wearing ? In the book, it once talked about how journalists just need to be disconnected from everything. However, I don't think that's right. Although we are reporting the news, Journalists have emotions. I think it's okay to show emotions; it shows to the viewers that journalists aren't completely cold hearted, and aren't just doing stories "for the money". In the story that I linked to, it says that Anderson's breakdown was a breakthrough for the future of television news. I think that by him showing this emotion, it opened the doors for other journalists to be more personal in their stories. Another example of this is the one we talked about in class, when a journalist put down the camera to help that little boy in need. To me, this was the most admirable thing he could do. 

The question has been raised, should a journalist advocate a particular point-of-view? Well, yes and no. Do I think that journalists shouldn't ever express their opinion or at least show some sort of leniency towards a certain point? No, I don't. Journalists should report on the truth and do it honestly, but they should be able to put in a little bit of their own opinion. On the other hand, a journalist shouldn't advocate a certain opinion because the company they work for wants them too. However, for the most part, journalists should try and express both sides of an issue fairly, and then let the viewer decide for themselves. It has been shown that the media heavily affect the way viewers see things, so it would be unfair to be completely biased towards one side. 

The Journalistic values that were discussed in class bring up an important question; are these values automatically liberal or conservative? I don't think so. I mean, some of the values that were talked about are more left/right winged than others, but I think they can all be applied in both sides of the spectrum. It's all about finding a balance.

Overall, I think that ideology can be apparent in journalism, but there's a time and a place for everything. While a journalist shouldn't be forcing down their beliefs down everyones throats, they shouldn't have to be completely void of all beliefs, biases, etc. in everything they report. 

For more on ideology and journalism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5h3SBe3Kr0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5W3wNpYwc4 

http://www.nlgja.org/publications/articles/jensen_diversity.htm

Journalism of Verification

"Remember, son, many a good story has been ruined by over-verification."


This famous quote was said by James Gordon Bennett, the founder, editor and publisher of the New York Herald. However, is there any truth to it? Are stories sometimes ruined because the journalist made sure all the facts were correct?


A story may be more interesting if certain facts are left out, or added for that matter. But then, as this comes to light, the legitimacy of journalist will likely go down the drain.


So, as group four mentioned, "the essence of journalism is a discipline of verification." Even if a story is less interesting because of it, in the long run, the journalist and the citizens of the community will benefit more from a well-written and verified story than one that is sloppily thrown together.


There are four areas that were discussed last week; Transparency, Anonymous Sources, Accuracy Checklist, and Verification. All of these topics are essential to ensuring journalism of verification.


Transparency


When writing a story, it's important for the journalist to recognize that most of those reading it will likely have no background on what's going on. Because of this, it is important to make the article as transparent as possible. While a well-written article may inspire a reader to seek out more information online, it shouldn't be so vague that the reader has to search for information just to understand the situation. However, there needs to be a balance between too little and too much information. For the most part, I doubt most people are going to want every single detail. This would be far too arduous for a reporter to do as well. Part of transparency is evaluating what information is pertinent for the public to know. Journalists have to step outside their way of thinking and try and understand the viewpoint of those reading the article.


Anonymous Sources


For the most part, it is best for journalists to avoid anonymous sources. one of the biggest reasons is because there is no real way of verifiying that the "anonymous source" is actually a person, or if the journalist was just making up something to support their story, and pinning it on an anonymous source. Using anonymous sources can really jeopardize the legitimacy of a story. In my personal experience, I find stories to be far more credible when the author uses actual names that I could search out if I needed to. Sometimes a source will ask to be anonymous, which puts the journalist into a sticky situation, especially concerning legal manners. In a court of law, journalists are not protected. If they refuse to give up the details of a certain situations, they are held liable and could possibly face charges. For the most part, I believe that there is almost always another way of getting a story without using anonymous sources, and it's best to avoid it. However, there may be a time in every journalists career where he or she will realize that the only way they can get information is by allowing the source to be anonymous. The following video talks about the lengths that a journalist may go to in order to "report off the record", but also the hesitancy that occurs in doing this. 



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aNKQmpNP50


Accuracy Checklist:


Sometimes it may be tempting for a journalist to make subtle hints towards their opinions, over-emphasize certain facts, or write a lead that may not be completely accurate. While this may make a story more interesting, it isn't typically a good idea. A journalist shouldn't make citizens more excited about a certain story than is necessary. In a world that lives off of rumors, gossip, and the latest scandal, stories often get blown out of proportion, and other stories get pushed to the back burner. One of the hardest parts of being a journalist, in my opinion, is striving to be unbiased. There will be times when a journalist will feel particularly passionate about a certain topic, and they will want to throw in a subtle opinion. This is not acceptable in professional writing. This is where journalists need to become disconnected from their subjects, and as Carol Marin said, "steps away from the table and tries to see it all." 


Verification:


Basically, journalists should not deceive the audience. A journalists most important obligation is to be honest and tactful towards the readers. Readers want to trust those who are reporting the news, and if a certain reporter is always telling half-truths, their validity goes down. 


Even though it may sometimes be easier to correct a statement later rather than take the time and verify facts in the beginning, it is important to do so. If mistakes are constantly being made, it's hard to trust the company that is giving the news. Citizens want the truth. And even if it takes time, verifying something will benefit all in the end. The readers shouldn't have to doubt the legitimacy of statements, or seek information elsewhere to check certain stories. Journalists need to verify their work and create a trusting relationship with those that they report for. 




For more on Journalism of Verification, check out these articles and videos:


http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=100292


http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/379375_domke17.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzUTLQO1qX0 --The discipline of journalistic verification


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPTiR_x8l6E --Battle of Real name Verification

The Profession

When I first considered a career in journalism, I was quite naive. I thought, "It'll be fun to become a reporter and write interesting stories for the public to read. How hard can it be to report what I see?" However, as I have furthered my education and learned more of the profession, I have to come to realize what a complicated and intricate field it is.

Journalism, as a profession, is all about being a watch dog for the public and a gatekeeper for society. The number one priority is to inform citizens of what is going on around them. However, there are many rules and regulations that have to be considered before these stories hit the front page. Confidentiality, being separate from the public, not being biased. It is a complicated system.

However, there are many who don't believe that journalism as profession. On one website, an author wrote about why it is not a profession. The author, Sam Smith, stated that "the institution of journalism functions like all large institutions; it is is greedy, self-promoting, and driven towards the acquisition of power. The thing that has saved it has been the integrity and craft of individual journalists." While there are greedy and dishonest people within the journalism field, I disagree with Smith. Journalism is a profession. There are codes of ethics that need to be followed, and many rules and regulations. There is a type of "priesthood" that is commonly shared among journalists. Because of this, journalism is a profession, even though many abuse it.

In the following video, Dean Wright talks about ethics in journalism. In order for something to be considered "professional" certain ethics need to be followed.When they aren't, the particular work of that group or person may be discredited. There have been many issues with journalists making up facts or stories, but in the end they get caught.

In The Mind of a Journalist, the "priesthood of journalists" was is discussed. When I first read this, I was a bit put off. I started thinking of the priesthood within the LDS faith, and wondered how journalism was associated with that same order. However, as I read more about it, it began to make sense. As a basic definition, the book said that "journalist's see journalism as a kind of professional priesthood in which they, much like the clergy or even police officers, surrender to the higher calling of serving others." When I read it this way, I realized that there is a sort of "priesthood" within journalism, and while it may not be in the same realm as a religious priesthood, it has the same concept. Serving and protecting those around you.

There were four aspects within this "priesthood". The first one is called "The Fourth Estate." While this is concept is not very apparent in journalism today, it is a crucial aspect. In a sense it "provides counter balances and checks on the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government." This is where the idea of a journalists being "watchdogs" comes in. Journalisms have an obligation to inform the public and be a watchdog for society, and by acting as "fourth estate" this becomes possible. They can be the mediator between government and society.

The second area is that journalist's learn what behavior is acceptable, and which is not, by watching the triumphs and successes of other journalists. This practice is not just for journalists, and it is often taught that we should learn from the mistakes of others what we shouldn't do. Journalist's have many ethical codes that they need to follow in order to provide legitimate news. "Learning the Ropes" as the book refers to it, is something that all journalist's must go through. There may be times of uncertainty and mistakes will inevitably make mistakes, but this "order of the priesthood" allows journalists to gain credibility and become better reporters. I discussed this a bit earlier. Journalist's often learn the hard way that you cannot make up facts for stories. One journalism, Jayson Blair, is known for the fabrication and plagiarism of stories during his career. Journalist's can look at his "example" and recognize that making things up for the sake of a story will not get them anywhere, and will more than like ostracize them from society and their career.

Journalist's are often told that they need to be separated from society and the stories in which they report on. While it may be easy for journalists' to get attached to the people in which they are reporting on, it is wise to stay as emotionally detached as possible. This may come across as not caring about the story, but it also allows the journalist to have no bias on the story in which they report. The book also talks about how it is important to separate the social and work life of a journalist.

There are other aspects of the journalism profession that are worth noting. I found it interesting that there is often a limit on confidentiality and the use of anonymous sources. Often, a person will confide in a journalist who is reporting a story. This creates a moral dilemma for a journalist on whether or not they should honor that confidentiality or use the crucial facts in a story. Using anonymous sources in journalism often makes problems because of the legality of it because if something a journalist reported on needs to be viewed in a court of law, it can put the journalist in a sticky issue. Unlike clergy, they are not protected by law if they are asked to reveal the sources of information.

One last journalistic "principle" that I found interesting was the idea of worldview. It is the idea of what stories journalists find important and how they gather their facts. While many people may regard this as being "biased", it really is not. Journalist's are people to, and they gravitate towards subjects and stories that, because of how they were raised, ethnocentrism, and a variety of other reasons, draw their attention. It is good to have a worldview, but also to develop an eye for what is important for what all of society needs to know, not just one individual.

Worldview changes depending on where a journalist is from. According to the book, Western culture is all about timeliness, and what is going on now and in the moment, rather than well-developed stories. It used the example of high-speed car chases taking precedence over the nightly news. In other cultures, the importance may be placed on developing a story and having all the facts before viewing it. Depending on where someone is reporting, it may be necessary to change a person's "world view" in order to accomdate the desires and priorities of others.

Truth and Journalism

Integrity. It's a term that most of us have had instilled in our minds from the time we were young.


As journalists, we are obligated to inform the public of the world around them. Most people rely on the evenings news, online stories, etc. to tell them what is going on. Because of this, journalists have a great obligation to be truthful. Many people are relying on their statements


Truth can be distorted. Many times, especially in tabloids and political campaigns, certain statements will be taken out of context in order to "sell a story". While this could be seen as "dishonest", I feel that this is the news that so many people live for. If the truth was always portrayed honestly, would it always be as interesting? Maybe, but probably not. We live in a society where people enjoy seeing others fail and embarass themselves. Look at reality television. With the exception of a few of the shows, people flock to watch people make fools out of themselves. And that is the same with journalism at times. Yes, journalists are obligated to tell "the truth", but it may not always be in the correct way. Is this right? Not at all, but with obligations to reach certain quotas and engage the public, journalists may feel obligated to use the truth in an interesting way.


Journalists are also supposed to be objective and non-biased. This is something I need to work on personally. When I don't agree with something, it's hard for me to act otherwise. However, as a journalist, it is important to portray both sides evenly, and without bias. This goes hand in hand with telling the truth. Whether a journalist agrees with a certain statement or not, they are obligated to present sides fairly. In the same sort of situation, journalists should not express their opinion if the situation does not call for it.  John Swinton, former Chief of Staff for the New York Times said:
"I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with . . . If I allowed my honest opinion to appear in one issue of my paper, before 24 hours my occupation would be gone."




Celebrities are quite often the victims of "stretched truth" within journalism. Angelina Jolie, being the incredibly honest and integrity-ful person she is, expressed her opinion on truth in journalism in this video:



Honestly, I do believe that there are good, honest journalists out there who just want to inform the public. It is tough, trying to be un-biased but report the facts how they are. The public deserves to know what is going on in the world, and that can sometimes only come from journalists who strive to teach them.


But is there such thing as too much truth? Does there come a point when journalists' need to weed out some of the stories, in order to protect the public? I believe so. In 2008, someone from CNN demonstrated how to get past airport security with a bomb, and the article/video was shown on CNN. Now, I doubt CNN was showing this to the public so more terrorists could get past security, but I believe this is an instance where information was displayed that the public didn't need to know. CNN was trying to make a point that the security at airports needed to be tightened up, but in reality, this was not knowledge that was essential to be released to the public.


It has been said that people cannot be good members of the Church and in journalism at the same time. I really don't believe this. Yes, there are some situations where a journalist may feel compromised and have to report on something they may not particularly agree with. But at the same time, having the basis of integrity in their lives, I believes that members of the Church can be extremely good journalists. I'm not saying that all LDS journalists are honest, but I do believe that for the most part, many do strive for integrity in their work, and strive to tell the truth in an objective way.

Technology and the Future

It is truly amazing to me how fast technology is moving nowadays. As soon as we get used to a new medium of entertainment, driving, or what have you, something new comes out. Last week in the New York Times, there was an article highlighting the new "3-D television" that would soon be released. The author of the article mentioned that everyone had just gone out and bought new blue ray disc players, believing that those would keep them in the loop for the next 10 years. However, with the new 3-D TV, another form of disc player would be required.


Is all these new inventions and ideas making this world a better place? Or is it just allowing us to become more lazy and slaves to technology and our credit cards? I'll admit, I love technology. I find myself always buying the newest phones, having the coolest blog, or saving up to buy some cool gadget I saw. Can you blame me? With every other advertisement in magazines or commercial on television telling us that we can't be happy without these items, it is hard not to be brainwashed.


I love my cell phone. I love my  laptop. Honestly, I cannot even fathom how people lived without them. My dad has yet to ever own a cell phone because he believes that he has gotten this far in life without one, why get one now? I call him crazy, but maybe he is on to something. As wonderful as technology is, I believe it has hindered many people's abilities to think for themselves, communicate with others, and enjoy the simple things in life. People are constantly texting, tweeting, and instant messaging. Whatever happened to calling up an old friend to talk, or writing a hand written letter? I get so excited when I get a letter in the mail, despite the fact that I get hundreds of emails a month. There's just something more personal about it.


In class today we were talking about the Amazon Kindle, and also the potential of the rumored Mac Tablet. Both remarkable inventions that make reading books, newspapers, and magazines so much easier. The Mac Tablet has the potential of being a must-have for college students and their textbooks in years to come. However, are these devices the beginning of the end of printed novels? Will libraries and bookstores start shutting down, because people prefer the convenience of downloading a book to one of these products rather than driving to town to pick up a new book? Who am I to say; But I believe it's a possibility, and a sad one at that.


Am I saying that I hate technology and think we should all go back to the stone age (or before the 1990's. You know, practically the same thing)? No, not at all. Technology has made life so much easier, and will continue to do so. I'm quite addicted to it, to be honest. But I do propose that maybe we remember things from the past every now and then. Sit down and watch the evening news instead of waiting for the latest and greatest from your twitter feed. Write a letter to your friend and put it in the mail. Plant some flowers in your garden rather than tending to a fake farm on Facebook. Enjoy the little things in life. Today I accidently left my phone at home while I was at work. It was surprisingly refreshing, not constantly checking my phone, and just being left alone for the evening. I need to start doing this more. Right after I go tweet about this post.


Dr. Cressman showed us this video today. Kind of unnerving, eh?

Twitter

Today in class we discussed blogging and twitter. For the longest time, I thought that twitter was ridiculous. Who cares what you ate for breakfast, that you took your dog for a walk, and that you can't stand your in laws? I would make fun of any my friends when they would pull out their phones to "tweet". However, as more and more people started using it, I became interested in what exactly it was. Was it really just for people who feels like the world wants to know their every move? Or could it be a new, innovative way of quickly transferring information to a widespread audience?

About a year ago, I started my first twitter account. I'm sure I put an obnoxious tweet that said something along the lines of "no idea what this is, here's to hoping!". Quickly I became quite addicted. At first I just followed some of my friends, and found out way too much information about them. Soon after, I'll admit, I even started following some celebrities. Their tweets got old after awhile, and the thrill started to die out. I stopped signing into my twitter account and it was soon covered in cobwebs. However, a few months ago, when I really started getting into blogging, I started following some of the writers of my favorite blogs. From there, I realized that twitter was a great place to find out the latest news, new products and inventions that have been released, and more. I find myself checking twitter several times a day and getting a live feed to my phone. It seems as if Twitter has blown up in regards to how many people use it over the past 6 months. There's no doubt in my mind that as soon as something big happens in the world, if I'm following the right sources, I will be one of the first to find out about it. 

While I'll admit that most of my tweets have no real information, I am working towards utilizing twitter to the most of its capabilities. It's an excellent resource for information and for getting traffic to a blog or webpage. Twitter is definitely a "microblogging" tool, and it will be interesting to see what the future holds for this simple, but powerful, tool for journalism. 

What is Journalism?

According to Wikipedia, Journalism is "the craft of conveying news, descriptive material and opinion via a widening spectrum of media."^{1 This basic definition sets the stage for all the areas of journalism that are used throughout the world today.} 

^{There are many different elements of journalism. It can extend from something as simple as a personal blog to writing for a major newspaper or writing speeches for the president. When it comes down to it, journalism is the means of informing the public in creative and interesting ways of different topics going on in the world. Is journalism only just writing and presenting ideas? No, it's also a process. How does that front page story get there? Because a journalist had a lead, which led to some investigation, and eventually found it's way to the home of those who are interested. Whether it be through tweets on twitter, or CNN, the world needs journalism, and talented journalists, to inform the world of what's going on around them. Which leads to another question, when is it that a person can be considered a journalist.}


What makes someone a journalist? Does it require years of intense, formal education, and then landing a job with a well-known news company? Or can it be someone who writes freelance for different websites, newspapers, or even local neighborhood newsletters just in his or her spare time just for the simple love of writing? Whether it be a stay-at-home-mom who writes while her children are sleeping, or someone who has a masters, all journalists have something in common. They love to learn, report, and tell others about their findings and beliefs. Journalists are constantly seeking the latest news and happenings and informing those around them about what they have found. While newspapers and news stations are dying out, journalists are still in demand and are needed everywhere to inform the public of what is going on in the world around them. 

¹ Wikipedia Definition