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