Final essays

Here we go!

1. Our textbook, The Big Picture, discusses the definition of objectivity in minute detail—all the while stating that it is impossible to obtain. While I agree that true objectivity is an impossibility for inherently biased humans, I also believe that it is a journalist’s responsibility to never stop striving to obtain it. In my opinion, and in simple terms, objectivity is the ability to see past one’s own prejudices and emotions. Journalists need to remain impartial, in order to be fair to all sides of a story, to all the people we are representing, to businesses, to politicians, to political and religious views. If journalism lacks objectivity it becomes nothing more than a means to advocate its advertisers, or a way to spread its journalists’ ideas and opinions, rather than the truth. Because the truth is, essentially, what we aim for. We can’t tell all of it sometimes, and other times we get it wrong, but our audience is expecting us to write honestly and fairly. And for the most part, that is what we do.
Opinion, however, does have a place in journalism. Otherwise, how could we have things like editorials, letters to the editor, analysis and “How-to” columns, and other staples of the sort? However, these sections of a paper are easy to identify, because they are labeled “Opinion” or “Editorial.” The transparency of bias makes it acceptable. As long as opinion is backed by fact, and isn’t vulgar or offensive, it has its place in the designated sections of newspapers.
However, journalists must take care that they do not confuse opinion articles with the feature articles and “hard news” that they cover. If an article is not explicitly stated as an opinion, and a reporter includes spin or covers one side more favorably than the other, or even omits key information, it is lying. And since the public needs to look to journalism as a source of honest information, spinning stories that are supposed to be unbiased crushes that trust.
Ultimately, the issue comes down to the fact that although journalism is a noble and trustworthy ideal, journalists are human, and are therefore prone to bias, error, and confusing fact with opinion. As reporters, we obviously have to be very interested in the politics and issues of our day, or we would get very bored covering the stories. We must care, or we wouldn’t have chosen the profession we are in. And since we are so invested in these issues, we cannot help but have strong opinions about them. However, that doesn’t mean the journalists need to despair of never being able to write a fair article. Journalists must just be aware of their own opinions and biases and compensate for them. If journalists feel too strongly, or if they find themselves too invested in a story, they may want to ask to be removed from the story.
I know that I have strong opinions on most of the issues of this day. However, because I know this, I hope to recognize my biases when they threaten to appear. If they do, I will make certain that I compensate for them by covering both sides equally, and by removing any speech in my article that could represent either side in a positive or negative light. And if I find that I feel too strongly about an issue to represent all sides, I would ask to be removed from the story.
2. The Big Picture defines journalistic excellence as having three basic components: truth, context, and independence. Truth must be present, obviously, because without it, journalism becomes gossip or other propaganda, and it loses the public’s trust. Truth must include not only what the facts are, but a comprehensive collection of facts. Journalistic excellence requires context, because without it, the truth just becomes a laundry list of facts. Context explains the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ to the audience. Why the readers should care, and the historical, political, or religious context the article should be read in are all explained through the context of an article. Finally, excellent journalism needs one more aspect that makes truth and context possible: independence. Independence from political structures, from candidates, from businesses, and the list goes on. Although as it states in our textbook, “Because the news is a social product, it can never be produced in a vacuum” (Scheuer 48). However, journalists must strive to remain independent of any propaganda or agenda.
These are the three basic concepts of excellence as outlined in our textbook, and I tend to agree. However, I also think that there are a few more aspects that can make journalism excellent. I believe that often, courage and determination are both necessary to uncover facts and discover stories. Journalists must constantly be watching for stories that could uncover scandal and help their readers, or even just articles that would be informative and important. I think that transparency of bias (if there is bias) is necessary, so the audience recognizes that it isn’t straight truth they are reading. And I also think that passion is necessary for great journalism. If we as journalists don’t care about what we’re writing about, we can hardly expect our audience to.
The newspaper I read online was The Bakersfield Californian, which is my hometown’s only paper. Overall, I thought their articles were mediocre. As far as I could tell, the newspaper followed the three basic aspects of journalism. They were truthful and independent, as near as I could tell. I also saw contextual articles in their paper—where they described the history or importance of an article. Everything basic was there; however, it lacked other, superior elements that would have made it a truly great newspaper. While the stories were honest, they were typical and, frankly, boring. Their journalists didn’t seem to be taking any risks, and if they had passion about their articles, it certainly didn’t show most of the time. Most of the time, the articles seemed free from bias, but I did notice that the number of favorably conservative editorials and opinion pieces were overwhelming. Many articles also seemed to have a somewhat conservative spin, especially in the way headlines were phrased. So while I think that it was a decent example of journalism, The Bakersfield Californian was by no means an example of excellent journalism.
3. “Factual truth, like anything else, can be overrated in some contexts—but journalism is not one of those contexts. [However] a strictly accurate but superficial account of an important event is not necessarily better, in terms of the overall public good, than one with greater explanatory power that contains some minor inaccuracies or even basic untruths.” –The Big Picture (62)
The above quote accurately describes both how important truth in journalism is, and how difficult it is to describe and obtain. Absolute truth is not obtainable in such a human pursuit as journalism. However, our textbook does a very good job exploring the aspects of journalistic truth. The first aspect is that journalistic truth is a pragmatic truth—as journalists, we ignore the fact that we all see different truths, even when witnessing the same incident, and that it is sometimes impossible to reconcile those differences (Scheuer 63). Otherwise, we’d constantly be caught up in retelling stories, rewriting articles, and otherwise revising and being uncertain because there is no Truth with a capital ‘T’ in journalism. Everything is relative, because everything is human.
Secondly, the truth must be accurate, but accuracy doesn’t necessarily equal truth. Accuracy means a list of factual events and quotes. The journalistic truth incorporates accurate aspects into its storytelling, so it is honest, but not boring. As Scheuer states, “We must collect the dots and connect the dots. . . Journalistic truth begins with accuracy, but quickly expands beyond (and with) the facts, in pursuit of vague and imperfectly obtainable goals as context, balance, proportion, and relevance” (67). Therefore journalism must be accurate, truthful, and factual, but it most ultimately strive for much more than that.
And the reason journalism must strive for these “vague and imperfectly obtainable goals” is so it can be of service to the public. A laundry list of facts would just be boring. Good storytelling without truth is propaganda or gossip. Therefore, the combination of fact and context contributes to citizens’ knowledge of issues like the workings of their government, or about companies, accidents, or anything that could be considered news.
4. Newspapers and television news operations are dwindling because of the explosion of electronic resources. Websites like Yahoo! and Google replaced the necessity of having to subscribe to a paper; and once papers realized that they were quickly losing clientele to these websites, newspapers put up sites of their own to compete. However, that meant that people needed to subscribe even less to the newspaper, since they could get nearly everything online. Not to mention websites like Twitter, Netvibes, and CraigsList, which group the news and allows people to communicate quickly were driving papers out of business quickly. These sites take away both subscription revenue and even advertisement revenue from newspapers and television news operations, so it is no wonder they are having a difficult time staying afloat.
While I think it is a shame that we seem to be losing the paper quality of news—and while I plan to subscribe to papers for as long as they are around in the tactile sense, I believe that eventually, everything will be paperless. Newspapers already have websites that either allow the public free access, or that require a subscription to access all of the site’s contents. I think that this is the future of newspapers, but I don’t think that the papers will ever get their subscription costs back, since it is too easy for customers to simply get their news elsewhere if they can’t find it for free on their favorite newspaper’s website. Newspapers can, however, still collect some advertisement revenue online.
I think that going into journalism right now is a risky endeavor; however, I also think that people are always going to need news, and they are always going to need honest reporters to gather it and write it down. So I think that, while this is a difficult and turbulent time for papers, they will not disappear entirely—and neither will my job. Five or ten years from now, I expect that reporting and writing the news is going to be very different, but I think that I will still be doing it. Perhaps I will have to include hyperlinks and video streams into my articles. Or perhaps my articles will have to be either very national, or very local. Either way, I do still think I will have a job as a reporter—otherwise, I wouldn’t be in this major.
5. When I read this question, the first aspect I think of to include in my personal code of conduct is humility. I think that if I, as a journalist, constantly keep in mind the fact that I writing and reporting to perform a service, not to show off how awesome I am, or how much I know, then many other aspects of my personal code will fall in place. If I have humility, I will be much less inclined to want to spin a story—because I will not have the arrogance to believe that my personal opinion has more value than the truth. If I have humility, I will strive for objectivity, even when I know that it is an ideal that cannot be reached. I will keep trying, because I will not consider myself to be greater than this ideal of unbiased reporting.
Accuracy and sensitivity to audience are two other aspects that I consider to be very important. Accuracy for obvious reasons—because I do believe that journalism is, in part, a public service, and so I will strive to tell the truth as accurately as possible. Sensitivity to audience is a little trickier, and at first seems to even conflict with the idea of truthful journalism. However, I think that journalists can still be honest, even while remembering whom they are writing to.
I also believe that journalists need to have passion, initiative, and courage, to do their job well. My personal code of conduct includes the persistence and initiative to find stories and the passion and courage to research them well, and to find the facts needed to make it valid and interesting to my readers.

Thanks for the memories

So. End of the semester. Which means the end of Comms 239. (Oh, and yeah, that title was a blatant ripoff of the song, "Thanks for the Memories," by FallOut Boy.)

I really enjoyed the class--a lot more than I thought I would. And actually, I had pretty high expectations for it in the first place.

Not many classes outstrip my initial expectations, but when they do, it's fantastic.

It wasn't just the subject matter of the course--although I enjoyed that too. It was the structure, how we were all learning together, how we discussed more than were lectured at. I think that that was the most effective way of learning.

Instead of being told what good journalism was, we talked it over, examined it from different angles and different points of view, and we were all able to reach our own conclusions. I was able to fully examine this question, though I can't really post about it until the final exam is due on Monday.

Instead of taking a multiple choice test about ethics in journalism, we were presented with the facts and the history, and we decided for ourselves how far was too far, and what we would and wouldn't do for the sake of journalism and our careers.

And our final exam is just one more example of how freely structured and learning-based this class really was/is. It's not that the final exam is easy--actually, it's the exam I'm most concerned about. But the challenge to think for myself, to be brave enough to take a stance (and stick to that stance) on issues that will affect my career in journalism, is why I liked the class. The challenge made it worth it.

The blogging was a lot of fun too. I enjoyed reading everybody's blogs, and I appreciate all the comments I got on my own blog.

So I guess the whole point of this post was to say thank you and good-bye. Thanks everyone for sharing your opinions in class, and thank you for challenging me. I had a great time in this class, and hopefully I'll see all of you in journalism classes!

Journalism and citizens

Doing the NewsU assignment on trauma reminded me of one crucial element of journalism that I think many of us (myself included) tend to forget.

We, as journalists, are not grappling just with integrity, honesty, and bias issues. Our stories are not just about triumphs or defeats or corruption or politicians.

Our stories are about people.

I tend to forget this because of how religiously I read the New York Times--or, at least, how religiously I read the main and business sections of the NYTimes. This paper only covers the very big stories, about very big people. And when I'm constantly reading about celebrities or politicians or world leaders, I tend to forget that they are actually human.

The "President" doesn't seem human; he seems like this untouchable force with unknown authority. Congress doesn't seem like it's made up of people; it seems like a very faraway group of beings who decide my future and who are ultimately removed from my life and my problems.

And don't even get me started on the Supreme Court.

But as I watched the NewsU video, I realized that these men, powerful as they are, are only human. And not only that; I realized that for the most part, I won't be covering those huge stories. I'll likely be dealing with people who have had a terrible experience--like a death in the family, like living through an earthquake or a hurricane, or having their identity stolen.

I think that as journalists, we need to keep in mind that, while it's good to have morals and ethics based on truth and honesty, we are telling stories about people.

RE: Mumbai Journalism

In response to our class blogging assignment, I have this url:

Saturday, Nov. 19th blogpost

And that is all.

The merging of new and old journalism

So.

All this time, our journalism class (and major newspapers and a plethora of websites) has been predicting the end of traditional journalism. We recognize the fact that "New Media," aka the online community of bloggers, reporters, and citizens who feed off one another and report news (and rumors) at startling speeds, is more convenient, faster, and, best of all, free.

The response to the crisis in Mumbai is an excellent example of citizen journalism taken to a whole new level, thanks to the instant connection the internet provides.

And while I'm fascinated and generally enthralled by this new media, I admit that I've been sad to see traditional print journalism begin to fade. Of course newspapers are far from eradicated, and I don't know that they will ever be so. But I do know that nearly all I hear about newspapers these days is that profits are falling, advertisements are falling, layoffs are rising, etc.

However, a recent article by redOrbit has made me think that perhaps the situation doesn't have to be this drastic. Perhaps our changing news media isn't all about the new, technologically advanced, interactive media versus the tried-and-true, honest and verified traditional print media.

Maybe the two complement each other.

RedOrbit reports that Arianna Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post (a website with the byword, "The Internet Newspaper: News Blogs Video Community) believes that new media brings out the best in traditional journalism.

Huffington claims that the transparency and proximity is what new media brings to the table of traditional journalism.

“The new cannot entirely replace the old nor produce the results of time-honored investigative journalism,” Huffington said.

She also said that bloggers who take to heart the tradition of fact-checking and having multiple sources are the ones who rise to the top in the online world.

And of course bloggers and 'citizen journalists' can (and often do) get the facts wrong, it is still true that the best ones, the ones who get the facts right, are the bloggers that everyone listens to.

So what does everyone think? Is this just a bunch of hopeful drivel, meant to placate old world journalists? Or could this combination of new media and traditional journalism work to form a type of journalism that is both transparent and accurate, both proximate and insightful, both interactive and resourceful?

Mumbai and Citizen Journalism

I'm sure that everyone knows what's happened in Mumbai by now. If you don't, or you somehow managed to miss the 195 and counting casualties, as usual, Wikipedia has all the answers. Go educate yourself.

But for those of you who know about the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, I'd like to discuss the role the web played in the reporting the attacks. I was struck as I went to website after website, blog after blog, as I received tweet after tweet, about the attacks. I could see pictures, watch video feed from cell phones, and I knew about every casualty or grenade before CNN reported it.

It was terrifying and strangely fantastical. To be able to see every picture, to hear every report of terror (no matter if it was real or imagined), it was almost as though I was there. I was too frozen myself to tweet, and even if I wasn't, there was nothing I could have added to the thousands and thousands of reports pouring in every five seconds.

CNN.com has an article that discusses the impact tweeting and blogging and the internet in general had on the attacks and the world's reaction to them. It was interesting to read, but it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

Citizen journalism led the reports of the Mumbai attacks. Some sources say that it was helpful, other say it helped the terrorists, and still others say that the rumors and incorrect reports caused more panic than there would have been otherwise. Of course, there were thousands of inaccuracies and exaggerations. But there was also real, honest information that kept me more informed than any news website.

I am frankly shocked by the online community's cooperation and impact. Some blogs posted about hospitals that needed blood, other were there so people could ask after missing family members. Someone even managed to capture a picture of one of the terrorists.

I know that some people are derisive or even angry about the online response. But I am just enthralled by how quickly and decisively the information came to me. As soon as I wanted something, it was there, just a click or a Google search away.

I know that I normally ask questions at the end of my blogs, but I only wanted to discuss how fascinating the web response to the attacks were.

Freedom of Speech

I have another question for everyone.

It was sparked by this article, in Times-Standard. Apparently, The Bark, the Eureka High School newspaper, had all of its issues pulled from newstands after some students and parents protested the nude drawing in the paper.

Student journalists complain that they were very mature in the article and the discussion of the art. Parents and a few other students wonder if this really belongs in a high school paper.

The problem, of course, is not that they were censored (since school papers are all the time). It is that the student journalists received permission to print the article and art, and then once protests arose, the principal ordered a recall.

There were several other issues discussed as well, such as autonomous papers vs. administration-reviewed, and whether or not it's legal for the principal to censor.

But as I read this article, my concern was with the application of freedom of speech. I understand, of course, that there are a few instances where absolute freedom of speech is something we give up in exchange for a more ordered, peaceful existence. Racial slurs, false accusations, and profanity are just a few example of free speech that we censor for the 'greater good'.

I know that we need these restrictions, or speech would equal chaos.

And as I read the article, I wondered how early freedom of speech starts. Obviously, different environments call for different behavior. At home, at school, at work, around relatives, around friends--each environment calls for different restrictions.

And it's all very complicated.

Okay, now that I'm done being really mature and sensitive about the exceptions, now I'll say what I really think.

Obviously, if the administrators had censored the drawing before the newspaper was printed, I wouldn't complain. It wouldn't even be a news story. But the art was approved, and then when a few people complained, it was yanked from publication.

The money had already been spent, the papers had already been printed. And while people are well within their rights to complain, if the article was tastefully done and it didn't disturb the learning environment unduly, then I don't think it should be an issue. If students don't like it, it's not like the artwork was on the front page. No one who doesn't want to look at it has to.

But that's just my opinion.

So what does everyone else think? And not just about this specific case, either. In general, in high school, in the adult world--where and when does censorship start and end?

Not who, not what. Why?

So what's a journalist?

Or should the question be who is a journalist?

Or should we ask what does a journalist do?

I say, Why journalists?

The obvious answer, ironically, isn't because people need to get their news from somewhere.

I decided to ask people (my two roommates) why they thought we need journalists.

Roommate number 1: We don't. Journalists were necessary fifty years ago, or a hundred years ago, when we needed someone to get us the information. We don't need the traditional journalists anymore. Just someone to update and run news websites.

Roommate number 2: I remember talking about Yellow Journalism in my history class. I guess we need them because they keep an eye on government and all the big businesses . . .

And then there's the school of thought that suggests that journalism is a fourth branch of government. I tend to agree with this one, although I suspect that it may be self-aggrandizement.

But as I listened to the answers my roommates gave, I wondered where the traditional idea of journalists had gone--where reporters wrote articles that were informative and interesting. News media selling people news appears to be an outdated idea.

But I think that, rather than asking all sorts of complicated questions that don't really have answers, just answer me this: Why do we have journalists? Once we have a solid answer for that question, we can answer what/who journalists are, since they will be the people who fulfill that role.

So, my question for everyone reading this is: why do we have journalists?

Palin Coverage

Now, all throughout the presidential race, I noticed that the media was a little . . . nicer to Obama than it was to McCain. And Joe Biden, despite his controversial (and hilarious, and questionable) past, remained unmentioned. But as old and doddering as the media portrayed McCain, it was nothing like what they did to Sarah Palin.

I realize that this is a sensitive issue. I realize that, when people read this, many of them will think that I'm just a whining, hyper-sensitive, Conservative sympathizer. None of that is true. Okay, sometimes I do whine. But not about this.

And I'm not the only one who thinks so. Seattle P-I has an article that discusses the bad press that Palin inspired:

"Whatever Sarah Palin's future in politics outside Alaska, she will go down as one of the most trashed and controversial vice presidential candidates in American history, a victim of some bad journalism, a negative atmosphere she helped create . . ."

Yeah, I agree. Of course, the media did not make up quotes like:

"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." - explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008

Or like this little gem:

"I'm the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can't."

But the media also didn't make up this, by Joe Biden:

"Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs."

Or this one, also spoken by Joe Biden:

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking."

But I had to look up the Biden quotes. The ones from Palin flowed freely into my mind, placed there by the news anchors and papers that I read so often. Biden, on the other hand, was rarely discussed.

And while I love SNL more than almost anything, how many times did they spoof Obama or Biden? They did a couple of shorts about McCain (and how ancient he is), and of course everyone remembers this:



I love it too. Don't get me wrong.

But I do think that the media has a large influence on public opinion, and I think that their coverage of Palin was unfair, biased, and kind of . . . mean.

But what does everyone else think? I know that Palin brought much of it on herself, but all the candidates said really stupid things during the campaign. Why her? Why did the media choose her as their comedic relief? Or did they? Do you think their coverage was fair?

A few posts ago, I discussed the issue of going to jail for one's work as a journalist. I asked people if they would be willing to do so--if they would give up comfort and paychecks if it meant telling the truth.

I didn't even mention the possibility that journalists could die because of the articles they write.

In this article by Columbia Journalism Review, the editors of CJR discuss the state of journalism in Mexico, which has had twenty-two journalists killed since 2000, some of them directly because of what they had exposed.

The article was inspired by the speech that Alejandro Junco de la Vega, president of Grupo Reforma, which publishes seven daily papers in Mexico, gave. He said that,

"We find ourselves under the siege of drug lords, criminals; and the more we expose their activities, the harder they push back.

Life is cheap. They push hard."

I have a vested interest in Mexican journalism because I wanted to be a part of it. My dad's side of the family is from Mexico, and I love the language and th people. I want to be a part of the muckraking that is going on, especially since Mexico is mired in corruption.

But how can journalists publish the truth and expose corruption and serve its citizens if they are constantly fearing for their own lives? How can journalists do their job when all that leads to is more death, more fear, and more crime? And how can situations like the one in Mexico, and other nations like it, be remedied?

Journalism is a tool

I just read a fascinating article by Geneva Overholser. In the article, Overholser addressed the problems that journalism faces today, which is nothing new. I could get on virtually any news website or read any paper and I could find an article about sagging subscription, layoffs, and the overall decline of print journalism. There's even a website called "Newspaper Death Watch."

So Overholser doesn't just rehash the same, tired situation. She gives us a solution.

In the article, titled Did journalism's business model distort journalism's social mission?, she answers that very question. And the answer is a resounding yes.

Overholser goes on to say, however, that not all hope is gone. Newspapers need not die; they need to be restructured. She said,

"For some of us, then, the problem may actually be that what we are worried about is saving journalism. Wrong focus.

Take the mission away from journalism and think more about journalism as a tool: We care about poverty, and how could we use journalism as a tool to make a difference."

According to Overholser, we should take the current model of journalism, which is a business model with a mission, and completely rework it. Instead of thinking of journalism as an end, we should think of it as a means. Overholser continues to say that this isn't promoting specific ideals. We are merely using the truth to convince people to take action. And that would be how we would sell ourselves to the advertisers.

What does everyone think? Could this model work? Should journalism shuck off its old business-oriented model in favor of a more "noble" line of work? Can we?

International competition in a national field

When I first heard of "outsourcing" in my high school economics class, it intrigued me that we could have someone doing a job thousands of miles away. It didn't seem like a lot of sense to give jobs to those overseas when not everyone in the U.S. had a job. But it didn't concern me a whole lot.

This does.

According to Editor & Publisher, a journal dedicated to covering news about journalism, Dean Singleton, a chairman of the board of The Associated Press, and a CEO of MediaNews Group, announced that papers should begin to consider outsourcing jobs to keep up with falling revenue.

This article says that Singleton suggested that newspapers consider outsourcing in nearly every aspect of their operations, even including copyediting and design.

And while there is some debate over whether or not this would cause the overall quality of the paper to decline, it fascinates me that this is even an option to be considered.

After all, there are few media sources in the U.S. that are even truly national papers. Most are restricted to states, cities, or communities.

In light of this, does it really make sense to send papers overseas? Could people who are not connected to our communities or even our nation really be the ones who will be reporting our news in the future?

Of course, very little has been done in the area of outsourcing up to this point. But just knowing that it is a viable option makes me worried about going into the profession of journalism. They're already laying off thousands of journalists--and now I have to worry about international competition as well?

So what does everyone think? Could this be an option for papers to recover from falling subscription and advertising? Does it worry you at all--do you think that it's ethically correct? And do you think that quality could be compromised if this became a reality?

Presidential endorsements and objectivity

Woah . . . okay, Chicago Tribune, what do you think you're doing?

I mean, it's one thing for news stations to quietly support candidates through manipulation of news stories and propaganda, but it's entirely another to just come out and endorse a presidential candidate.

In a Chicago Tribune editorial board article on October 17th, the paper just came out and said it:

"On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose.

The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States."

When I read the Tribune's article, I was surprised. Of course I'm used to the subtle jabs at candidates and policies the different news stations make, but this degree of transparency was unprecedented in my limited news media experience.

The first thought that came to mind was: Can they do that?

I think that, as usual, there are good and bad things on both sides of the argument. On the one hand, the media is supposed to at least try to be objective. It's in the Journalist's Creed, after all. It's what we argue about in class incessantly.

But on the other hand, humans have prejudices and are incapable of being completely fair, balanced, and objective. The very nature of humanity is subjectivity, and since humans are who are in charge of the news, is it best that we just admit our flaws? Since we are incapable of being absolutely objective, should we just cast the tired facade of fairness aside, let our struggles with the truth cease, and be completely transparent in our prejudices?

Or do we owe the people more than just our own opinions backed by whatever facts we see fit to include? Should we at least try, even when we know we can never absolutely succeed in our attempts at objectivity and truth?

What does everyone think? I'm torn--I applaud the Tribune's transparency, yet I wish that the media could be as objective as they claim to be. Should they keep trying--should we keep trying? Or is it silly to pretend that we can ever be more than the subjective, prejudiced humans we all know we are?

The Literal Freedom of the Press

I just found this article online, and it caught my eye because of the questions it raised. If you don't have time to click on the link, don't worry, I'll recap.

Vietnamese journalist Nguyen Viet Chien was just sentenced to two years in prison for allegedly falsifying the information in a story that got several high ranking government authorities fired. He presented information that these officials were gambling using embezzled funds. His partner, Nguyen Van Hai, was sentenced to two years of "re-education without detention."

Chien was accused of "abusing democratic freedoms."

Now, several things caught my eye about this story, and it wasn't just the suspicious nature of how the charges against the officials were suddenly dropped.

I wonder if it is worth it for a journalist to go to prison to preserve the truth of their article, or to protect a source. Should we, as journalists, be so focused on telling the truth that we abandon personal safety?

And what about our families? Do we risk disgracing them because we're hung up on protecting a criminal's name? Or because we are so determined that what we have written is the truth, and we refuse to back down?

I realize that there is no right answer to this question, and that everyone's opinions will vary, but what do you think? Should journalists risk it all for their profession? Or is there an invisible line we shouldn't cross; say if something endangered our lives or the lives of our friends or family? Is the truth worth everything?

Journalism Interview

After several awkward phone calls and emails, my journalist finally sent back my interview questions! I interviewed columnist Robert Price, from The Bakersfield Californian. I enjoyed most of his answers, but one of the things he said that interested me the most was,

"Good journalism is all about fairness, balance, completeness, inquisitiveness. It is the public square, the water cooler, the neighborhood saloon at 6 p.m., the church fellowship hall. It's where we get together and talk and reflect and praise and work up righteous indignation."

I notice that, when talking about "good journalism," Price said nothing about truth. And while I'm certainly not trying to criticize Price, I thought it was interesting that, while our class spends so much time getting hung up on what truth is, and how we can incorporate it into our journalism, to others journalism is just about covering everything equally. At least to Price, journalism is more about community than it is about truth.

That's not to say, of course, that he, or any other journalists who support this view, aren't concerned about telling the truth. But by his own admission, when Price is writing an opinion piece or even an editorial, he "can and does include or omit evidence in order to make a point."

Again, these are editorial pieces, but it was still quite interesting to me to hear that.

The other point of interest I found in Price's interview was in the questions about the state of journalism today, and its future. When asked whether or not he had been affected by the changing state of journalism, Price admitted that he and his fellow journalists had to learn to write tighter in order to fit their articles into the shrinking paper, as well as to be able to still attract the public's attention.

However, on the next question, when asked what advice he'd give to students who wanted to go into journalism, Price said, "Be confident that journalism is not going away. We are going through a reordering . . . this transition may be a lengthy one but it will have a positive conclusion because it HAS to. Journalism is a foundation of democracy. Some might say THE foundation. We need new, passionate journalists determined to keep the country honest and keep journalism honest."

I appreciated Price's comments, maybe because I feel the same way. When I read articles that suggest that journalism might disappear, I just can't believe it. And I hope that I'm not just turning a blind eye. But, like Price, I believe that journalism will not disappear, because it cannot disappear. As a democracy, we need journalism, because how can we have agency without choice, and how can we have choice without information?

That's what I'm asking everyone here. I know that none of us truly believe that journalism will completely disappear, because otherwise we'd have a different major. But what do you think journalism is all about--truth, or community? Or can you have both? And is journalism as important as Price suggests? Is is a foundation--or THE foundation--of democracy?

Freedom of Speech on the Web

In the post before last, I briefly mentioned how bloggers are free to express opinions on news website forums. This is a form of communication, a usage of our free speech, and while people can be idiots about it sometimes, it is still a way for people to discuss the news.

Now, it appears that free speech is being limited on the internet as well.

Colorado's Channel 9 recently posted an article which described how a man was recently charged with a felony for a comment he posted on a news website.

Jeffrey Gargaro claims that he was exaggerating to make a point about the recent shooting in Washington that left six dead. Others in the forum were claiming that mental illness, a poor childhood, drugs, or lack of religion were the reason behind the rampage.

Gargaro apparently disagreed with the popular opinion, somewhat vehemently.

He wrote, "Also to all of you who blame drugs ... shut up as well. You know what, I am going to go shoot up Sunset Square today ... just for the hell of it. No drugs, no mental illness ... you can blame today’s episode on video games and George Bush's example of 'pay back' to society.”

Police say it was a threat. Gargaro's attorney claims that it's a freedom of speech issue.

"This was a computer news media blog. There's no rules and if you read these blogs, you'll see people make derogatory comments. These blogs are obviously notoriously bombastic,” said attorney Jeffrey Lustick. (source: 9News Article)

Wow. Just . . . wow.

Guys, I don't even know where to start with this one. First, I will waste no time saying that of course Gargaro was incredibly stupid to post something like that. He even specified a place, time, and weapon. Of course the police would react quickly.

But at the same time, I can see where Gargaro's attorney is coming from. On the internet, we all have a certain expectation of anonymity and freedom. We have been spoiled for years by screen names, the ability to move from site to site without having to see the repercussions of our actions, and frankly, the ability to say whatever we want. People are rude and crude virtually, and even the most well-mannered soul will often let their inner demons out when no one is around to see.

So if I had read Gargaro's comment, I wouldn't have thought twice about going to Sunset Square that day. I would have thought that it was one more person being an idiot online.

But should people have ultimate freedom of speech online? For years, the internet has been a symbol of the purest freedom--freedom to move where you want, freedom of information, and freedom of speech all included. The internet is where we can post the news that is important to us, and where we can discuss the news that we read or hear. Isn't that a good thing? Shouldn't we be able to say what we want?

Or should freedom be limited even on the internet? I'm not talking about cyberbullying here, people. I mean on legitimate websites, in forums or comments. None of this preteen drama, which is in a class of it's own.

So those are my questions for you: not only were the concerns of the police legitimate in Gargaro's comments, but is it legitimate to limit free speech at all? Even if people can't post comment anonymously? Is it really hurting anyone? And how does/will this affect blogging and forums discussions?

Newspapers of the Future

AJR, the American Journal Review, has a fascinating little article, which simultaneously predicts the demise of newspapers as we know them, and also suggests a new format for papers of the future.

Philip Meyer, a professor of journalism at the University of North Carolina, suggests that, while newspapers are going out fast, there is hope for them yet, albeit in less conventional means.

Meyer suggests that in order to survive in any sense of the word, newspapers will have to adapt to the new ways people receive information: that is to say, theatrically, and in vivid color.

He says that newspapers will publish less frequently, come in smaller packages, and be filled with editorials, analyses, and investigative reporting. The internet will be for the common people; only those who are perhaps a bit more traditional and better educated will look for the kind of detail these "new newspapers" will offer.

I like Meyer's idea, for a few reasons. The first is that I like the suggestion that good, old-fashioned printing will not go out of style any time soon. There's just something about the tactile experience of a newspaper, the smell, the way you get their cheap ink on your fingers when you're scanning the classifieds or doing the crossword. I wouldn't want to miss out on that, even if print journalism did become more sensationalist.

The second reason I like this proposed change is because those parts of the news Meyer mentioned above--the editorials, or the investigative reporting--are the parts about a newspaper that I, personally, enjoy reading the most. I can hear headlines from friends; I can glance at webpages to get the quick and dirty side of the news. But when I want to hear all sides of a story, or the details that weren't considered important enough to run as a headline on CNN, that's when I head to a newspaper.

If this is the future of newspapers, then my feelings are generally positive towards the change. While I would be sad to lose some of the traditional news reading I have always loved to do, I think that newspapers have always been changing and adapting to fit the times. Gradually, papers have become more colorful and narrower as it is, so this just seems like the natural progression of things.

How does everyone feel about this proposed path for papers? Does anyone have any better ideas? And does anyone feel that, in taking this route, we might lose something in the media?

Bloggers v. The News (with a capital 'N')

In Jay Rosen's latest, he talks about why blogging has been such a successful phenomenon, especially concerning blogging about the news.

His main point is that bloggers have a certain code of ethics which other media, essentially, lack. According to Rosen, we bloggers link well and often, we correct any mistakes we make without overblown excuses or apologies, we're transparent in our biases, and we aren't remote.

The latter point interests me the most. There is a reason--there has to be a reason--why blogging and the internet is driving the traditional news media out of business. And it's not just because it's more easily accessible. Electronic books, like Amazon's Kindle are much more easily accessible than driving to a bookstore, sorting through everything, finding our aisle, and going alphabetically, by AUTHOR, till we find the book we want.

And yet, we do it. Back when the concept was first conceived, ebooks were expected to destroy publishing companies. Now, a decade later, they haven't exactly revolutionized the book industry.

So obviously, it is not solely the opportunistic qualities of online journalism that draws us. It must have another quality besides instantaneous updates.

I propose that the reason we are so attracted to blogging and online news is because we connect with people.

Newspapers, television, and radio are all almost exclusively one-way communication. Blogging and news websites have something that traditional means simply cannot provide: forums, discussion, connections.

As humans, we all want to feel like we aren't alone--that we are sending as well as receiving messages. That is what blogging provides: a way to express our opinions about how the news media is handling stories, and a way to tell our own stories.

The flow of information, thanks to the internet, is no longer dependent on an "elite" group of media personnel. Now, anyone--anyone-- no matter how misguided, irritating, or just plain ordinary they are, has the opportunity to sound off, either in their blogs or in the comments at the bottom of news stories on the internet.

And it's not all bad; if someone does have biases that are too extreme, or if they don't support their opinions with facts, people will either flame their comments, or they will simply have a blog that no one reads.

We are drawn to the good information, the reliable sources out there. We, as the common people, know where to find the good blogs through word or mouth or, rather, word of text, or email, or IM.

So, what does everyone think? Why do you think newspapers are going out of style--is it just because more instantaneous information is available online? Or is there something more?

Sources not linked above:
http://www.buzzmachine.com/about-me/
P.S. Click on the links. Most are worth viewing.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act--It's more interesting than it sounds, I swear

I don't know if anyone is following or even cares about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed in 2002, but it's likely to become a major case for the Supreme Court soon.

A bit of background here would probably be useful:

Sarbanes-Oxley was passed in response to the Enron and Worldcom accounting scandals. Basically, the Act established a board that regulated and monitored accounting in big businesses, called the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). The PCAOB is a private board with only five members that exercises government power. The members are named by the Securities and Exchange Commission

Okay, now here's the problem: while the PCAOB is exercising government power, the President has no power to remove them from office or to veto their appointment.

If you don't think that's a problem, then frankly, you probably aren't the President. Okay, I'm kidding. But the constitutionality of the PCAOB is being challenged as we speak. The argument is that the board is violating the separation of powers set up in the Constitution. To people who oppose the group, the PCAOB is just the first of many new entities set up by Congress to splinter the power of the President and cripple his ability to run his agencies. They believe that it is undermining "the President's control over his subordinates."

On the other hand, some justices claim that the PCAOB's relationship with the President is entirely healthy and within the law, since the board is a private entity.

This is what we, in the Supreme Court world, like to call a BIG DEAL. It may not sound like much: just a bunch of people arguing over the Constitution. Again.

But this is the very structure of our government that is being argued here. The opposition has claimed that if this splintering becomes common, Congress could create another branch of government and undermine the President to the point of his own superfluity.

Basically, people are worried that the President will be out of a job if this keeps up.

Now, my questions to all you lovely blog readers are these:
Is the opposition's argument sound?
Do you agree with the opposition, or would you side with the Circuit Court, which ruled that the PCAOB was Constitutional?
And, if the opposition is right and the President will be undermined by this "new branch of government," is this a good thing or a bad thing? Should we take more power away from the President, or will that result in chaos and Congressional control of the nation? When this goes to the Supreme Court, what do you think the decision should be?

Let me know what you think, because I'm not completely certain myself.

Sources:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/test-of-sarbanes-oxley/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-oxley

What is a Journalist?

I believe in the profession of journalism.

I believe in telling the truth within the scope of journalism.

I believe in a journalist’s ability to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the unbiased truth.

Does this sound like a testimony in church yet?

I believe in journalism the same way I believe in my religion. It is mostly through faith, with some scattered incidents and miracles, that I am kept believing.

Journalists have been a trusted source of truth since near the beginnings of our nation. It was partly through publications like Thomas Paine’s Common Sense that the people of America were rallied. And it was through newspapers and journals that people were kept informed about their government and their leaders once America was a nation.

This, by the way, is my nice and flowery way of saying that journalism is what keeps our country alive, and if the professionals within it ever cease to tell the truth, I believe our nation will whither.

Forget all those checks and balances you learned about in your government class in twelfth grade. I’m sorry that I have to tell you that you didn’t really have to learn about the intricate twists and turns of a supergovernment—the three branches tangling with one another like an intricate dance, trying to skip around one another and then trying to keep the other two in check as well. If you knew about the news media by twelfth grade, you already knew everything you needed to know about checks and balances.

A free press is one of the strongest checks on our government today, as it was two hundred years ago. I mean, hey, I’d behave too if I knew that the veritable hounds were at my heels, ready and willing to report any misstep or abuse of power the moment they detected it.

Freedom of the press was assured in the First Amendment, right under where they said we have freedom of religion. In essence, Journalism was second on the long list of priorities our Founding Fathers had. And although some of them later changed their tune (i.e. Thomas Jefferson referring to the press as a menace after he was inaugurated and had to deal with them for a few years.), I believe that the Founding Fathers saw the necessity of a free press in a democracy.

Besides being the public’s watchdogs, journalists keep the government in check simply by telling all of the truth.

Democracy is, by definition, the ability of the public to choose one’s leaders and laws. Choices cannot be made without different options available. And real decisions cannot be reached without the information behind them. Without journalists providing coverage of all the options available to citizens, agency in our nation, and therefore democracy itself, is a bad joke.

And as far as telling all the truth goes, journalists have yet another hefty burden. To give voice to those who are too ___________ to do it for themselves. You can fill in the blank with whatever word you choose—poor, uneducated, unaware of their resources, tired, literate, incompetent, fluent. It all comes down to the same thing: giving a voice to the voiceless.

Journalists, as it says in the Journalist’s Creed, should only write what [they] hold in their hearts to be true.

When I read this last sentence aloud my roommate, she says, “That’s the sissy lala version of journalism. In reality, you have to write what someone else tells you to write, whether or not you hold it to be true.”

Well, in a rather disenchanted sense, what she says is true. It is sort of a sissy lala way of thinking. What am I trying to do here, paint journalists as heroes that defend our nation’s freedom, as bards that sing untold stories of suffering, and as watchdogs that keep our nation’s leaders in check? Next I’ll be claiming that journalists strut around in full body armor, riding white chargers to press conferences, or that they commonly stop speeding trains with their bare hands.

Well, they don’t. That’s Chuck Norris’s job.

But despite the apparent unreality of it, I do believe in those things I claimed journalists to be. I do believe that, to truly follow the profession of journalism, one must write as a gentleman(lady) writes: the truth, but nothing one wouldn’t say aloud. I do believe that journalism is one of the many reasons that our democracy exists, and one of the most fundamental.

I do believe that journalists have a responsibility first to the truth, and second to the people. That journalists are performing a service for their people every time they write.

I do believe that journalists should and do seek out those people who do not have the power to tell their own stories, and that it is their responsibility to share those stories. I do believe that true journalism is independent of those it covers. I do believe that journalists must tell the truth.

And yes, I do believe in the profession of journalism.