What is Journalism?

Because forms of online media have opened up so many doors in the past few years, any person who wants to research and write a story can do it. You don’t have to be a journalist to practice journalism. If a person is going to work as a journalist and call themselves by that name, they must be completely honest in their work. Something that I’ve really learned this semester is that journalism is about morality. If you are a writer at a popular newspaper, you can try to write whatever you want, whether it’s slanderous, untrue, or plagiarized, but your editor probably won’t let your article be printed. If you research issues on your own and do your own reporting, and then post what you write on a blog, Facebook, or Twitter, no one is there to stop you. People can say absolutely anything they want on the Internet – and people will. I’ve learned this semester how much journalism is evolving and progressing to new levels online, and if you practice your own journalism, there is no editor to stop you from saying whatever you think or want to say. Journalism is about morality because we as journalists must be true to ourselves and our values. We have to watch ourselves and write the truth, even if, and especially when, no one is watching us from behind our backs. We’ve discussed truth, loyalty, forms of journalism, verification, independence, watchdog journalism, ideology, ethics, diversity, public forum, faith, and proportional and relevant journalism this semester in class. Each one of those topics applies to our profession, and as we’ve discussed each of them, I’ve learned how vital it is that we as journalists let our conscience dictate the method we use to go about practicing journalism.

If I do go into journalism, I’ve always known that I would do my best to be honest and fair in my work because of the religious and moral values I have. As I’ve focused more on that this semester, I’ve learned that not only Mormon reporters should be honest in their work; as a profession, all journalists must do honorable work. The public trust us – what we write, who we quote, and how we check sources and carry out our investigation on any given topic. No journalists can take advantage of that trust by misleading our readers. We would lose our credibility, reputation, and our readers if that were to happen. It would be better to be an honest journalist with no job than to be a journalist doing work that was untruthful and corrupt.

Groups 10, 11, and 12!

Blog Post #10: Journalism and Faith (Group 10)

                I think the parallels that can be found between journalism and religion are really interesting. The handout we were given highlights a few of them, and I’d like to discuss two:

·          “Both religion and journalism are disciplines that purport to seek truth, albeit often in different realms.”

o   People seek spiritual and eternal truth through their religion. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we seek the Lord’s truth through the words in our scriptures, from our prophets, and through the promptings of the Holy Ghost. We seek the truths of our spirits, of Heavenly Father’s plan for us, and of the scriptures so that we might know for ourselves the truth.

o   As journalists, we seek the truth of events in the world. We want to find out whether things people have said or done are true. We want to do our research behind a story so that we can tell the truth to our readers. I will argue that finding journalistic truth is not as satisfying as religious truth, but we can feel more confident in ourselves, our stories, and our profession as we discover the truth.

·         Many people about whom journalists write are inspired by their faith and use their faith in dealing with the challenges and tragedies they face.

o   As journalists, when we report on someone who is driven by their religious beliefs, I think we should cover that, if it contributes to our story. Religion is so controversial and taboo to the media, but I don’t think it should be that way. When finding the whole story, if a person we’re covering says they were driven by their beliefs, we should write that. We should report the truth according to who we’re covering, and we should cover all sides of an issue, and then let our audience form their own decisions. If religion is involved, we should let people make their own opinions on it.

On Faith, Journalism, and Having Faith in Journalism:

http://www.concernedjournalists.org/faith-journalism-and-having-faith-journalism

Think Again: “Faith-Based” Journalism:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/05/b684443.html

Journalism: A Faith in Decline?

http://www.getreligion.org/2006/01/journalism-a-faith-in-decline/

Blog Post #11: Comprehensive and Proportional Journalism (Group 11)

                Demographics. That word carries a lot of weight. You have men and women, upper, middle, and lower class, teenagers, 18-25 year olds, people in retirement, Caucasians, African Americans, Asians, Mormons, Jews, Atheists, educated, non-educated, urban, rural…I could go on and on. I’ve always wondered about demographics, and how a news station decides who or what they want to target. Does the owner of the station choose? I’m sure they make their decision based on who other stations are targeting, but to what extent? In class, this group had all of the girls raise their hands, and all the students who were 18 or 19 raise their hands, and they got candy. The boys 20 years old and older didn’t get anything. I had never thought of people in other demographics being “left out” when they are not being targeted by a TV channel, newspaper, or news station, but this little example in class opened up my mind a little bit. I suppose that if a news channel is targeted towards people between the age of 18 and 25, then many people under 18 or over 25 could feel like they don’t relate or care about the topics covered. If this was the case, that person would probably go elsewhere to find there news. The 18-25 news station would lose those viewers or readers – but I guess that’s the gamble you make when you choose to target one demographic.  If you tried to cover everything, people of all ages would not find interest in all of it, so they may all turn off the TV or put down the newspaper. When a station focuses on one group, they can get their full attention and loyalty.

                As journalists, we are supposed to report the news proportionally and comprehensively, which sounds great. But when we work at a station or paper that is aimed towards adults between 30 and 55 years old, your editor and your boss don’t want to see stories that are for audiences of all ages; they want to see stories that people between the ages of 30 and 55 would be interested in. So, what can we do? Within our targeted age group, we could cover a wide range of topics. As journalists, we can’t be responsible to every single citizen by writing stories that will please everyone; instead, we have to do the best we can within our demographic to present the news as proportionally as possible.

Who is Reading: A Question of Demographics

http://www.journalism.org/node/639

Newsmagazine Demographics: A Graying Market

http://www.journalism.org/node/575

Newspaper Websites Reach Key Demographics with High Quality Journalism

http://benton.org/node/50186

Blog Post #12: Engagement and Relevance in Journalism (Group 12)

                Should journalists give people what they need or what they want? We had a good discussion in class about this. People will pay and go out of their way to see information they want to know about – that’s why entertainment news and sports news make millions of dollars a year. And who are we, as journalists, to decide what citizens need to hear? Because we know more than others about the world? Because we’re smarter? Whose responsibility is it to point out exactly what people need to hear in order to be better citizens of this county? We might agree that American citizens should be informed about our country’s involvement in Libya, but there are probably thousands of 21-year-old Americans girls that would do nothing with that knowledge. Instead, they would rather go out and buy a hair product that Kim Kardashian tweeted about, or something like that. I’m totally playing the devil’s advocate here – I think there is information that people need to hear, and I think we come across that information in our research and work as journalists. As one student in class so eloquently put it, we must give people what they need in the way they want it.

                As we discussed in class, our purpose is to provide people with the information they need to live their lives. This brings up two challenges: first, how do we find the information that people need to live their lives, and second, how can we make it meaningful, relevant, and engaging for everyone? I think we, as budding journalists, can look to professionals who have been doing this for 30 years. They’ve seen how audiences respond to information we present. We can learn from their experience to know if a story or topic is really beneficial and necessary for people to hear, or if it’s just a topic we are personally passionate about and just think everyone needs to know about it. Kovach and Rosenstiel said, “Journalists must make the significant interesting and relevant,” (Elements of Journalism, pg. 187). To be a successful and good journalist, we must learn how to make “boring” but important topics interesting to our audience. We must learn to tie in big events or topics to things people care about. Again, I think we will learn and grow in our own experience to do these things and relate to our readers.

Relevant Journalism in the Digital Age:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2008/mar/03/relevantjournalismthedigita

 How public-service journalism can be viable, relevant and accountable in an age of disruptive technology:

http://www.rjionline.org/projects/creed-convo/stories/dc-event/index.php

Diversity and Public Forum in Journalism (Group 9)

This presentation began with a discussion of ancient Greek public forums. Citizens would gather together, sometimes in large arenas, and talk about politics. People would bring up issues that they were concerned about, and I’ve heard before that sometimes, the winning side would be chosen by who cheered the loudest. Politicians were able to hear concerns directly from their constituents, and the voices of average citizens could be heard by everyone in their city. Public forums are much the same today. We are able to gather and voice our opinions, and hear the opinions of others. Issues can be discussed and argued over. In a public forum, everyone has the chance to speak and make their opinions heard.

                With the emersion of new technology in the past decade, the nature of public forums has changed. A person can find any issue they want to talk about online, and they can find people to discuss it with. One of the best ways people can voice their opinions to others is by commenting on blogs, articles, and Internet sites. If someone reads something that they feel strongly about or completely disagree with, they can post a comment right at the bottom of the article, and they can do it anonymously so they won’t be blamed for it. This is good and bad – people are more willing to say exactly what they think if they don’t have to disclose their name, but they also are more likely to be rude and could overstep their boundaries, because it is anonymous and no one knows who they are. I think we, as members of the Church, especially see this online when we watch a Mormon Message on YouTube or do a Google search on Mormons. Every single time I read or watch something about the Church online, there are always rude, discouraging, and attacking comments about our religion. I remember specifically reading about Brandon Davies’ dismissal from the basketball team for violating the Honor Code on Deseret News, and under the article, there were about a hundred comments. Many of them were supportive of Davies and BYU for carrying out a punishment, but many comments were just slamming BYU and the Church for kicking a kid off the team “for sex.” 

                As journalists, citizens, and especially members of the Church, we can use public forums to share our beliefs and opinions, but we must act morally. I think that we must commit to only saying things online that we would also be willing to say into a microphone in front of a crowd at a town hall meeting. We must be honest and fair in our opinions and comments, and we must respect things that other people say, even if we don’t agree with them. We can stand up for what’s right by doing our research and being educated about topics before we discuss them publicly.

Is Journalism Losing Its Place in the Boisterous Public Forum?

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/101687/Is-Journalism-Losing-Its-Place-in-the-Boisterous-Public-Forum.aspx

BYU Basketball: Brandon Davies Violates Honor Code, Will Miss Rest of Season:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700114618/BYU-basketball-Brandon-Davies-violates-Honor-Code-will-miss-rest-of-season.html

The Ethics of Civic Journalism: Independence as the Guide:

http://www.poynter.org/uncategorized/2128/the-ethics-of-civic-journalism-independence-as-the-guide/

Ethics in Journalism (Group 8)

We as journalists have manner standards and ethics to adhere to. First and foremost, we must seek the truth and report it. Group 8 presented an example in class of the same news story that was presented in two different ways – one way it was delivered was very positive and simple, while the other was delivered in a negative and sarcastic tone with commentary added in. When writing the news and presenting it, we must do it as honestly and as morally as we can. If suspicious behavior is going on about a person we are talking about, we don’t have to report that – we just need to tell what the newsworthy information is that will benefit society.

            As journalists, we also must minimize harm. We talked about the Olympic athlete who died in Vancouver last year while doing a practice run on the luge. The video clip went viral online and was shown on television over and over again. I think journalists created more harm by showing that clip that was graphic and bothersome to so many people. They could have just said an athlete had died, without showing the video. Many would argue that people who are more sensitive and were so bothered by the video should not have watched it, but I feel like it was played so many times and on so many channels and Internet sites, that it was hard to get away from.

What are the Ethics of Online Journalism?

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/wiki/ethics/

Does New Media Require New Journalism Ethics?

http://www.reportr.net/2010/04/29/does-new-media-require-new-journalism-ethics/

The Ethics of Undercover Journalism:

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_ethics_of_undercover_journalism.php

                 

Watchdog Journalism (Group 7)

                An interesting point that was brought up in class was whether journalists, and investigative reporters in particular, have an obligation to serve as independent monitors of power. I think that those who hold office in the government, for example, should be held in check not only by each other (checks and balances), but by their constituents – normal citizens. We have a responsibility to monitor those who we choose to represent us in the government. The press also has an obligation to citizens to discover the stories, news, and find out what the truth is. We as journalists can help citizens to monitor power. I think the problem is that most citizens don’t know where to go or what to do to “keep their representatives in check.” Most of us would probably email our local representative and maybe join a Facebook group to make our opinions known. Citizens rely on journalists because they usually have connections, know who to talk to, and would probably have a better idea of the situation through their research and investigation. I think that journalists can continue to be loyal to all who read their work by finding the truth and reporting the news.

                Group 7 presented The Daily Universe article written last year that reported thousands of dollars of spending by BYUSA members. Most students thought the “secret” spending was wrong and were angry about it. The Daily Universe advisors, staff, and students got in trouble from the university for reporting such spending. Because The Daily Universe is a lab paper and run by the university, BYU had every right to get angry. However, I also believe that some investigative reporting is beneficial. It’s good for the public (BYU students, in this case) to know the truth behind where some of their tuition money is going. But I also think investigative reporting can go too far. The first example that comes to mind is WikiLeaks. I think American citizens should not be told top secret information that the government can take of themselves. We put people in office to take care of those kinds of things. Journalists must face a fine line between investigation that will provide meaningful information for those who read their work and that will harm or lead to negative consequences. We must do what we believe to be right and honest as we investigate.

Today’s Investigative Reporters Lack Resources:

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special01/0528bolles-stateofreporting.html

How Investigative Journalism Is Prospering in the Age of Social Media:

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special01/0528bolles-stateofreporting.html

Investigative Reporting in the Web Era:

http://whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/internet/investigative-reporting-in-the-web-era

Journalism as an Ideologue (Group 6)

 

                On the handout we were given in class, there is a quote by Jaap van Ginneken: “Most global media organizations are primarily geared to the interests and views of audiences in the G-7, the largest Western nations. What they consider objective and true may very well see rather subjective and questionable to audiences in many non-Western nations,” (Mind of a Journalist, pg. 63). Ginneken made the point that most of the news in the world is targeted towards large nations, while many smaller countries don’t receive news that was written for them. In class, we were put in groups and asked to choose which of the topics/events on the handout we would report on. As far as world news, my group chose to report on how oil prices are affected by the Lybian protests, and the LDS humanitarian responses to the New Zealand quake. We chose those two topics because of the relevance they have to a local audience. We were writing the news for residents of Provo, so we thought those topics would interest people here. After thinking about what Ginneken said, I think about Libya and New Zealand themselves. I’m sure there are journalists in those countries who are trying to report the news as it occurs for Libyans and New Zealanders themselves, but I wonder, to what extent? Do we as journalists have a responsibility to report the news only for our direct audience, or can we write for audiences around the world?

                In class, we also talked about whether or not our American ideologies is blocking the whole truth, or part of the truth, that we are reporting on? The example of terrorism was brought up. I think that to some extent, our vision of terrorism could be clouded. Because of 9/11 and other terrorist threats, terrorism is a very personal and relevant topic that Americans have strong opinions about. I think that sometimes, our ideologies about terrorism may affect how journalists report on the Middle East or Muslims. As budding journalists, we must learn how to leave our biases and judgments at the door when we walk into work so that we can report the news truthfully.

How Web Journalism Can Make People Seem Hateful:

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-16/tech/internet.journalism.politics_1_andrew-breitbart-shirley-sherrod-racist-remarks?_s=PM:TECH

Why Mainstream Media Reporters Are Beneath Contempt:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/why-mainstream-media-reporters-are-beneath-contempt.html

Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to the Right: On the Actual Ideology of the American Press

http://archive.pressthink.org/2010/06/14/ideology_press_p.html

Verification and Journalism

I think a very important factor of journalism is to be as transparent as possible. Reporters should tell their audience where they are getting their information and facts. It is fine to say that you got a quote from an anonymous source, but it’s important to specify something about that source so readers know that it is credible. When I read a quote in an article that has no source or does not sound legitimate, I don’t take the article, the author, or the newspaper (or form of news) seriously. As the handout says, journalists have the right to be biased, but they must consistently test their information by seeking out multiple witnesses or disclosing as much information as possible.     Journalism is set apart from other forms of communication, such as propaganda, fiction, and entertainment because journalists are loyal to verifying their information. The public holds them responsible to this, and I think biased journalists are even more responsible to their audience to check their facts before they make broad statements.

                The WikiLeaks are an interesting example of journalistic verification. Reporters should be as transparent as possible, but I don’t think the public needs to know the secret operations and actions of the government that were disclosed with the WikiLeaks. All we know as citizens is that an anonymous source who works for the government gave the media the information found in the WikiLeaks. Although I do not doubt the truth of the documents, I think we need to be careful in accepting them as they are. We do not know very much about the source, and because of the suspicious and secretive nature of the information, I do somewhat question the credibility of the journalism that was displayed by the organization that published the WikiLeaks.

How WikiLeaks Outsourced the Burden of Verification:

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/how_wikileaks_outsourced_the_b.php

Verification in Journalism in the Age of Real-Time Tweets:

http://www.reportr.net/2010/04/30/verification-in-journalism-in-the-age-of-real-time-tweets/

Toward a New Journalism With Verification:

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/100292/Toward-a-New-Journalism-With-Verification.aspx