Tips for Journalists

For this week’s class, we had a substitute professor, Professor Walton.  I really enjoyed this class, as Professor Walton seemed to summarize everything we had learned and gave us advice pertaining to real-life application.  First, we discussed the rights and responsibilities that citizens have in relation to journalism, as outlined in our book.  They are as follows:
1) Truthfulness

2) Loyalty to citizens

3) Independence

4) Monitoring of power

5) A public forum, and

6) Proportionality and engagement

Walton discussed some issues that we will face as journalists.  For example, there may  be a difference in our view of what is important to cover as a journalist, and what the audience feels is important for us to cover.  Events such as social occurrences with celebrities may seem pertinent to a large portion of the audience, but less important to the journalist community.  I found more about this at this website: http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=CBA5B462B837E8A6A0EA16F91B66A47D.inst1_3a?docId=5002500348.    To be good journalists, we have to balance this difference in perception – giving the audience the information they desire, while maintaining the respect and dignity we hold as journalists.

Finally, Professor Walton gave us a few tips on how to be a good journalist.  First, we need to care about our audience.  We will be able to work hard and work well most efficiently for an audience we care for.   Going along with this point, we need to understand the gap between ourselves and our audience and listen.  I found some really good insight on this point at http://www.audiencescapes.org/development-organizations-and-journalists-tips-getting-along-women-deliver-media-development-population-reference-bureau.  Finally, like all things in life, Walton told us to rely on inspiration of the Spirit in the work force.  I think that these three tips can help members of many professions. 

Reaction to "Most Dangerous Man in America"

For this weeks class, we were assigned to watch "The Most Dangerous Man in America," a movie exploring the release of the Pentagon Papers and the man who released them.  I actually really liked this movie.  It was interesting to see the public's reaction versus the reaction of the government, and what led to Daniel Ellsberg deciding to leak the papers... I would highly recommend this movie if you have about an hour and a half on your hands!! Here's my thoughts on a few questions we were asked to respond to:

      In your view, what is the legacy of the government actions documented in the Pentagon Papers?  How have such actions influenced democracy and trust of government in the United States?

o       I think that the legacy in the Pentagon Papers was a legacy of secrecy.  Granted, the government may have had perfectly valid reasons for keeping these documents secret. With the leak of the papers, however, the public learned that there were things that were being kept from them, decisions that the government, head of a democratic republic – which focuses on people having a hand in the government – were making behind closed doors.  This led to a general mistrust of government.  I think it has, for the most part, simmered down now and people typically find themselves able to trust the government, but there is always that stigma with politics that politicians are deceptive and sometimes lie to the public to achieve the image they desire.

      While being interviewed by television journalist Walter Cronkite, Ellsberg says the lesson he took away from his experience with the Pentagon Papers was that “the people of this country can’t afford to let the president run the country by himself without the help of Congress, without the help of the public.”  How would you define the lesson or lessons of the Pentagon Papers and the events surrounding their release to the public?

o       I would agree with Ellsberg in that the lesson to be learned from the Pentagon Papers is that the government often needs the public’s help to run the country.  The government would tell the public that the war was going well, better than expected, even.  Yet, in private meetings, they would say that there was no way they could see the U.S. winning the war.  This indicates to me that they should not have been keeping this secret from the public, as this is a situation that severely demanded the help and support of the public.  Another lesson I learned from this occurrence, mainly from the public’s reaction to the release of the Papers, was that the public respects truth, even when it isn’t good news.  I was impressed with the part of the movie that showed the public protecting Ellsberg from getting arrested at the time that he made the announcement that he leaked the papers.  The public was so glad to have this news that they were willing to protect the deliverer.

      What role or roles did media play in Ellsberg’s success and/ or lack of success in stopping the bombing and, ultimately, the war in Vietnam?  How do media actions then compare to media war coverage now?  How did the Pentagon Papers change the role of the media in the United States?

o       I think that the media coverage helped significantly in stopping the bombing and the war.  In all of the histories of our country’s wars, we find that one of the main tools used is propaganda – both to raise support and to lessen it.  The media placed a huge spotlight on Ellsberg, which quickly spread his views, rallied support in them, and raised the action necessary to give his views action.  I find the media coverage on war now to be very similar.  The way the media portrays things like the war in Iraq today has a great influence on public opinion, whether for the better, or for the worse.  The Pentagon Papers developed the role that the media has to keep a closer eye on the media, to ensure that they aren’t keeping secrets from the public or doing things that the public would protest (although sometimes, this isn’t as successful as one might like).

      Max Frankel (New York Times Washington bureau chief during the Pentagon Papers era) reflects on his newspaper’s Supreme Court victory, saying, “The cry of national security does not justify censorship in advance.”  In your view, under what circumstances do journalists have the right or responsibility to reveal classified information and under what circumstances do journalists have the right or responsibility to reveal classified information and under what circumstances should they refrain from doing so?  Under what circumstances, if any, should they be prohibited from doing so by the government or by law?

o       When the issue has a large impact on the way the public would/ should lead their lives, journalists have a right to reveal this information.  They should refrain from revealing classified information if they are only doing it to gain popularity, readership, or other personal or company benefits.  The government should be able to prohibit the press from publishing if the situation puts another in harm – for example, if the release of classified information would endanger members of the government or keep them from doing their job, there is greater harm than benefit in the release of these papers.  

      In your view, what would the effect on a free press have been if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the Nixon administration and prohibited newspapers from publishing the Pentagon Papers, or if after publication The New York Times had been prosecuted under the Espionage Act?

o       It would not have lasted.  We saw how passionate the press was about protecting Ellsberg because of his leakage of the Pentagon Papers.  Clearly, the press was pleased with Ellsberg’s actions and upset with the government.  If the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Nixon and against the Pentagon Papers, there would have been enough of a public uproar to demand a change.  If The New York Times had been prosecuted, there would have likewise been enough of an outrage in the public to either repeal the ruling punishing the Times or at least keep any other paper from getting punished as well.  

      In your view, would today’s major news media outlets be likely to make public the type of classified documents that The New York Times and other newspapers were handed in 1971?  Why or why not?

o       We have a perfect example demonstrating this with the new WikiLeaks.  If classified documents are released, the newspapers will jump on this – it will both increase their readers and get the information out to the public.  I do believe, however, that the papers would filter the leaks they receive.  Using the WikiLeaks example, there were hundreds of leaks posted.  But, the Times, and other papers publishing them, I would assume, have filtered through them and are only publishing the ones with great significance to the public or current events.  

Tough Decisions

Sometimes, particularly when it comes to your occupation, it is tough to do what is right.  Oft times, it’s easier to just take the easy way out.  But, it doesn’t pay.  Take, for example, the story of Jayson Blair.  A young journalist working for the New York Times, Blair immediately began producing front-page stories.  His stories were captivating and had incredible details.  Other journalists, however, were cautious of his work and in the end, it was found out that Blair was making up details or taking them from other stories and using them in his pieces.  Needless to say, he lost his job along with the credibility of his name.  For the time, it certainly was simple for Blair to produce these “brilliant” stories with the hope that no one would figure out his secret.  Taking the unethical path was nice at the time, but ended up hurting Blair.

                Now, let’s look at some journalists who went about things the ethical and sometimes difficult way.  When Natalee Holloway disappeared in 2005, it was all over the news.  Then, Bob Costas producers informed him that they wanted him to cover it.  Costas said he did not want to because the case was already being widely covered and there was no need for him to do this story.   (Read more about Costas opinions at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/arts/television/24cost.html?_r=1&ref=natalee_holloway ) When his producers insisted, Costas respectfully declined to do the show.   In 1997, WMAQ-TV anchors Carol Marin and Ron Magers were informed that Jerry Springer would be joining them as another anchor.  Concerned for the prospect of broadcast journalism and realizing that this was just being done for popularity, the two decided that if Springer was to be hired, they would leave the team.  So, when their producers insisted on hiring Springer, the two soon aired their last show.  (Read more about this situation at http://www.richsamuels.com/nbcmm/era.html) With both the case of Costas and the case of Marin and Magers, the decisions were very hard to make and threatened their careers.  Yet, both of the stories ended with supporters lauding them online.  It’s true – sometimes it’s tough to make the correct and ethical decision in your job; but, in most cases, you will in the end be rewarded.  The world wants an honest and ethical media, so making the honest and ethical choices will in the end bring support from the public.

Reaction to Symposium

Being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is expected that my religion will have some semblance of an impact in all aspects of my life.  My career is no exception to this.  Attending the symposium on the Church Public Relations and the Press on November 12^th, however, truly opened my eyes even more as to how religion would play in my professional future.  Prior to attending the symposium, I saw my religion as just another aspect of my personality, one more thing that would aid with diversity in the news room and give me extra knowledge on particular issues.  I expected that I would be judged by coworkers, employers, and readers because of common misconceptions on my religion.  The speakers at the symposium I attended offered many more views, both positive and negative, on the role of my religion in the journalism world.

                One thing I, in my naivety, had not previously recognized was that my religion would not give me any advantage in getting comments from church authorities.  The authorities are well aware of how the media will act and they know how to act fairly to all representatives of the media.  Also, like with all popular figures, I will have to work with the church’s public relations.  As Bob Evans pointed out in the symposium, it is the job of the LDS Public Affairs to handle journalists – the fact of the matter is that sometimes they will be of help to us, and sometimes we will be forced to go around them.  Still, there are many benefits that come from being a member of the church when it comes to covering the church in the news.   For example, as pointed out by Jennifer Dobner of the Associated Press, to cover news on Mormons, you have to understand their culture, and to understand their culture, you must understand their theology.  There are also many opportunities that present themselves to journalists as the church evolves, which I will be able to be easily aware of as a member of the church.  Being aware of significant events such as temple open houses will give me an advantage in getting the stories I want.

                According to Jon Du Pres, one of the members of the panel at the symposium I attended, “if you can get by the middle man to the source of the story, you can get the story.”  My religion will most definitely present me will challenges in my future occupation.  But, I just need to look at it like the middle man – it is just one more obstacle that I am eager to overcome.  If I draw from the benefits my religion presents me with and also my own personal strengths, I will be able to produce wonderful stories and find success in my field.

Investigating and Taking Sides

“The aim of art is not to represent the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.”  This quote by Aristotle can be taken with regards to journalism, as well as its original intention towards art.  The group presentation in class this last week shared a statistic that 9 out of 10 readers believe the press keeps the government from doing things they shouldn’t do.  This is largely because of the journalist’s watchdog duty, in which they reveal the “inward significance” of things.  Through the different forms of investigative journalism, journalists are able to uncover meaning of social occurrences for their readers.  A quote by Finley Peter Dunne says that a journalist’s duty is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”  (See this quote at http://www.great-quotes.com/quote/28902)  This quote doesn’t exactly accurately state the true purpose of journalism, but it does highlight the point that journalists need to watch over the powerful few.  Journalists have this capability, and therefore they ought to make it their obligation to do all they can to uncover unethical occurrences in society – taking the outward appearances of current events and discovering what is truly significant about them. 

                This job, however, is oft times easier said than done.  This video, http://wp.koaa.com/gcotton/?p=284, which was shared by the group that presented this week, shows Bob Woodward and his tips on this sort of Investigative Journalism.  One of the points that Woodward makes is that journalist need to actively investigate their sources – rather than simply accepting the documents they have.  I really appreciated what Professor Campbell said in regards to this.  He said that we need to get out of the newsroom and off the Internet and start walking around and talking to people.  All too often, we hear about journalists who don’t do their homework and simply write a story based off of a few documents they receive.  I ask my fellow journalists – how does this happen?  Don’t people pursue journalism because they have the juices of curiosity, investigation, and desire for truth flowing through their veins?  Shouldn’t journalists have a passion for truth and therefore want nothing more than to get off the Internet and discover a true story, something that will have a legitimate impact on society? 

                Journalism ought to be, as the presenters pointed out, a free and independent press that holds people accountable.  We can afflict the comfortable in the sense that those comfortable with unethical practices will know that we are out to find them, and clear up their wrong-doings.  And, we can comfort the afflicted.  The members of the society that we cover should know that we will hold those around them accountable.  We, as journalists, only take one side – the side of truth.

To Reveal or Not to Reveal

This week’s class looked at independence and journalism.  I really appreciated the way that the presenters looked at why an opinion writer is still a journalist, unlike (most of the time) a blog writer.  They pointed out that, while opinion journalists are blunt about their opinions and take an obvious stand on an issue, they still do report on the topic through research and verification of facts.  Therefore, opinion journalists should still be respected the way any journalist is.  They work hard at what they do and bring to society a widely enjoyed and oft times favored part of one’s daily newspaper.

Another point brought up was whether or not one ought to reveal their beliefs to their audience.  The question was raised: is it a journalist’s duty to reveal their personal beliefs to their audience?  An interesting point of view is presented in the article found at http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=4073.  Here a quote by former Philadelphia Inquirer Executive Editor President James M. Naughton is shared:  “If you go buy a car, you don’t care how they made it.  You care whether it’s safe and attractive and maybe whether it gets good gas mileage.  We used to feel it was self-indulgent to focus on how a story gets done.”  And perhaps, Mr. Naughton, it is self-indulgence.  I, however, would argue that sometimes self-indulgence is acceptable.  May I refer to the part of the quote that states: “you care whether it’s safe and attractive.”  The issue, in my opinion, with this stance is that there are countless brilliant journalists out there that can make even the most ludicrous information appear “safe and attractive.”  A few weeks ago, we discussed the issue between realism and reality.  Readers know what they want to read and it is easy for a talented writer to give them just that, which is safe.  Embellished or intelligent writing is good, but when used inappropriately, attractive is all it is.  It’s like a boyfriend (or girlfriend)– sure, it’s great when he’s attractive.  But, there’s got to be something underneath those chiseled biceps and sparkling eyes.  Same thing goes with the news story – if a journalist can make their story attractive, that is a wonderful talent and it should be recognized.  Within that pretty language, however, there should be a good story with meaning and truth. 

Relating this back to independence and informing one’s readers of their views, I think that writer’s should inform their readers of their backgrounds, beliefs, and motives, but only to a reasonable extent.  No, we do not care if you prefer blue shirts because they make your eyes stand out or if your favorite fruit is pears.  We do care, however, if you are being funded by another organization to take a certain stance.  An article at http://cursor.org/about/themoney.php says that “Media Transparency is the most complete resource available for providing research data and information about the money behind the conservative movement.”  While this article is in specific reference to a certain movement, I believe it applies elsewhere as well.  If a journalist is being funded by a specific party or faction, they will write as such, and their readers deserve to know this.  Citizens are not dumb – they know that it is impossible to be completely unbiased and therefore everything they read will have a bias of some sort.  Likewise, we discussed the issue of things like religious pieces – say, a Mormon writing an article on Mormons.  Yes, the author should reveal their religion.  This should be considered a good thing, though.  Clearly, a Mormon would be more accurate about Mormons than a non-Mormon would.  They probably will have some element of a bias in there, as any human being would, but as a professional they would be able to cover the story in a way that gives the readers accurate information from both sides of the story through things such as interviews from multiple sources.