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. 

The Objective One

"Certainly you have opinions – all human beings have their personal opinions. But it is the ideal of journalism that we strive for objectivity so we can best present the positions of people around all parts of the debate to our public so the public can make their own decisions about these issues."  This quote by NPR CEO Vivian Schiller, found in the article at http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Editorial-Board-Blog/2010/1022/Juan-Williams-firing-Does-journalism-need-more-objectivity-or-more-transparency, seems to bring us full circle back to the first day of class when we discussed that the purpose of the journalist is to inform the public so that they are capable of making their own decisions.  Apparently, the key to a journalist fulfilling this obligation is through objectivity. As an aspiring journalist, I suppose that first I, along with other aspiring journalists, ought to first understand what objectivity is.  According to our book, The Elements of Journalism, the new definition of objectivity includes thoroughness, accuracy, and fairness.  Objectivity encompasses a sort of reporting in which you simply show people your facts – you then allow them to make discoveries for themselves. 

I find myself wondering, however, if objectivity is really possible.  I found this quote by David Brooks to be quite interesting: “I think there is truth out there and that objectivity is like virtue; it’s the thing you always fall short of, but the thing you always strive toward.”  (See the article at http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/media/me0054.html)  I also thought it was interesting to compare the ways that Brooks’ article with the ones the group presented to us in class.  The presentation gave us points such as never adding anything that was not originally there, never deceiving the audience, being as transparent as possible, relying on our own original reporting, and exercising humility.  Brooks, on the other hand, gave steps for objectivity including suspending judgement while looking at the facts, being modest, being able to process data, being able to betray friends, being able to overlook stereotypes, and being willing to sometimes be a little dull. Personally, I find that the steps from the book seem to be a little more predictable and doable.  Brooks tips are sort of nerve-wracking but plausible. 

Yet, it makes me wonder how objective I really want to be.  Do I really want to be able to betray my friends?  I certainly do not want to be dull.  But, this is the calling I have chosen in life, one that might just require some betrayal and occasionally a lack of excitement in my writing.  By no means do I expect myself to be perfect, but like everything else, even when objectivity is the last thing I want to strive towards, I will have the ever-burning desire to be successful, and therefore, to my editor’s delight, I will find my ways to be objective.

Journalists: a storyteller, a historian, and an actor

            This week, we had the immense pleasure of getting to hear from Don Meyers in our class.  Meyers explained that journalists have a different worldview – that they are storytellers at hear, historians with a sense of justice, and they try to understand how government works and point it out when it isn’t.  I particularly appreciated his comparison of journalists to storytellers, because this is how I see myself.  To me, the world is a big picture book, waiting to be explored, have all the little flaps lift up, and the stories behind each color, shape, and person uncovered.  The world is a fascinating place and my goal is to uncover it and tell everyone about what I find.  Also, journalists are historians both in that they have to be informed on history to make a point, and in the fact that they are making history with each word they write. 

            Meyers also said that journalists are forced to ask the hard questions of how and why.  This can be a pain – it would often be so much easier to leave a story at the simple facts, and most readers would not think anything of it.  It is so important, however, to figure out why the story really matters and to report it to the public so that they can be free and self-governing. I found these two journalists practices of interviewing highly interesting:  http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=676 (refer particularly to the 2^nd paragraph) and http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspotting/archives/2006/05/why_journalists_1.html.  This second article made a point that I had never before considered.  This author said that journalists should act ignorant when conducting interviews because the person they are interviewing most likely knows more than they do.  I raise the question, however, would interviewees be more apt to give information to someone that seems less able than they or to someone that seems like an intellectual equal who would appreciate the information they share?  Any thoughts?

Ah, how journalism is changing

            This week’s group presentation brought up an interesting point.  A quote by Nick Clooney states “if it comes down to a matter of loyalty, my loyalty will be to the person who turns on the television set.”  This is, ideally, a great idea.  I raise the question, however, of how valid this is for the general community of journalists.  I think it would be fabulous if all journalists truly wrote for what the public wanted and needed to hear.  But all too often, especially in an economy like the one we’re in today, I would expect journalists to find themselves writing for their editors; or, writing what the high-paying advertisers want to see in order to get their advertisements and money.  Now, I may stand corrected.  Perhaps I am just cynical. Perhaps I am wrongly under the impression that many journalists are evil and will give us only the information convenient for them to give us.  I may very well be wrong, but maybe all us journalists need to take a step back and look at the reasons we are truly writing those articles.

"We have to remember that, at the very end, the paper and the word are the core business and the strength of print media. Focusing on words means ability to give readers the background and the depth analysis when conveying meaning of what happens more powerfully and exactly than moving pictures. In today's turbulent world, the quality newspapers' capability of explaining what is happening, what is behind the news and where does it lead us will be the real strength of our operations."

(http://www.wan-press.org/ce/previous/2001/congress.forum/forum/valkaaja.html)

            Another interesting concept is the effects of the ownership of multiple companies by news organizations.  For example, I would reference http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main. This website lists media conglomerates – something I never realized was so huge.  Disney owns ABC, ESPN, Good Morning America, and ESPN Magazine, to name a few.  This severely limits the information that Disney can cover.  It also limits what viewers that view these programs will see.  When one views something produced by one of the many branches of Disney-owned corporations, they will be bombarded with Disney propaganda.  Is this necessarily a bad thing though? As more media companies combine, we are able to get more accurate media.  This is because these companies are highly successful so they can afford to do more extravagant and in-depth research and better coverage.  If all we had was thousands of small, independent companies, our news would be terribly scattered and diverse.  So, although massive organizations like Disney might bring us a slightly more biased coverage, is it necessarily detrimental? You decide for yourself.