Blog Essay Week 11

EJ Chapter Eight

Diana Sugg’s criticism about journalists giving up too soon resonated with me. When one possible source says he or she does not have anything to say, I am guilty of not pursuing the story. I think this is a problem for journalists because of deadline. While Suggs was able to work on her pediatric palliative care story for two years, many reporters are constantly working under the pressure of getting something published based on a daily, weekly or monthly timeframe.

Putting this aside, I think the seventh principle, “Journalists must make the significant interesting and relevant,” is important to the future of our field. Giving people what they need versus what they want is an issue I continue to struggle with. When we looked at NewsWhip last week, the differences were evident between what journalists thought people needed to know and what people wanted to know.

However, there were publications where the content stayed the same.  This included The Guardian, where a story about meat-rich diets was featured prominently on both front pages. Does there have to be a dichotomy between engaging and relevant?

I appreciate how Kovach and Rosenstiel framed information and storytelling as points on a communication continuum. Ukraine ordering troops to withdraw from Crimea is a particular piece of information, but the storytelling component comes in with background details, such as the activities of Russian forces as they seize Ukrainian ships and military installations in the region. By taking into consideration the factual information, as well as a narrative structure for providing these facts, a journalist can create a strong story.

This idea can also be described as storytelling with a purpose. While I do not think it is difficult for journalists to provide information people need to live their lives, I do think journalists and editors struggle to make this information meaningful and engaging.

Upon visiting the CNN website, I was immediately struck by the headline “528 Muslim Brotherhood supporters sentenced to death in Egypt.” While I have no connections to Egypt or the Muslim Brotherhood, I am baffled by this large number of people who will soon lose their lives. One semiofficial source said this was the largest death sentence charge in Egypt’s modern history. This story is meaningful because it may signify a more violent Egypt in the future. Instead of focusing solely on what led to the charges, reporter Schams Elwazer put this announcement in perspective.

Kovach and Rosenstiel refer to various problems for why many journalists are failing to report stories in a compelling manner. I think two of the main problems are formula and haste. From our introductory journalism courses, we are taught how to write stories using the inverted pyramid. While this formula allows the important information to be featured at the top, it is easy for reporters to simply plug information in without worrying about making it interesting.

Not to call out the Alligator, but sometimes their articles lack substance. The paper published a story about two men being arrested for possession of cocaine and marijuana. Instead of explaining why this is relevant to Gainesville residents or whether this is indicative of a trend in the area, the story provided the basic who, what, where and when. Is this a result of the newspaper being on deadline or is it the result of focusing on a particular writing style?

It is easy to claim that audiences are suffering from shorter attention spans, but a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism revealed how local television stories that last for more than two minutes gain audience, as compared to those less than 45 seconds losing audience share. While I cannot say newspaper readers want to solely read stories that are at least 1,000 words, 400-word blurbs barely scratch the surface.

Reading part of the transcript from Barbara Walters interview of Monica Lewinsky was painful, but it was excruciating to watch parts of the segment during my media and politics course. I do not care whether Bill Clinton is a good kisser or a passionate man. I care whether he should have been impeached based on perjury and other wrongdoing.

On that evening in 1999, Walters was not acting as a journalist. She was serving in an interviewing role as a means to an end. Through her interview, ABC was able to earn high ratings, and Lewinsky was able to bring attention to her new book. However, the important group that was left out of the equation was the audience.

It is easy to focus my disdain on ABC, but they are not the only media organization that has acted like a tabloid for coverage of certain topics. It is upsetting that Time and Newsweek were seven times more likely to have the same cover as People magazine in 1997 as compared to 1977.

Interested in finding out a story both People and Time are currently reporting on? That would be the “life-altering” news that Mila Kunis and Ashton Kutcher are expecting a baby. The Time article even references an unnamed “friend” who confirmed the news to People. While People and Time are both part of the Time Inc. family, the company should leave the celebrity news to People.

While audiences might want to read about celebrities and whether they are expecting, research shows that these are not the only stories readers and viewers are interested in. Where will people go if more news organizations continue to pump out entertainment and trivia instead of substantive news?

In addition, if people do continue to look to a particular organization for news, will they trust their coverage of more serious topics? While I enjoy reading USA Today, it is difficult for me to fully trust their story about the Texas City oil spill impacting the local economy when the pregnancy of Kunis is featured more prominently on the website’s front page. Let’s leave the pregnancy discussion to Perez Hilton.

USA Today, can I trust you if you focus on infotainment?

In my weekly discussion question, I ponder whether journalists should receive continuing education. I also wonder whether a mentoring relationship should exist between more experienced reporters and those fresh out of school. While the recent graduates can teach the older reporters about technology, the wisdom of experience cannot be underrated in this industry.

It is almost comical to me how publications think color, design and layout will make all the difference in attracting readers. While a nicely laid out newspaper or website is pleasant to look at, it is only the cherry on top of the sundae. The three scoops of mint chocolate chip ice cream, whipped cream and hot fudge constitute the compelling and engaging content.

It was interesting to hear the various weaknesses present in conventional journalistic storytelling. I especially take issue with stories not illuminating a greater meaning. A recent Associated Press article posted to Ocala.com discusses Gov. Rick Scott’s new advertisement that attacks Charlie Crist for his position on health care. Instead of delving into the implications of negative advertisements for the gubernatorial election in November, the article links to and describes the ad.  As people who reside in Florida, we will see the advertisement, so space should have been devoted to the background of this issue and why it is a source of contention for Scott and Crist.

Of the four questions journalists should ask themselves when pursuing a story, I think the most critical question asks about who is the audience for this story and what information do these people need to know to make up their own minds about the subject. Journalists need to put themselves in the shoes of audience members. I think reporters often take readers and viewers for granted and do not consider what people will find interesting, as well as what they will find helpful when looking at a particular issue. If we do not provide the facts and analysis to help people decide on important policy issues, aren’t we failing at one of our primary duties?

Journalists must also return to their storytelling roots. I will never forget reading excerpts of Thomas French’s Pulitzer Prize-winning “Angels and Demons” series.

Through interviews with the family and members of law enforcement, French wrote a story about the murders of Jo, Michelle and Christe Rogers. While this is a tragic story, the sources came across as genuine people, not simply names on a page. “A born-again Christian, the sergeant carried a Bible in his briefcase. He had no doubt that both heaven and hell were real.” This writing allowed me to feel connected to the sergeant and other characters throughout the series.

As journalists look to engage the audience, I think it is vital to pursue a variety of approaches. I think the Atlantic does a fantastic job of making the news engaging and relevant. Their recent profile about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg introduced me to a whole other side of this person who I only typically encounter when doing research or studying. Garrett Epps described Ginsburg, who has successfully fought colon and pancreatic cancer, as a “woman warrior with the body of a sparrow and the heart of a lion.” Give me more articles like this any day.

Until reading this chapter, I had never heard the phrase “being on the nose.” However, I often feel journalists over-explain the simple, while they do not clarify the complex, which leads to confusion. In a New York Times article about the euro zone’s economy, I read how “Markit’s composite index of economic activity, based on a survey of purchasing managers, showed a reading of 53.2 for March, down slightly from 53.3 in February.” The article goes on to explain how a reading of 50 or above indicates growth, while a result below 50 demonstrates regression. Ultimately, why does a 0.1 change make a difference? Does this difference indicate real, observable change? After finishing the article, my questions remain unanswered.

Character and detail in the news should also not be overlooked. The New Yorker is one publication that truly succeeds in this regard. Author and journalist Malcolm Gladwell uses incredible detail that helps the characters jump right off the page.  In an article about Clive Doyle’s memoir, Gladwell writes, “The Doyles were neither wealthy nor well educated. Clive Doyle’s mother worked in a garment factory. His father had left before he was born. Doyle once came home from Sunday school and solemnly greeted his mother with: ‘You’ve shaken hands with a servant of the Lord.’ He writes, ‘I was two or three years behind everybody. I was never in the ‘in’ crowd in school.’” Instead of saying Doyle’s mother worked at a factory, and he was behind in school, Gladwell gives life to the characters.

I like the cautionary tale that Kovach and Rosenstiel end the chapter with. While it is easy to paint characters in a narrative a certain way, storytelling by reporters should be rooted in fact. We will leave the make-believe to J.K. Rowling and Veronica Roth.

ME Chapter Nine

Journalist is no longer a term only applied to those with a journalism or communications degree. Citizens with Twitter accounts and camera phones can just as easily bear the title. While this person may not receive a Pulitzer Prize, CNN recognizes citizens for their efforts by awarding iReport Awards.

When discussing the power of citizen journalism, the Arab Spring must come to the forefront. During this revolution, people used social media to unite and fight against dictators. While digital media can serve as an effective forum for bringing people together, it also has limitations. Unfortunately, citizen journalism is faltering in areas where it was so successful during the revolutions in 2011 because some voices have been silenced and those who continue to post may have ulterior motives.

When my cohort and I interviewed Kelly McBride about the citizen journalist movement, she thought the terms were redundant. In her mind, we are all citizens with the ability to do journalism. However, I like how Patterson and Wilkins characterize the role of many citizen journalists as “first informers.” These citizens are able to post the material quickly, but are they able to verify and provide context for what they have discovered?

As Kovach and Rosenstiel have said, “The essence of journalism is a discipline of verification.” Journalists have a duty and responsibility to tell the truth, and ordinary people may not hold themselves to as strict of standards.

To me, citing sources comes as second nature. If I am guilty of anything, I tend to over-attribute to people I have talked to or documents I have utilized. Reporters are expected to be “Swiss Army knife” journalists. To Meg Heckman, the web editor of the Concord Monitor, this means they “need to know a little bit of everything.” Journalists are not expected to be experts on every topic, but they should know the proper sources to contact, as well as how to properly give these contacts credit.

While I see the positives of creating a newsfeed that contains news tailored solely to my tastes, I do not think this is a direction we should be heading in. What if someone only wanted to read news from his or her local area or state? What if another person only wanted to hear about domestic topics, while wanting to ignore events and changes occurring on an international scale? We must remember the first principle of journalism that states, “The primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing.” This information needs to include stories from outside one’s area of expertise or knowledge to facilitate learning and community discussion.

Technology makes many aspects of our lives as journalists easier, but it does not eliminate all of our problems. Sourcing is one area where ethical issues continue to arise in both the print and digital arenas. A UPI article begins “Apple, according to unnamed sources, is considering launching a subscription based music streaming service, on account of declining music sales on iTunes.” While I understand how journalists can grant anonymity sparingly, it is difficult for me to view information as credible when I do not know the source.

Research demonstrates the “sleeper effect,” which says people disassociate the source from what is being said. However, when I see “unnamed source” or “important White House official who asked to remain anonymous,” I am immediately skeptical of what is being said. I want to know who is making these claims for Apple. Until I hear the news from Tim Cook, I will not hold my breath in anticipation.

When it comes to finding sources, the Internet is a tool that can connect journalists to a variety of people. While it seems like it would be a no-brainer to always identify oneself as a journalist even when lurking for material, it is a dilemma I am struggling with. Deceiving readers and viewers is a serious offense, but a journalist who identifies oneself as a reporter in a chat room or on a message board may miss out on something that its audience needs to know.

As I think this situation over, I think it is appropriate for journalists to remain unidentified when doing background research. However, if a journalist wants to directly quote a source, they should come forward as a reporter, not an anonymous user.

I do agree with Patterson and Wilkins that there are certain justifications for utilizing anonymity, including protecting sources from physical or emotional harm and keeping in mind their privacy.

Anonymity is also a major component of government and military coverage. While I am curious about which country the National Security Agency is recording all phone conversations in, I understand how this information cannot be revealed. However, I doubt Apple creating a new music-streaming service has any national security implications.

I have mentioned in previous posts how some stories are made more entertaining because of the comments various readers post. On Monday, The Telegraph featured a story about the remains of aborted and miscarried babies being disposed of as clinical waste, as well as being used to heat some hospitals.

While this article is controversial due to the subject manner, people were not afraid to voice their opinions in the comments section. One person using the handle JJ said, “The Democrats and American liberals out there must be wondering – ‘why didn’t we think of that?’” Another person who goes by Guesser said, “Why not, what else are you going to do with it? Save it? People act like it’s a dead baby or something, but aborted fetuses are not, and never were human beings. They are just medical waste.” No matter what your personal views are about abortion, it cannot be disputed that these readers are engaged with the news.

Link etiquette is one can of worms the Internet has opened up. Whenever I write my blog posts, I find helpful information from all different news organizations and websites. However, I do not feel like I can tell the whole story, so I link back to the original material. It is my way of giving credit to those who provide the thought-provoking information I enjoy blogging about.

It is interesting to consider the differences between the impact of the printing press versus the influence of the Internet on journalism. While the Internet allows journalists to reach a larger audience than its paper and ink counterparts, digital journalism is struggling to be financially solvent. Members of my generation have grown up with access to online news without paying, but I wonder how much longer this practice can continue. Would we rather pay or miss out on the quality reporting we have visited these online publications for?

In class, we have discussed the ability of citizen journalism to unite communities, like what is being done with ChicagoNow and HYPE Orlando. It is also helpful to think of citizen journalists as part of a “fifth estate.” However, I do not think we should look to citizen journalists as a replacement for professional reporters. As business mogul Warren Buffett once said, “The smarter the journalists are, the better off society is. For to a degree, people read the press to inform themselves – and the better the teacher, the better the student body.”

Page One: Inside the New York Times and Implications for New Media

Is the battle to get on A1 still as important today with the Internet?

This is one of many questions discussed in the film about how the New York Times and other members of the media are responding to the changes in the field of journalism.

In the 21^st century, we can celebrate citizen journalists and the skills they bring to the table. However, much of their work lacks information verification. The New York Times, which has been publishing since 1851, is still recognized as a “newspaper of record.” While the Jayson Blair and Judith Miller scandals impacted credibility, the publication continues to be recognized for its verification methods. We saw these techniques when the paper received material from Julian Assange.

Along with verification, the question arises of what a journalist’s values are. While professional journalists focus on accuracy, context and truth, are these same values held by citizen journalists and journalists working at Buzzfeed and Gawker?

While the New York Times continues to set the agenda for other publications and outlets, what will happen if it can no longer afford to pursue the reporting that readers have become accustomed to? Will it continue allowing a certain number of articles per month or will it follow the example set by the Wall Street Journal? I found it comical when a Denver resident said, “Well, I’m sorry the paper is going away, but I’ll still read you on the Internet.”

Will more publications institute a similar policy?

We have become accustomed to getting our news online for free, but publications are making a fraction of the ad sales on the Internet, as compared to what they were earning from print advertisements. In 2008, the New York Times even created a media desk to monitor changes of this nature happening in the media.

As we look to the future and consider new media roles, we have to think about aggregation. While the founder of Newser.com was quick to say how the American news business is “nothing to be proud of,” I loved it when David Carr showed how Newser would have no material to aggregate without publications, such as the New York Times.

Carr acknowledges how there is a disconnect between should not fail and cannot fail, but I think the New York Times, as long as it continues to innovate, will serve as a leader in the news community well into the future.

Case Study 9-A News Now, Facts Later

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

Many people anxiously awaited the Supreme Court’s summer 2012 decision about the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In years prior to 2012, the Court would often send copies of opinions to those involved in the litigation. However, it began to focus solely on placing the information on its website beginning in 2012. Many news organizations, including CNN and Fox, prepared to report on the results. CNN had worked to make sure they could reach people from as many portals as possible. Unfortunately, the Court’s website crashed as a result of so many people attempting to access it. In efforts to be one of the first ones to publish the results, CNN and Fox reported the act had been ruled unconstitutional. This information was sent out through various platforms, including RSS feeds and tweets. SCOTUSblog, a highly-rated publication particularly within the D.C. area, originally published how a decision had been reached. Tom Goldstein, the publisher of the blog, skimmed the decision before posting another announcement to the blog. Along with a colleague, Goldstein confirmed that the act had been upheld based on the U.S. Constitution’s tax clause. CNN, Fox and others were responsible for correcting their earlier reports.

2.) Weigh alternatives

This decision had and continues to have important effects on people all across the country. News outlets wanted to provide the information to readers and viewers, especially after the Court’s website crashed. However, these organizations had various choices. One option was to publish their initial findings as soon as possible, largely without verification of the results. This behavior was exhibited by CNN, where content was published during the time the onsite producer was on a conference call with network executives. Another option would have been to first publish how the Court had reached a decision. This could then be followed by the decision results after an understanding was reached. After both of these options, additional analysis could be completed for how the Court reached the decision, what this means for the American people, etc.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

“The early bird gets the worm,” may not always be the best mantra to follow in journalism. The media should have waited to confirm the Court’s decision before sending out its posts to all different platforms. People may not return to re-read a particular article, so it is difficult to reach all of the readers and viewers with a correction. In the past, corrections could be made on the network news because everyone was watching. However, people are constantly checking the news on their computers, phones and tablets. For journalists, it is much more important to be right than to be first. That first person posting may have the information wrong, which will result in the need for corrections and ensuing embarrassment. Ultimately, the best scenario would have involved an initial posting about how the Court had reached a conclusion. This would have been followed by whether the Court deemed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act constitutional or not. In addition, I think the media should have pursued a thorough analysis into how the decision was reached. While some people only want the result, many would also be interested in learning the background.

Case Study 9-B What’s Yours Is Mine: The Ethics of News Aggregation

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

Aggregation is a widely discussed topic, especially in recent times because of the growth of digital media. Jeffrey S. Levine, the director of content for the Hartford Courant characterized aggregation as “the process of synopsizing information from other news sources, most commonly by placing a portion of the information on your website and linking to the original story.” While it seems like this practice of identifying where the information comes from is ethical, sometimes reporters fail to cite where they received a story or information. In one unofficial audit of the Hartford Courant in 2009, it was discovered how 112 stories featured on the website were from several other competitors. Some of these stories were properly attributed, but some were not. Critics of aggregation align the practice with plagiarism. Kovach and Rosenstiel have said how aggregation may cause verification issues because the coverage may not distinguish fact from rumor and speculation. Should aggregation continue to be widely used? If so, should it be regulated?

2.) Weigh alternatives

As newsrooms continue to cut their staffs, aggregation serves as a way to publish content without incurring additional costs. One option is for publications to subscribe to wire services, such as the Associated Press. The AP provides content to its 1,500 daily newspaper members. With this option, content can be properly labeled as coming from the AP, Reuters, etc. However, some publications subscribe to these services, but they do not properly attribute the aggregated information. This is another option, but it is also risky because many consider this practice to be plagiarism. A third option is to engage in content-sharing arrangements with multiple publications. This practice has often been used in cities where rival newspapers can no longer afford to compete against one another.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

When addressing this issue of aggregation, it is important to consider Kant’s Categorical Imperative. This moral standard declares that a person should make decisions assuming these choices could become universal law. Humanity should be treated as an end, not as only a means of gaining something. When journalists choose to aggregate content, they should properly attribute and cite the material they are using. In addition, if they want access to the material of wire services, they should pay for it, instead of taking material from the Internet. If all journalists chose to ignore attribution, other news organizations would not be able to afford to cover these stories. People love Google News, but without actual news organizations like the New York Times and ABC News, the computer algorithms would have nothing to aggregate. Journalists should remember this the next time they summarize content without giving credit to the original source.

Discussion Question

Do you think journalists should continue their education on a periodic basis after receiving their degrees or certifications?

“Hairdressers have more continuing education than journalists.” This sentence from chapter eight in The Elements of Journalism stuck out in my mind. While I respect hairdressers for improving upon their skills through additional training, I wonder how much changes in this industry on a regular basis. New processes and products are probably introduced, but are major revolutions occurring? This is in contrast to journalism, which is facing monumental changes because of citizen journalism, digital technology, etc. With journalism students, it seems like many people get their degrees and feel like they are immediately prepared for their careers. While some students pursue a master’s degree, is this the proper preparation for all reporters? It would be helpful if journalists periodically took courses about ways to incorporate new technology into their reporting, as well as storytelling techniques to use in their reporting. Journalists cannot think they are done learning once they are given their diplomas at graduation. As a reporter in “Page One: Inside the New York Times” said, receiving a job at this “paper of record” used to be like earning tenure. However, in the changing media, this is no longer the case. Journalists need to continue to innovate if they want to succeed as reporters and editors.

Link to Ethical Issue of the Week

Sourcing is one area of journalism that continues to have ethical implications. In a recent New York Times article about de Blasio’s time as mayor so far, a “Democratic insider” is cited as a source. A paragraph of the article reads, “‘De Blasio went into this thinking that he and Cuomo were friends,’ a Democratic insider said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of concern over retribution, ‘but Andrew Cuomo doesn’t really have friends.’” Patterson and Wilkins explained how referring to a source anonymously requires an agreement between the reporter and the source.  While reporter Ginia Bellafante said the source fears retribution, should she have allowed this comment in the story without naming the source? This included statement is not a major revelation that would have killed her story had it not been included, it is more of an opinion. In October 2013, Margaret Sullivan, the public editor for the New York Times wrote an article about the use of anonymous sources. Sullivan said, “But for many readers, anonymous sources are a scourge, a detriment to the straightforward, believable journalism they demand. With a greater-than-ever desire for transparency in journalism, readers see this practice as ‘stenography’ – the kind of unquestioning reporting that takes at face value what government officials say.” It will be interesting to follow “AnonyWatch” as Sullivan keeps an eye out for “regrettable examples of anonymous sources.” While I respect the use of anonymous sources for stories about national security and possible government cover-ups, such as Watergate, these sources should be used sparingly. In addition, it is not appropriate for someone to be granted anonymity when his or her goal is to express a certain opinion about someone else. In cases like these, if sources do not feel comfortable having the information attributed to them, they should keep their thoughts or speculations to themselves.

Questions from Dr. Rodgers – Vocabulary Terms

• Spin alley: Spin is a “deliberate shading of news perception; attempted control of political reaction,” according to William Safire. On “Crossfire,” Jon Stewart accused members of the media of reporting on this sanitized material. This is particularly problematic after political debates where “spin doctors” circulate and express various ideas and talking points that receive coverage.
• Fair use: One of the rights provided to the owner of a copyright that involves the ability to reproduce or give permission to others for reproduction. Reproduction may be considered fair for various projects or purposes, including comment, criticism, reporting, research, scholarship and teaching.
• Echo chamber: “A colloquial term used to describe a group of media outlets that tend to parrot each other’s uncritical reports on the views of a single source, or that otherwise relies on unquestioning repetition of official sources,” according to the Center for Media and Democracy. The echo-chamber effect results because like-minded people often do not challenge the group consensus, which leads to the cycle of arguments coming largely from one side.

Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu