EJ Chapter Five
I enjoyed hearing the story about William Safire and the New York Times at the start of this chapter. I often feel like various publications do not aim for a greater balance of voices, especially on the editorial page. However, it is refreshing to hear how Times publisher Arthur “Punch” Sulzberger took this matter seriously. When looking at the current New York Times opinion page, do you feel like this balance has been preserved?
This section brings up another great point; how can an ex-political activist wake up one morning and call herself or himself a journalist? I have discussed George Stephanopoulos in my blog on several occasions, but it still alarms me that after being one of President Bill Clinton’s most trusted advisers, he is ABC’s chief political correspondent and one of the main anchors on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” On the other side, Dana Perino, one of the co-hosts from “The Five” on Fox News, served as the press secretary for President George W. Bush. Are people like Stephanopoulos and Perino able to put their past connections and affiliations aside when they become journalists? Do they need to distance themselves in order to do their jobs as journalists?
Truthfulness, commitment to citizens, serving a watchdog function and providing a forum for public debate are all important factors for those who are doing journalism. However, the question of neutrality arises once again. I am still struggling with the fact that being impartial or neutral is not a core principle of journalism because I feel this is what I have always been taught. I can acknowledge how a journalist should not be disinterested about every topic and disconnected from the community, but by being partial and non-neutral, isn’t a journalist shaping how the news is covered? Is this behavior only acceptable for opinion journalists?
While it pleases me that the Pulitzer Board attempts to reward various types of journalism, including commentary, I do not think we need to concern ourselves with fitting columnists and editorial writers under the umbrella of journalism. I wonder whether there should be a dichotomy separating opinion journalism from “traditional journalism.” Also, we should be concerned with preventing propagandists and political activists from saying they work in journalism.
It was eye opening to read how Safire described allegiance and loyalty as being central to the transition from politician to journalist. While these types of journalists will probably not burn a long-term source, they also should not allow ideology to prevent them from covering a story. If these opinion journalists can stick to reporting the truth and verifying the information, I can be much more on board with what they are doing.
Part of the reason I think I have an issue with opinion journalists is me questioning what makes them a sort of expert or important voice on a certain topic. If someone has the opportunity to say how he or she feels about something, I want to be told what qualifies them to provide these assertions. In traditional stories, we are told to give context and to tell our readers why a particular expert is included in the story. Should opinion journalists not be held to the same standard? Charles Krauthammer is one person who comes to mind. As a contributor to the Washington Post and Fox News, what gives him the authority to voice his opinion on various political topics? As a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, former speechwriter for Vice President Walter Mondale and former chief resident in psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, I feel confident he can contribute to the wider conversation. However, are other opinion journalists equally qualified to discuss the topics they tend to pontificate about on a regular basis?
Safire makes a critical point when he says people in politics cannot continue to flip flop between politics and journalism. With this revolving door, readers would be quick to question where a person’s loyalty lies. OpenSecrets.org does an incredible job of documenting people who move through a revolving door in Washington, D.C.; do these journalists really want to be featured as revolvers?
The key principle of this chapter says, “Journalists must maintain an independence from those they cover.” Ultimately, opinion journalists must separate themselves from their sources, as regular journalists do, but they can include their opinions in their coverage. As Safire mentions, there is the issue of false equivalency in a lot of today’s news stories. Journalism is not about being evenhanded in terms of time and space. While it is always helpful to hear from a conflicting point of view, everything turns into a conflict if we hear equal coverage of “he said and she said” for every story.
As part of its coverage of Comcast’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable, USA Today has asked that readers #tellusatoday how they feel about the merger. One reader said, “The merger will turn an oligopoly into a monopoly. Customers are doomed.” This is a section where consumers are sharing their opinions. Would it be appropriate to devote an even amount of space to Comcast or Time Warner Cable? Probably not. While a comment might be beneficial to include, this story is not about the merger, but the way people are reacting to it.
The question of who is and who is not a journalist has been impacting our group’s project on citizen journalism. During our phone interview with Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute, it was interesting to hear how she thinks saying citizen journalist is redundant. For her, all citizens are content creators, so there is no need for the additional label.
This pertains to the essential question, which considers whether someone is doing journalism. As Kovach and Rosenstiel mention, “Anyone can be a journalist. Not everyone is.” This is key because journalism can be inclusive to many different writers and reporters, but having a blog or website does not automatically qualify you as a journalist. There is a world of difference between a blogger at American Thinker discussing Obama’s recent golf outing after railing against inequality versus the Superficial putting up photos of Paris Hilton and talking about herpes.
We can discuss the virtue of the separation between opinion journalism and partisan propaganda, but it is often hard to deal with in reality. Maggie Gallagher receiving money from the Department of Health and Human Services is just one example. In recent years, it was discovered that the United States government paid journalists in Miami to write articles and do stories that would negatively impact the case of the Cuban Five, men who were accused of committing espionage and other related charges. While what these Miami journalists did goes beyond a simple conflict of interest, they put themselves in a compromised position. Ultimately if a conflict of interest prevents a journalist from doing his or her job in an objective manner, the work should not be pursued.
While it is easy to say new technology and growing niche markets are the impetus for a shift away from independence, journalistic independence must be preserved. People who are pro choice may gravitate toward websites, such as My Abortion. My Life., but opinion stories that maintain their independence, such as a recent article from The Nation, should not get lost in the shuffle. People can share their opinions about the facts, but issues arise when the facts and opinions become muddled.
It is easy to say that we want journalists to not participate in any activity that is even slightly political, but is this always necessary? It surprises me how the New York Times treated Linda Greenhouse for simply participating in a demonstration to support abortion rights. Even though she is a Supreme Court reporter, is she not a woman who has a right to care about a female’s right to choose? On this day, she was not Linda the reporter, she was Linda, a woman who believes women have a choice about what they do with their bodies. As long as this participation did not adversely impact the way she did her job, I do not think her employer had a right to discipline her.
As current students, do we not have a right to voice our opinions about issues we are facing? After circulating petitions and participating in a freezemob, Columbia University students will have access to data that show how sexual assault and gender-based misconduct are addressed at the university. If you were working for a publication, how would you feel if editors disciplined you for your activism? It seems like a very slippery slope.
The dangerous dance between journalists and politicians has continued for many years as people from both sides have crossed the line. George Will and Walter Lippmann are two examples. What about Hendrik Hertzberg? Hertzberg not only serves as the main political commentator for the New Yorker, but he was also the chief speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter. George Will suggested that the morality or ethics of journalism was subjective and invalid, do you think this is the case?
As the chapter alluded to, the main problem is these relationships and deals are often kept secret. If there is not any sketchiness going on, why should the public not be made aware of what is happening? These backdoor dealings undermine the role of these people in their roles as both journalists and political operatives.
I disagree with the claim that journalistic independence is the cause for newsrooms becoming distant from their audiences. I think the emphasis on neutrality and evenhandedness is more to blame for this alienation. As journalists, we cover a lot of conflict and problems in our community. However, to help better bridge the gaps with readers and viewers, I agree that we can take a more active approach by including potential solutions in our coverage.
A Miami Herald article looked into a situation where a call to police to help a schizophrenic man resulted in several arrests. Are these officers equipped to deal with the mentally ill? The article discussed how the Criminal Mental Health Project was created about 10 years ago to institute crisis intervention teams (CITs). The classes for CIT training are voluntary, and about 10 percent of the current force is CIT trained. While this specific situation is being investigated, this reporter found out what has been done to help address these types of situations. By bringing up solutions, journalists can help address community problems.
In addition to public journalism, another reaction to this alienation is journalism that goes after an audience share by arguing from one particular side. These journalistic entities are well-known for their pundits or talking heads discussing the issues of the day. It is not surprising that these babbling partisans are not very accurate. As a result, PolitiFact launched PunditFact to monitor and evaluate what these pundits are saying.
All of this pontificating and reinforcement of preconceived notions shared by the audience has resulted in the Journalism of Affirmation. I was slightly confused at first about how affirmation differs from opinion journalism. Aren’t editorial writers explaining their opinion in order to persuade the public to agree with them? The problem with the Journalism of Affirmation is it feigns neutrality while creating propaganda for specific ideals.
Another point of difference is reporting. Opinion journalism focuses on making sense of the news, not about providing the answers to the questions of who, what, where, when, why and how. An editorial in the Washington Times can talk about what a decision by an appeals court means instead of reporting that a decision was reached. However, journalists of affirmation pride themselves on the reporting they do. For example, Rush Limbaugh reports on the lawless actions of President Obama. There is a large difference between providing an opinion about something and trying to pass off your perspective as news, and Limbaugh is certainly flirting with the latter.
It is easy for these affirmers to claim the Rashomon bias where there is no accuracy or truth, but this is a cop out. I am fine with people discussing their opinion on a talk show or in a column, but I do not want someone who cites “facts” that are just their masked opinion. Glenn Beck recently said, “I’m so sick of the Olympic coverage on NBC. Between the holding up (of) a dictator, Putin, the extolling of the idea of communism, or just the incipit interviews, of ‘Hey, you just lost.’” Is NBC really supporting Putin and communism? It is hard for me to respect what Beck says when his disdain for the liberal media, including NBC, prevents him from being truthful.
Another reason why journalists seem to be growing apart from audiences is because of the education and salary divide. About 89.3 percent of journalists have earned a college degree vs. 25.6 of the overall adult population, according to Poynter. The bias may be less about politics and more about the poor and working class feeling like they do not matter. As someone who has two college-educated parents and a middle class upbringing, I must admit it would be hard to cover poverty. It would be helpful to have a newsroom full of people of various backgrounds and experiences who may be able to devote well-rounded coverage to underserved populations.
I am also in agreement with Peter Bell when he says we should not assume that people feel a certain way or that they have had similar experiences based on the color of their skin. Education, family, religion and other factors you cannot see by looking at someone will contribute to a person’s personality and outlook. Certain characteristics might describe someone and inform the work he or she does, but it does not have to be limiting. I am a journalist who is Catholic, Caucasian and conservative. I am not a conservative or Catholic and then a journalist.
I like Gil Thelen’s definition of journalists as “committed observers.” As Walter Cronkite once said, “Our job is only to hold up the mirror – to tell and show the public what has happened.” We cannot fulfill this role if we are removed from the community.
ME Chapter Six
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy once said, “The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is beside the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.” From the time of our founding fathers, citizens have been expected to be informed participants in politics. As someone who has interned on campaign, I have felt this passion for being involved in the political process.
What is the role of the media in terms of politics? Mass media is supposed to provide citizens with the information they need to function in political society, according to the social responsibility theory. This is the reason why media entities, such as Politico, exist. However, questions are arising about how politics can be communicated to members of the public in a media environment that continues to be fragmented.
With growing niche markets, it is evident why citizens are seeking their news from late night comedians. People like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are so humorous that learning about the issues is often a pleasant byproduct of watching their shows. Viewing Jon Stewart’s coverage of the 2013 government shutdown versus reading the CNN article drives this point home.
I like how the four-part test created by Bruce A. Williams evaluates political stories. I applied this test to an ABC News article about President Obama’s long lost campaign promise. Obama campaigned against President Bush’s practice of taking power away from Congress and attempting to give it to the executive branch. Obama promised he would reverse the practice, but the opposite seems to be happening.
Let’s see what happens when we apply the test to this story. First and foremost, is this information useful? Citizens should be made aware that the president is potentially violating the Constitution. In addition, it is hard to trust a leader who breaks promises, so this information could be very helpful. In terms of being sufficient, I think more context is needed in this story. The reporter said, “Today it is the Republicans echoing Senator Obama from 2008 who are accusing the president of violating the Constitution and grabbing power that rightfully belongs to Congress.” More depth and context would be appreciated so people can form an opinion. ABC News, as one of the major network news programs, is considered a trustworthy source. The audience for this story is citizens as a whole. The people elected President Obama, so each and every person should be interested in what he is doing as the nation’s leader.
While it is easy for me to understand the radical, monitorial and facilitative role of the media in democratic political systems, I am having trouble understanding the collaborative role. When is it ever appropriate for the media to promote the views of the state? Politicians have public relations people, I do not think it is appropriate for journalists to promote anything, especially because citizens look to them as independent voices.
It should come as a surprise to no one that campaign ads are focused primarily in “battleground” states. What would be the point in wasting campaign funds on a state that will go red or blue no matter what a 30-second advertisement claims? After living in New York, a state that typically goes blue, I was not hit with a barrage of advertisements whenever I turned on the television during the election season. This changed drastically when I moved to Florida, which has been described as the “ultimate battleground state.”
For those who have the opportunity to watch the advertisements, they are often attacking and negative toward one candidate. Studies have shown viewers learn a lot from comparative ads and consider them to be appropriate. Why then do candidates continue to use attack ads that people have said they dislike and distrust? The 2012 presidential election did not seem to indicate a departure from these antics with one advertisement basically blaming Mitt Romney for the death of a former steelworker’s wife after a Bain plant was shut down.
What can journalists do to help change this? Instead of turning every election into a horse race, journalists should report on political advertising. Are the claims in the ads true? Who is the source of the ads? While it may be difficult to determine sources because of the influx of PAC funding, if journalists reported on ads and held candidates accountable, a shift from negativity might occur.
I also agree with some of the suggestions for what else journalists can do to address this problem, including making state regulations against corrupt campaign practices more robust. It is exceedingly difficult for journalists to fight against a broken system, so legislation needs to be strengthened. Also, I think the inclusion of the image of the candidate directing the negative attack would lead to a decrease in this type of advertising. I am curious whether the Priorities USA ad would have run if Obama’s photo was included at the end.
As the primary source of political information, the media need to do a better job of covering candidates. What is the background of each candidate? What qualifies the candidate for the particular position he or she is running for? This is much more valuable information than “Candidate X is leading Candidate Y by five points in the latest poll.” The public becomes so focused on these polls that they often forget to actually learn about the candidates.
In addition, with the emphasis on the frontrunners, do the other candidates even stand a chance? When Mitt Romney began to break away from the pack, the media stopped aggressively covering many of the other candidates, such as Rick Santorum and John Hunstman Jr. While journalists want the opportunity to cover the winning candidate for the chance at a plush job, are they not doing a disservice to the public by largely writing off these candidates so early in the race?
Journalists also face difficulties when covering politics because politicians attempt to control how they are perceived. As we learned from a case study in chapter two, quote approval is just one way politicians attempt to script the narrative. Journalists must dig deeper and attempt to get underneath the façade. However, if information is discovered about a candidate or politician, this does not automatically give journalists the green light to broadcast the information.
While Sissela Bok acknowledged certain unethical actions can be justified because of the unequal power relationship involved in politics, the invasion of privacy must be put in context, be linked to public or political behaviors and the information should also be considered “need to know.” The recent mayoral race in New York City included candidate Bill de Blasio. His political experience was not the emphasis of much of the coverage he received. What did the media choose to focus on? The fact that his wife Chirlane McCray spent part of her life as a lesbian. Personally, I do not feel like this information passes the tests, but that is where discretion plays a part.
Journalists must use their best judgment about what they should or should not reveal. Even if people might be slightly curious about something, journalists must sometimes be discreet. If not, what separates true news organizations from trashy tabloids?
Edmund Burke famously said, “There were three Estates in Parliament, but in the Reporters Gallery yonder, there sat a fourth Estate more important far than they all.” While I have often heard the media described as a watchdog, I have not heard about the media serving as a “guide dog.” I like the implications of the media helping citizens wade through the political knowledge so they can make some sense of it.
Covering terrorism perplexes me as both a citizen and a journalist. As a citizen, I want to be aware of threats to our nation. As a journalist, I want to provide this information, but I also do not want to further spread the hate and fear emanating from the acts of terrorism. What is the answer to these “hard questions?” I like the idea of serving as a “moral witness,” but I am still confused about how this would be done in practice.
I am curious about the type of society where communitarian thinking leads to the media transforming society through the empowerment of citizens to act in ways that emphasize political discussion, debate and change. As journalists, should we take on this role as leader? Is this what is meant by guide dog? Many members of the public do not currently trust journalists, so I am concerned how they would feel about the media taking on this paternal role. Would you listen to someone or follow their direction if you did not trust them? Probably not.
Case Study 6-A The Truth about the Facts: PolitiFact.com
IWC Systematic Process
1.) Identify the Dilemma
Tampa Bay Times Washington, D.C. Bureau Chief Bill Adair created PolitiFact.com to help readers determine how truthful various political claims were. PolitiFact.com employs the Truth-O-Meter, which shows how truthful a political statement is from completely true to “pants on fire.” In 2009, the website began awarding a “Lie of the Year.” The site also received the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting in 2009 based on the fact checking performed during the 2008 presidential campaign. Is PolitiFact.com a work of journalism? Does the Truth-O-Meter provide a valid measurement or is it an arbitrary device used to get hits?
2.) Weigh alternatives
Some may say PolitiFact.com does no original reporting, so it is not a journalistic site. It just analyzes and checks what is already out there. However, others would say that this site is performing a service that is not being done by the news organizations. Isn’t it helpful to have a source calling out Sarah Palin for saying Obama’s health care changes would result in death panels? While reporters should be responsible for the facts in their own stories, it is often difficult to cover politicians because they throw out a lot of facts. With all these claims, it seems beneficial to have someone there to check the accuracy of what is being shared with the public. Some people may also say the Truth-O-Meter is misleading because it does not get into the details for why a claim is false. People could see mostly false without finding out what was actually true about a claim. However, we live in a society where people love graphics and quick hits of information. Even if the Truth-O-Meter is leading to more clicks, people are learning something by seeking out the evaluations. It is like reading the SparkNotes version of Anna Karenina. You are missing the extreme detail and crafted language, but you are still getting the main points, which is likely what people want in the first place.
3.) Cite a persuasive rationale
The focus must be on whether an entity is doing journalism. Kovach and Rosenstiel have said journalism’s first obligation is to the truth, and the essence of journalism is a discipline of verification. PolitiFact.com seeks out the truth about various claims by verifying the information through fact checking. It is a work of journalism. The Truth-O-Meter is a helpful tool because it provides a scale of truthfulness. It is not always black and white, so this device allows various factors to be considered. I would like to add lying politicians to “nothing is certain except for death and taxes.” We need to continue having PolitiFact.com serve as a watchdog on politicians who will try to sneak lies in if no one holds them accountable.
Case Study 6-B WikiLeaks
IWC Systematic Process
1.) Identify the Dilemma
Julian Assange, a native to Australia, created WikiLeaks in 2005 and 2006 to release classified information because he believes nation-states should not keep secrets. Assange appeared on the American media radar in 2010 after WikiLeaks released a video of Iranian civilians being gunned down by a United States Apache helicopter. In 2010, more than 400,000 documents were published about American involvement in Iran and Afghanistan. One issue with WikiLeaks is the tendency to release information without going through a redaction and verification process. This is especially problematic for documents that have the power to inhibit diplomacy and impact people’s lives. In addition, WikiLeaks does not perform its own reporting. Instead, the company waits for others to provide the secrets. Is Assange a hacker or a journalist? Can someone be both? Is WikiLeaks a news organization?
2.) Weigh alternatives
Assange has described himself as a hacker. Merriam-Webster defines a hacker as “a person who secretly gets access to a computer system in order to get information, cause damage, etc.” Journalists and the public have enough of a conundrum when it comes to masquerading, let alone hacking. According to its website, “WikiLeaks has combined high-end security technologies with journalism and ethical principles.” Some people may question how ethical it was to release the war longs in their entirety unredacted and unverified on the Internet. In addition, is it ethical to prey on certain sources for information without preparing them for what they might be getting into? With Army private Bradley Manning, it appears that WikiLeaks took advantage of a young communications specialist who may have been angered about the military’s treatment of homosexuals. While WikiLeaks provides information that was once hidden, many people wonder at what cost? If people’s lives are being put in danger and decades of diplomatic efforts are at risk, wouldn’t a journalist take the potential consequences into account before going forward with publishing?
3.) Cite a persuasive rationale
Assange posts information he is provided by outside sources. It is almost as if he is an aggregator. However, he does not have the ethical compass that his website speaks of. Journalists must have discretion about what they post and what they refrain from sharing. It seems like the public would have much more respect for Assange and WikiLeaks if they at least redacted and verified the information they put into circulation. Currently, Assange is a hacker posing as a journalist representing an organization that should not be classified as a journalistic entity.
Case Study 6-F Mayor Jim West’s Computer
IWC Systematic Process
1.) Identify the Dilemma
A lot of rumor has surrounded Spokane mayor Jim West throughout his involvement in public life. Since the 1970s, various sexual allegations have been brought against him. Reporters at the Spokesman-Review eventually received tips from anonymous sources, as well as some sources who would go on the record about molestations and meetings after online communication was exchanged. In order to further confirm these allegations, the newspaper had to decide how to pursue this story. Should reporters have utilized the services of a forensic expert to pose as a fictional character on Gay.com? Is this action ethical?
2.) Weigh alternatives
Some people would say the newspaper had no right to use deception to drag down this political figure. These people would likely agree with Jane Kirtley, who said the public cannot be expected to believe stories if the information is received through deception. However, others would say that these allegations needed to be checked out further, and there was likely no other way to catch the mayor in the act of soliciting sex or any other inappropriate behavior. These people would also point to how the newspaper consulted outside sources for feedback, as well as telling West about the story the day before it broke.
3.) Cite a persuasive rationale
This situation did not involve a journalist going into a private business with a hidden camera. The forensic expert did not approach West in any way once the profile was made. In addition, the fake 17-year-old did not begin any discussions about sex or sexuality. West pursued this teenage boy on his own volition. The best-case scenario would have been to discover this information without having to resort to deception, but after years of not getting caught, it seems like West was a pro at covering his tracks. As Kelly McBride from Poynter said, this type of reporting should not be used in every situation, but with this serious of an issue and no other viable alternatives, it was the best course of action.
Discussion Question
How would you define a diverse newsroom? Also, what protocol would you follow to create this type of newsroom?
Kovach and Rosenstiel discussed how journalists are being alienated from their audiences as they become more educated and trained. In addition, the media tends to target elite demographics because this is where the money is. However, what about journalists first loyalty belonging to citizens? Journalists are supposed to be loyal to all members of society, especially those who do not have a voice. While groups, including the American Society of Newspaper Editors, have worked to create diversity initiatives and efforts have been made to remove racist language from stylebooks, this is not enough. However, it is complicated. Addressing diversity is difficult because you must ask whether a person’s gender or skin color determines how he or she will cover something. As a female, does that mean I will automatically cover abortion differently from a man? Do all African Americans feel the same way about grillz and gang culture? By making these assumptions, are we not continuing to purport stereotypes? Defining diversity is difficult, but it is a starting point for finding a way to fill newsrooms with viewpoints that are representative of the entire community.
Link to Ethical Issue of the Week
We are all aware of the “loud-music” trial that has attracted attention across the state of Florida and the nation. Tensions have run especially high in this case because Michael Dunn is white and Jordan Davis was black. This ethical issue pertains to the media’s coverage of the case. Anderson Cooper recently apologized for the airing of various profanities, including “motherfucker” and “shit,” during the coverage of Michael Dunn’s testimony on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360.” While I understand that these words are harsh, they are part of the court testimony. If we bleep them out or choose to not discuss them, are we not censoring what happened? As journalists, we write the “first draft of history,” and we have a loyalty to citizens. The more transparent we are, the better. In addition, CNN is a cable station. Unlike broadcast stations, viewers are paying for the service of obtaining the news from this international media organization. Ultimately, if these words were a part of the testimony, I think they should be aired, no apology needed. Viewers could claim they are offended by hearing certain words, but is it ethical to alter how the proceedings took place? I also find it interesting that Cooper apologized from his Twitter account. This is an impersonal form of communication, but is this the way of the future? #Yes or #No?
Questions from Dr. Rodgers – Vocabulary Terms
- Disinterested: Having or showing a lack of interest or concern, according to Merriam-Webster.
- Partisan journalism: Exploitation of public disaffection toward journalism by abandoning the principle of independence to reach the audience by arguing from one side or the other. Talk show hosts, commentators, television or radio guests claim to be independent experts, but they could better be described as “media activists.” This partisan approach tries to take advantage of the public anger toward the press. Ultimately, these partisan journalists are poor predictors of the future, according to a study by Berkeley psychology professor Philip Tetlock.
- Journalism of affirmation: Journalism that reinforces the audience’s preconceptions. It exists as a corporate strategy with politics serving as a means to an end. This type of journalism claims to be fair, balanced and neutral, but it does not have the candor of opinion journalism where editorialists can criticize when someone or some institution they typically agree with moves away from certain ideals.
- Civic journalism: An effort to include the public in the reporting process. This includes listening to citizens about the problems they are facing, as well as possible solutions. This type of journalism can be utilized to enrich reporting.
- Mass media: A medium of communication, such as a newspaper, radio station or television station, that is designed to reach members of the public.
- Audience fragmentation: Division of the audience into smaller segments because of the availability of various media outlets. This makes it difficult for advertisers to reach possible consumers as niche markets continue to pop up.
- Social responsibility theory of the press: Promise that the mass media will provide citizens with what they need to know to survive and thrive in political society. A view of the media that suggests how journalists have a duty to promote community and the individuals within it.
- Pluralism: A system where people of diverse backgrounds are able to have equal opportunity to express themselves and have their voices be heard. This is an important aspect in political communication. A critical question to answer is does the media environment provide an opportunity for diverse points of view, either in different messages that are equally accessible or within a single message?
- Verisimilitude: The appearance or semblance of truth. In terms of political communication, do the sources of the messages take responsibility for the truth claims they explicitly and implicitly make, even if these claims are not strictly verifiable in any formal sense?
Google – Syria Search Results
Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu
Vangellow, Cassie 