EJ Chapter One
It is hard for me to comprehend the struggle Anna Semborska and other people in Poland went through to access news that was not censored or filtered. Even though I do not condone what Edward Snowden did, we have journalists like Glenn Greenwald to tell stories that make us question our government.
In four years of studying journalism, I have never been posed the question “what is journalism for?” Journalism allows information gatherers to connect with those who want information about various subjects. Today, these information gatherers are not only people with journalism degrees or staff writers from the New York Times. A stay-at-home mom posting on her blog about issues at the neighborhood playground would qualify as an information gatherer providing information to other people. While this may be considered reporting, the question still remains whether these citizens are journalists.
Kovach and Rosenstiel said journalism’s primary purpose is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing. As Americans, we often take for granted having a freedom of speech and press. We look at CNN or Washington Post applications on our phones, not realizing people in many parts of the world are cut off from this sort of information.
Even though we are in the United States, we need to be aware of factors that want to challenge the tenets of journalism that our founders fought for, including corporatism. As an avid lover of all things Disney, I like to think the Walt Disney Company has upstanding business practices and takes care of all their employees. However, I am sure there are issues and scandals. It is difficult for me to trust any report from ABC because the network is a part of the Disney family.
I disagree that defining journalism would limit its power. While I do not think a checklist saying journalism contains a specific number of sources or words is appropriate, I think a definition could eliminate certain entities from saying they work in the field of journalism. I love Google News because it brings me to sources that I would never think to go to. However, it is an aggregator benefitting from the efforts of journalists around the world.
It is refreshing that a majority of journalists still think their main role is revealing the truth so people have the information they need to be sovereign. This belief extends back to the theory of a free speech and press that was incorporated into our nation’s laws. Without this foundation, we may not have ever found out the truth of the Vietnam War.
Until relatively recently, the focus was on print media. We looked to the major news beacons, such as the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, for what was important. This has drastically changed with the advent of computers and the Internet. We do not have to wait for the paper to be delivered the next morning because we have 24/7 access to the news. We not only have the ability to view the news but the opportunity to comment and interact with others. If people think a journalist is bias, they can address this in the comments section. While this invites “trolls,” it also enables thought-provoking discussion among people in different states and regions, something that is not possible in print.
The growing “we media” both scares and excites me. With the increase in the number of citizen journalists, I worry about the future of a profession I paid money to study. However, I think this pales in comparison to all the positives. New voices are being heard, and new niches are being unveiled. I plan to move to Washington, D.C. for law school next fall. As I prepare for this transition, I have many questions, including where to live, eat, etc. However, I also wonder how young women should dress in the nation’s capital. Searching for this information brought me to A Lacey Perspective, a chronicle of a D.C. resident’s fashion choices. This may not be hard news, but it provides me with the information I am interested in.
Creative blogs are fun to read, but I simultaneously fear they are distracting people from real world news. When Jay Leno asked various Americans questions from the citizenship test, I lost faith in humanity. I agree with Walter Lippmann that the press distorts the news to some degree, but I also think people’s inattentiveness and ignorance is as much to blame. However, I do not support getting rid of democracy. My views align with John Dewey because democracy allows people to grow and mature. As journalists, we have a responsibility to broadcast the news, so the public can learn, evaluate and make decisions.
As we determine what to broadcast, we must keep in mind the idea of the Theory of the Interlocking Public. This is the idea that people will have different levels of interest based on the issue and whether it affects them in any way. I care deeply about issues in higher education because it has a direct influence on me. However, I pay a lot less attention to news about life insurance policies because I am not at a place in my life where this is a concern.
New technology, conglomeration and globalization are changing journalism’s focus on citizen building. However, I think these changes also bring strengths. Technological advancements allow us to see documents supporting stories, as well as links to related information. For example, gaining access to voice message transcripts left by Richie Incognito for Jonathan Martin changed this bullying narrative. Saying he has engaged in bullying behavior is one thing, but seeing the evidence cemented his status as a tormenter.
Change is imminent, but it should hopefully bring a more transparent and able news force.
ME Chapter Two
As journalists, communicating truth is part of our job description. What constitutes the truth? It seems when it comes to the freshman 15, The Alligator is having an issue telling fact from fiction.
When I see that the Greeks focused on memory and passing the truth orally, I think back to the telephone game played in elementary school. If the message started off as “I wear pink pajamas,” it would turn into something like “Where is the banana?” This does not seem like the most effective way to transmit information.
As the philosophy of truth has evolved, I was at first drawn to the Enlightenment’s version of the truth. Truth was seen as something perceived through senses and harnessed through intellect. A carrot is orange. I know this because I see it, and I have been taught what the color orange looks like. This idea of truth makes a lot more sense to me than Plato’s perfect forms.
The term objectivity is thrown around so much that it has almost lost any sense of meaning. As reporters, we are told to be objective. However, what does this mean? It may mean separating fact from opinion, but is that too simplistic? With all of our individual biases, I wonder whether any article can be truly objective.
I am a strong proponent of convergence journalism with its use of sounds, images and words because I think each component contributes a unique aspect. This is especially important online. If I get to an online article that has no links or videos, I lose interest quickly. We live in a society that values instant gratification, so we have to give the people what they want. This is likely one reason why BuzzFeed is so popular. This article about the Russian suicide bombers tells me the facts with additional links to comments from Vladimir Putin, as well as a more in-depth CNN article.
I agree with Brent Cunningham about objectivity getting in the way of quality reporting. If pursuing a story about politics, journalists are quick to get a source from the Democratic Party and a source from the Republican Party. However, a story about a topic like abortion could benefit from other sources that do not strictly fit within these categories. I would want to hear from someone who has had an abortion and someone who works at a clinic. To me, this would be a much better article than a story consisting of diatribes from various congressmen.
Another issue that hinders quality reporting is the emphasis on event stories. We get the who, what, where, when and why, and we think we are set. Another deadline is met, and we can go home. We need to get out of this mentality because the audience does not want to only read event stories. At the University of Florida, we have been warned about doing event stories. These were the stories that received low grades during reporting because they do not require imagination or initiative.
Along with this, there is the issue of “pack journalism.” I admit to being a part of this for one of my first reporting stories. I covered a new exhibit at the Florida Museum of Natural History. I was excited until I saw several other reporting students with their notebooks in hand walking around the museum. I learned this event-style reporting was not going to get me published or noticed. During an assignment for WUFT, I decided to depart from the pack in my coverage of the Gainesville Downtown Festival and Art Show by doing a profile on the featured poster artist.
When it comes to deception in journalism, I have very little tolerance. This may be me being naive, but we have no credibility if we do not tell the truth. Personally, I do not think flattering a source is deceptive behavior. A little sucking up is not going to hurt anybody, and it may be the edge that gets you the interview.
We have learned about the importance of news values, such as proximity, timeliness, conflict and prominence since our introduction to journalism course. However, I think having a list of ethical news values is a good idea. Of these values, I think confirmation and tenacity are the most important. Stories should be able to stand on their own and withstand the fact checking process. In addition, some stories require journalists to go the extra mile in their reporting. By being tenacious, you may be able to thrive in a journalism market where jobs are being terminated.
Stories should be fact checked for accuracy and balance. A trust exists between journalists and readers, so journalists must work to make sure their work can withstand scrutiny. Putting in the best possible effort to get the best results should be a life mantra regardless of what you are doing. As journalists, no rock should be left unturned in a quest to cover a story. Instead of standing by with the rest of the reporters, be like Stanley Forman and come at your story from a different perspective.
Case Study 2-A Can I Quote Me on That?
Until reading this case study, I had never heard of quote approval. While I knew that checks for accuracy were common to make sure the facts or quotes were correct, I never thought of quotes having to be approved. If something is said on the record, I think a journalist has the right to print that information. Prominent figures, including politicians, want to be placed in the best light, but this should not give them a free pass to control the news connected to them down to the finest detail. That being said, in the competitive field of journalism, I understand why journalists grant this privilege to some people they are covering. If they do not extend this privilege, they may not be able to cover their beat, which means these journalists will soon be replaced by someone who can get access to the right sources. I guess this is why quotes during the election sound as though they have been perfectly prepared to get a message across with the hopes of offending as few people as possible.
Micro Issues
1.) Citizens need information about candidates’ and politicians’ views on issues. However, what should journalists be willing to give up in order to obtain that information?
Even though I think the practice of quote approval is wrong, journalists need to be willing to grant quote approval to candidates and politicians. However, I do think they should agree to a compromise with the candidates and politicians based on what they say on the record. As a journalist, you want to convey the truth to the audience, not some semblance of the truth the politicians want to purport. The agreement should be that you will agree to a check of quotes, but you also have the right to utilize what they say on the record during the course of an interview. Candidates and politicians are well-trained machines, so it is likely they will rarely slip up. As Patterson and Wilkins said, it is a power struggle. Unfortunately, those with the information have the upper hand.
2.) How reliable is information obtained after a politician or his or her advisers have massaged or altered quotes?
These quotes are a watered-down version of what the politician is actually trying to say. Politicians are often thought of as smooth talkers, and many learned this behavior from one of the best, Bill Clinton. In August of 1998, Clinton’s statement about his involvement with Monica Lewinsky included a somber Clinton admitting his mistakes. “Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long, and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this. That is all I can do.” I doubt there is a better way for a chief executive to admit to having a sexual relationship with an intern. My point is that while the information may be accurate overall, it is curtailed to avoid any controversy or bad publicity.
3.) Are there certain sorts of stories, for example stories about science or finance, where this practice might be more acceptable? Why or why not?
In these types of stories about complex topics, accurate information is of the highest importance. If a story about a stock market development is incorrectly reported on, people who listen and invest based on the article may lose a lot of money. What if a story talks about the equations and chemicals involved in an experiment but one compound is noted incorrectly? Recent reports have said that smoking causes other serious health problems, in addition to lung cancer. With all the statistics in these stories, it is important to be accurate. If a statistic is one in 13, but the reporter writes one in 33, this is a major problem. Triple checking this information is integral for informed reporting.
Midrange Issues
1.) Quote approval is for newspaper journalists. Should there be such a thing as video approval? What would be the morally relevant distinctions?
Video approval causes me concern because video editing can be utilized to provide a different picture than what actually happened. If the candidate asks you to cut out a question from one angered voter, are you not altering what happened? If there is a video of a press conference or rally, it should be used to show people who could not attend what happened. With print journalism, I think readers expect that various quotes from an interview will not be used in a final article. However, I think people expect videos to give them the full picture. Many people say seeing is believing, so I would hate to trick viewers by engaging in video approval.
2.) Should reporters disclose to their readers when they have submitted a story for quote approval? Kovach and Rosensteil (2007) argue that journalism’s first obligation is to the truth, and journalists’ first loyalty is to citizens. Journalists should report honestly to their readers (Associated Press 2012) and should disclose unavoidable conflicts (Society of Professional Journalists 2012).
At the bottom of stories where quote approval was employed, I think journalists need to put an asterisk and a short message like “Candidate X’s campaign approved the quotes used in this story during the quote approval process. This paper’s policy on quote approval is….” This allows journalists to get access to an important source, but it also allows them to maintain their credibility with their readership. I think this is a compromise candidates and politicians should accept because by being transparent, they may be better received by their constituencies.
3.) How is quote approval related to truth?
Quote approval follows from the pragmatist view of truth. This philosophy says that truth is filtered through individual perception. Truth depends on how it was investigated and on who was doing the investigating. Candidates and politicians want to make sure quotations attached to them are accurate, so they are delivering their notion of the truth.
Macro Issues
1.) Media based on social responsibility is premised on the idea that freedom of expression is a positive freedom (Nerone 1995). The moral right of freedom of expression is not unconditional (The Commission of Freedom of the Press 1947) but a right granted to do moral good (Nerone 1995). By agreeing to “quote approval” are reporters opening the debate as to whether they are serving the best interests of the public or serving the interests of politicians? How would you respond to this question?
Journalists are put in a tough position. They are responsible for providing the news to the public, but they cannot provide any news if they do not have access. I do not think they are solely serving the interests of the politicians when they engage in quote approval. They are doing what they need to do in order to gain access to information sources so they can best serve the public. Ultimately, journalists should put a note on any stories where quote approval is used to avoid the accusation of not being fully transparent with their audience.
2.) How does the notion of citizen journalism influence the concept of quote approval? Of candidates willingness to speak “off the cuff” with citizens?
What constitutes a citizen journalist is still under debate. However, I think citizens have more of an ability to refuse to grant quote approval. They are concerned citizens, not people who have to work with these sources time and time again. Citizen journalists do not have editors breathing down their necks when a source refuses to talk to them. These journalists and bloggers can also focus on stories that traditional media choose not to, something Trent Lott knows a lot about. I hope citizens continue to attend press conferences and events to provide the public with details that we cannot get elsewhere. A quote from a politician to one of these citizens may be enough to get the rest of the press and public talking.
Case Study 2-D When Is Objective Reporting Irresponsible Reporting?
This case study provides an interesting look at a dilemma we are all likely to face. When covering a story that has one official on one side and another official on the other, it is easy to grab quotes from each and call it a day. However, as journalists we must check to see whether what both sides are saying is accurate. If this information is incorrect, that should be the story instead of a petty political disagreement.
Micro Issues
1.) Did Laurens do the right thing by submitting her story without the benefit of an independent investigation into the mayor’s accusations about Councilman Michaels?
No, she did not. We have all been under the pressure of deadline, but this does not justify sloppy reporting. She called both parties involved, but she did not dive into finding out what the real issue was. If she had, she would have learned that Councilman Michaels had never lied about the effects of pesticides on bird life, and he had never been on the payroll of any pesticide manufacturer.
2.) Is the mayor correct in arguing that Laurens acted responsibly by providing fair and balanced coverage of both sides of a public controversy without trying to judge whose side is right and whose side is wrong?
In this situation, the mayor is pleased because the article put him in a positive light. He is being transparent by pointing a figure at someone “involved in” corrupt practices. As journalists, it is not our job to say which side is right or wrong. We must provide the facts in an objective manner, which will then allow the public to make an informed decision.
3.) Is the councilman correct in arguing that Laurens acted irresponsibly by concerning herself only with reporting the facts truthfully and ignoring the “truth about the facts?”
I agree with the councilman because Laurens did not perform her due diligence on this story. Laurens should have investigated to see whether the allegations were true before printing them. While Laurens had no intention of defamation, these words are libelous toward the councilman because it asserts that he is a “paid liar.” Once information like this is printed, it is very hard to correct the facts with the public.
Midrange Issues
1.) Is it sufficient when covering public controversies to simply report the facts accurately and fairly? Does it matter that fair and accurate facts might not do justice to the truth about the facts?
No, it is not sufficient. These politicians have an interest in the “facts” being discussed in this situation. It is up to the journalist to check these facts for accuracy before reporting on them. During reporting, a source gave me a statistic. Instead of checking the information, I trusted the source and put the material into my story. This led to receiving my sole fact error of the semester. I was so annoyed with myself for not questioning the information to find out if it were true. I learned my lesson that information, whether from a source or document, needs to be verified.
2.) Does the practice of objective reporting distance reporters from the substance of their stories in ways contrary to the ideals of responsible journalism?
Journalists have a duty to separate fact from opinion, but this should not prevent journalists from chasing down all aspects of a story. This relates to the ethical news values of tenacity and sufficiency. Stories should be able to withstand the scrutiny from editors and readers. This story should have raised red flags immediately, especially with an allegation on one side and a denial on the other. My first question would be who is telling the truth? With sufficiency, enough resources should be devoted to important issues. Laurens should have contacted several pesticide manufacturers about whether the councilman had ever worked for them. In addition, she should have compared what Councilman Michaels had said about the effects of pesticides on bird life to scientific research. By going above and beyond, Laurens would have found a great scoop and eliminated the embarrassment of posting the original story.
3.) If reporters serve as the eyes and ears of their readers, how can they be expected to report more than what they’ve heard or seen?
This is just a saying, but journalists do have the ability to report on issues and movements that the public does not have time to investigate. This also relates to tenacity because journalists should attempt to cover all aspects of the story. If they do not, much of the information will never reach the public. Consider what would have happened if Woodward and Bernstein had not done everything in their power to uncover the mystery that turned into Watergate.
Macro Issues
1.) What distinguishes fact from truth? For which should journalists accept responsibility?
When considering the differences between fact and truth, I am going to look at it from the perspective of a pragmatist. Truth is “what is filtered through individual perception.” After I look to the facts, I might use what I have learned to tell a truth. Truth can be relative, so I have the ability to include what I want to include. A fact is accurate information that is regarded as being correct by experts and greater society. Journalists must accept the responsibility to write stories using facts. A source may tell them a true statement, but they have the obligation to check to see how it measures up against the facts.
2.) If journalists know that a fact is not true, do they have an obligation to share that knowledge with their readers? And if they do share that knowledge, how can they claim to be objective in their reporting?
Absolutely. Even if they do not say flat out that a source was wrong, the story should include the accurate fact, not what the source said is fact. If they choose not to, their credibility and livelihood as a journalist is at stake. They can claim to be objective because they are not inserting their opinion into the story. The information is accurate or not accurate regardless of how they personally feel about a source or issue. This is not about personal feelings or views but reporting based on the highest ethical and journalistic standards.
3.) Justify or reject the role of objectivity in an era when more media outlets are available than ever before.
Objectivity is as important as ever in today’s world. While the increase in the number of opinion sites provides a positive forum for people to converse with people who share their views, this should remain separate from hard news. When I watch ABC News or CNN, I want the facts, not the views of any particular anchor. If I want editorializing, I will watch “The Daily Show.” News and opinion must be distinctive entities to prevent the further blurring of lines.
Case Study 2-F Murdoch’s Mess
Nick Davies deserves credit for pursuing a story after other members of the British press decided there was nothing else to report on. It disgusts me that this phone hacking included conversations that should have remained private, including the voicemails of the murdered Milly Dowler. Journalists want to gain access, but they should pursue leads through ethical means. It disgusts me the lengths Rupert Murdoch and his employees were willing to go. I am glad to see he is facing some repercussions for his actions, including the end of News of the World and his bid withdrawal from BSkyB. Hopefully, he has learned some valuable life lessons so these issues won’t bring down the Wall Street Journal and Fox News.
Micro Issues
1.) Phone hacking is illegal, but is it unethical? Why or why not?
Yes, it is both illegal and unethical. If we define ethics as a “rational process founded on certain agreed-on principles,” it is easy to see that phone hacking would not be included as ethical behavior. “Thou shalt not steal” is one of the Ten Commandments. While we are not dealing with morals and religion, this idea is widely agreed upon and codified into law. Phone hacking is a form of stealing because you are gaining access to people’s private conversations without just cause or permission. I have zero respect for journalists who engage in this behavior.
2.) How would you, or could you, justify Davies’s pursuit of this story about one of his major competitors?
Davies’s pursuit of this story was not based on his desire to bring down his competitor. He was not convinced that the phone hacking was an isolated case at the News of the World. He had the tenacity to follow this story until the very end. He was not only rewarded with a one-of-kind story away from the pack, but he also saw justice when those involved were held responsible for the crimes they have committed. Personally, I think we should aspire to be more like Davies.
3.) In most of the phone hacking cases, none of the victims have said that the information collected about them was untrue. Is the way a journalist collects information a component of the truthfulness of the story?
The information being true has no bearing on whether this behavior is acceptable. These journalists broke the trust of these people by hacking into their phone lines. How a journalist reports a story definitely influences the truthfulness of the story, especially when it was obtained through illegal means. It would be hard to ever trust another story written by any of the journalists involved.
4.) Contrast phone hacking to the other deceptive techniques evaluated by investigative reporters and editors reviewed in this chapter. How are they alike and different in an ethical sense?
On the deception continuum, phone hacking is right up there with lying to readers, viewers and listeners. This hacking is a type of lie because readers and audiences will assume the information was obtained through an interview or other legal means. This behavior is very different from flattering a source. A journalist may have to be slightly sweeter to get a source to talk, but this pales in comparison to phone hacking. There is absolutely no excuse for breaking the law. When considering lying by omission or commission, I have more of a problem with lying by commission. While all the facts should be laid out and not omitted, it is problematic when a journalist tells a lie on purpose. Journalists who engage in this behavior may be on a slippery slope to phone hacking.
Midrange Issues
1.) What is the role of competition in the concept of “watching the watchdog”? Does the same sort of thinking apply to the media’s watchdogging of other major institutions in society?
News organizations are competing to attract the most readers and hits. However, this situation was different. I do not think Davies was driven by bringing down Murdoch’s media empire. It is refreshing to see that someone is out there keeping an eye on the media. Members of the public are often quick to assume that whatever the news says is the whole story. The public also seems more accepting of the media’s watchdog function of other institutions, such as schools and assisted living facilities. We need to be open to both functions so behavior like this does not slip through the cracks.
2.) Does the 24/7 nature of the news cycle—and the sometimes Wild West nature of the Internet—encourage working at the very edge of acceptability? If you answer yes, then what sort of rules or guidelines or training might encourage contemporary journalists to stay on the “right” side of the ethical boundaries?
No, I think it provides opportunity to do even better reporting. By opening Google, you can be connected to sources and information that used to be out of reach. I think some journalists are using the 24/7 news culture as a way to justify sloppy and unethical reporting. News organizations should train their journalists about what is acceptable in this new era.
3.) In light of this case, how do you respond to those who say that all journalists will do anything to get a story?
People will point to all those unethical journalists at News of the World, but I point to Nick Davies. For every handful of “bad” journalists, there are those who are still in the industry for the right reason: to inform the public of what is going on in the world around them.
Macro Issues
1.) What should be the role of democratic governments in policing the ethical behavior of corporate media owners?
Democratic governments may be able to provide more regulation for ethical behavior of corporate media owners. There should be fines and hearings when reporters cross the line, like what occurred in this case. In addition, these media owners should have to answer to the full force of the law when they do something illegal. As journalists, we are not above the law, something democratic governments need to continue to enforce.
2.) Evaluate the notion of an ethical newsroom culture. Contrast the culture of The Guardian with that of the News of the World. What makes the ethical difference?
These two news organizations do not seem like they could be any more different. An ethical foundation based on a yearly audit, as well as the use of public transportation by journalists, demonstrates how The Guardian works to be open with readers about its journalistic practices. In addition, The Guardian does not have a sole focus on making money because it is part of a trust. This is in sharp contrast to the media empire Murdoch created, including News of the World. Conglomeration and globalization are major factors causing a shift in how journalism is being done, as well as contributing to a shift in ethics. With almost unlimited access to money and other resources, entities like News of the World think they are above the rules.
3.) One role for the mass media as an institution is that of collaboration. Yet, journalists have historically been suspicious of the sort of collaboration and political influence Rupert Murdoch has had. Analyze what you believe is the most ethically defensible role relationship between the mass media as an institution and powerful political and economic institutions. See if your answer changes after reading Chapter 6.
There is a fine line between collaboration and collusion, so I am wary of people like Rupert Murdoch having relationships with political and economic institutions. This is especially problematic because his news organization is covering entities that he has ties to. How can you cover someone or something objectively when you have a relationship with them that relates to finances of policy? I feel news organizations need to refrain from binding ties to other institutions in society because the public needs to trust the media to cover these other groups in a way that is fair and balanced. Collaboration is important in mass media, but these institutions should be avoided.
Discussion Question
Should the Federal Trade Commission regulate native advertising? What guidelines could the FTC implement?
Shape is the latest publication to have had an issue with native advertising. This practice is deceptive because it blurs the line between journalism and advertising. Readers have a right to know which is which, but certain techniques make it difficult to tell. The FTC, a regulatory body that aims to prevent anticompetitive, deceptive or unfair business practices, may have a role to play in addressing this issue.
Link to Ethical Issue of the Week
With the growth of the “we media,” we need to ask ourselves who can claim to be a journalist. In a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, First Amendment protections enjoyed by members of the traditional media were extended to individuals posting on the Internet. The case began when Crystal Cox accused Obsidian Finance Group, an Oregon firm that works with financially unstable businesses, of fraud and corruption. Apparently, Cox had a history of posting allegations. When she lost the original defamation case in 2011, many journalists said she did not deserve First Amendment protection because she was not a journalist, something the original trial judge agreed with. The judge said she was not entitled because she had no affiliation to a newspaper, magazine, broadcast station or other news entity. The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision should have been an indication of the changes to come. In that decision, the Supreme Court said, “We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.” Should citizen journalists have the same rights of journalists who work for traditional media outlets? I hope citizens contributing to the conversation with information and analysis are recognized for their role. However, I am wary of online “trolls” demanding the same rights as journalists who work hard to provide balanced reporting. Only time will tell the implications of this decision.
Questions from Dr. Rodgers – Vocabulary Terms
- Plato’s Cave: Truth is connected to human rationality and intellect. Truth was part of a world of pure forms, a place humans only had indirect access to. For Plato, truth was knowable only to human thought, not something that could be touched or verified. What people considered to be a chair was as similar to the idea chair as the shadows on the wall of the cave when a chair is illuminated. Plato said we are living in this cave.
- Pragmatism: Truth equals what is filtered through individual perception. It is affected by how it is investigated, as well as who is doing the investigation. For pragmatists, knowledge and reality are results of a progressing stream of consciousness and learning.
- Marketplace of Ideas: Competing notions of truth should be allowed to coexist because the ultimate truth will then emerge. Part of Milton’s beliefs that foreshadowed Enlightenment philosophy.
- Partisan Press: Part of the reason that objectivity became a professional standard in the early 1900s. Partisan news organizations could not convince advertisers that their ads would be viewed because their articles coming from a particular partisan viewpoint could offend readers.
- Early 20th Century Progressive Movement: Pragmatists during this period, especially John Dewey, George Herbert Mead, Charles Sanders Pierce and William James, challenged the Enlightenment version of truth. They argued that truth was relative, depending on how it was investigated and on who performed the investigation. These views challenged objectivity and also influenced literature, science and law.
- Walter Lippmann: A famous journalist who argued in his best-selling book Public Opinion that democracy was fundamentally flawed. His work provided a foundation for the modern study of communication. Lippmann thought people mostly knew the world only through distorted and incomplete pictures provided by the press. Humans also had trouble figuring out the truth because of bias, inattentiveness and ignorance.
- Pseudo Event: News is manufactured daily, and the profession has placed an emphasis on discovering and covering events before competitors. Stories are often missed because they do not fit neatly into an event narrative. This was demonstrated with the lack of coverage of the women’s movement and the civil rights movement until sit-ins and demonstration events were held.
- Coherence Theory of Truth: Truth is discovered through a variety of methods that involve figuring out which set of facts form a coherent mental picture of events and ideas. Blogs, including the Huffington Post, provide words, images and access to other sources. This theory moves away from one method of investigation.
- Marketplace of Ideas Theory: Competing notions should be allowed to coexist because the ultimate truth will rise to the top.
- Interlocking Public: Idea that each member of the audience is interested and expert in something. People are not wholly ignorant or interested in everything. People may be part of an involved public, interested public or uninterested public depending on the issue. People will be parts of different groups based on the issue.
Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu
Vangellow, Cassie 