Presentation Evaluations – Week 15

Cohort groups presented about a variety of compelling ethical dilemmas and issues during the week 15 lecture. Based on everything we have learned throughout the semester, it was interesting to take a deeper look into these topics.

Group 4 – Relationship between Media and Undocumented Citizens

I never heard the terms “undocumented citizen” used together until this presentation. This seems like an oxymoron because if someone is undocumented, he or she is not a citizen.

It was interesting how the group’s handout focused on the “undocumented Californians.” I am more approving of this reference because these immigrants are undocumented people living in California. However, I also see how residents of the state are not too keen on this reference. If someone is living in California legally, it is easy to see how they could take offense.

I do not necessarily agree with the group’s characterizations of the political parties. Yes, Democrats and Republicans have different stances on immigration. It is much easier to discuss giving these people chances. I am sure “inclusive language” boosts the ratings for Democrats. However, policies are in place for a reason. If our country gave everyone a chance for citizenship who came in illegally, our country would be overwhelmed by millions of additional people. I doubt our current infrastructure could handle that.

I do agree with the redistribution of accountability that seems to be occurring. These illegal immigrants are breaking laws and exploiting the system. When did this behavior become characteristic of a victim? If these people want to be treated as citizens, they need to follow the proper protocol.

Even though I spend a lot of time with my AP Stylebook, I have never written a story that includes illegal immigrants. It is telling to me that the Associated Press decided to strike “illegal immigrant” from its style guide.

What will replace these terms? How should these people be referred to? While I do not want to be offensive, I think we need to say what we mean. If someone immigrates to this country illegally, aren’t they an illegal immigrant?

Our society tends to over emphasize political correctness. It is illegal for employers to discriminate against criminals during the hiring process because it has a “disproportionate” effect on minorities. This absolutely boggles my mind. If someone has a criminal past, this should prevent him or her from obtaining certain employment. Whether someone is white, black, Hispanic or Asian should not be factors for job consideration. However, if someone has a rap sheet, this SHOULD be a factor.

The media needs to focus more on the immigration process during their coverage of immigration. Too often, we see stories about this poor immigrant or that one who is facing issues getting housing or a job.

Instead of treating these people like victims, do pieces about the bureaucracy involved in the process of becoming a citizen. Members of the media can serve as watchdogs over various agencies, such as the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. What are we waiting for?

Group 3 – Citizen Journalism

This group began their presentation by focusing on the void citizen journalists can fill, especially in the broadcast realm. My cohort group did not focus as much on the broadcast aspects, so I enjoyed hearing their perspective.

I also liked the Citizen Journalism vs. Traditional Journalism video. Although the traditional media model may be broken, the industry has more potential than ever because eyes and ears are everywhere. Instead of looking at these two sectors as separate and distinct, we can view it as a symbiotic relationship where both entities can benefit.

Journalism is a discipline of verification. If we do not verify the information for our audiences, how can they trust us? This principle is important for both traditional and citizen journalists.

The group’s timeline was helpful for seeing the progression of citizen journalism. It is amazing how someone watching the Columbia disaster unfold snapped a photo that was featured on the cover of Time. I had no idea Hurricane Sandy generated more than 800,000 photos on Instagram. It is refreshing to know this social media platform is used for something besides selfies.

I appreciated how members of group 3 focused on three individual case studies, including Syria, the Boston Marathon bombings and Venezuela. Anonymous sources are essential to coverage of the Syrian crisis, but this obviously raises questions about verification. Who can we attribute the information to? It is understandable why a Syrian citizen would want to remain anonymous, especially with the rampant danger paralyzing the country. However, it is difficult to determine whether we are seeing a photo from Syria or another area of the world.

The presentation referred to a New York Times video project where the publication shares “what we know vs. what we don’t know.” I think this is a great idea for stories and projects that include a lot of user-generated content. This transparency will allow an open dialogue with the public about the status of coverage, as well as reinforce the credibility of the publication because it is being open and honest.

In the discussion of the Boston Marathon coverage, Adam mentioned Geofeedia. This seems like a great tool to monitor what is happening in a small area. I wonder if this is something that could be utilized at WUFT.org in the future. The website mentions the ability to search, monitor and analyze the social media activity for a specific locale. This could be a helpful feature to set up for all of the counties in our coverage area.

During this semester, we have talked extensively about the lack of verification in the Venezuelan coverage. We even saw how the University of Florida student who created a video may have allowed her activist goals to supersede her journalistic principles.

I firmly believe media organizations must establish policies for how to handle content submitted by citizen journalists. If a news organization is willing to place this content on its website or on one of its networks, it needs to be sure the information is accurate. The media can no longer blame these citizens. Members of the media can do their best to provide guidance to citizens, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the mainstream and professional media.

Group 10 – Undercover Reporting

The Food Lion case seems to be the iconic example of undercover reporting. As a finicky eater who does not eat meat and many other foods, this story reaffirms my concerns about purchasing certain items from the supermarket.

This story addressed a public safety concern. Food Lion customers had a right to know they were not getting what they thought they were paying for. Was there any way to get this story without going undercover? I doubt Food Lion would have been open about its process of changing expiration dates and creating suspect meat concoctions if anyone had asked.

Being transparent with audiences is what truly matters. If a news organization tells its readers or viewers how it went undercover and the reasons for doing so, I think credibility can remain intact.

I thought it was interesting how this group brought in the discussion of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. This ethical framework says “you should act so that you treat humanity always as an end and never as a means only.” To me, undercover reporting entails someone masquerading as a means to get the story, which would be the ends. However, what do you do if this is the only way to get the story?

I loved the group’s handout for this project. I had previously heard about James O’Keefe’s ACORN video. While it seems like the ACORN employees were engaging in some sketchy practices, this was NOT an objective piece of journalism. However, as a conservative activist, we cannot expect O’Keefe to hold himself to the same standards journalists hold themselves to. The leading questions and the voiceovers took away from his overall message of a corrupt ACORN because they ultimately called his motives into question.

Personally, I have no intent to travel to North Korea. In addition, I think I would be the worst undercover reporter because I am not good at lying or pretending to be something I am not. However, I give the BBC credit for attempting to show the country like it is. I agree with the classmate who said additional context would have been helpful. Were these conditions typical of only one area of the country? What is contributing to these problems? These are questions I think the journalists should have answered.

This group did an excellent job of looking into a complex topic.

Group 9 – Accuracy vs. Immediacy

Would you rather be first or accurate? In an ideal world, a news organization would want to be both. However, no one will remember if you posted the information second. However, they will remember if it was wrong.

During my Thursday shift, we received the sad news that the University of Florida’s diving coach Donnie Craine died. When we sent out the initial tweet, we were the first news organization in the market to send anything out. I have never tweeted something so sensitive, so I was nervous about it. Luckily, I had several other editors around me to take a quick look before publication.

While I know other major news organizations deal with breaking news stories on a regular basis, why isn’t there the same attention to accuracy? I understand when something breaks, everyone wants something up on the website or social media, but at what price?

During my senior year of high school, I did an extensive project on the status of the nation’s health care. I understand how complex the topic is, but this is still no excuse for news organizations, such as CNN, publishing how the Affordable Care Act was struck down when it was not.

What is even worse is the lack of accountability. CNN labeled the corrections on Twitter, but they failed to do this adequately on their other platforms. Fox did not do a much better job by blaming the facts. You claim you covered “the news as it happened?” Why not admit you made a mistake and move on?

It baffles me how some news organizations were being congratulated on getting it right. We are in the business of journalism where accuracy and verification are everything. If we start giving out gold stars when people get the information right, does this not devalue everything we stand for?

During the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, I remember I was at work in western New York. As a school district employee whose office is located in a middle school, I immediately felt unsafe. Schools have always been considered a safe place, and this occurrence shattered that idea. One of the administrators used to work at Sandy Hook, so the situation hit even closer to home.

I do not understand when news organizations post something based on what another media outlet says. What happened to verifying the information for oneself? I feel so terrible for what Ryan Lanza must have gone through after the shooting. Can you imagine being vilified in the national spotlight for something you did not do?

During the Boston Marathon bombings, the media had some major hiccups as well. While we should not expect much from the New York Post, their coverage of the alleged bombers was a sorry excuse for journalism. CNN and Fox were also quick to make excuses about mistakes in their coverage.

It would be much more refreshing if members of the media would be forthcoming about their failures. Journalists are human, and audiences understand that. I think people tend to lose faith when mistakes are glossed over like nothing happened.

I approve of the idea of spreading corrections far and fast. One Facebook post or tweet is not enough. Web stories need to be updated with highlighted corrections. On television, banners should refer to the corrections, and the anchors should acknowledge any errors while on the air. If the initial story reached people through various platforms, the news organization needs to do everything in its power to reach out with the proper information.

Group 7 – Duty vs. Benevolence

We are all aware of the bystander effect. If someone drops their books, but several people are around, you are much less likely to bend down and help the person. However, if you the only person around, it is probable you will assist them.

Hearing the story of Kitty Genovese turned my stomach. All these people heard a woman cry out in agony, but they did nothing. While some can blame this on the New York City mentality, I do not think this is limited to one locale. I hear random noises outside of my apartment window, but I often assume the sounds are coming from drunk students returning from midtown. Do we always know when someone is in trouble?

I liked how this group focused on photography. As we learned from both our textbooks, ethical issues are rampant in pictures. Help now, shoot later or shoot now, help later? This is the question photojournalists must ask themselves when they go to shoot people in dangerous and tragic situations.

I am a firm believer that we are humans first and journalists second. If I could do something to help someone in pain, that would be my immediate reaction. While I would want to do my job to the best of my ability, I could not live with myself if someone’s life was negatively impacted by my choice. It seems like this type of decision ultimately led to Kevin Carter’s suicide.

In these types of situations, I do not think we should think about loyalty to an employer or to readers. The loyalty should be with someone who is in need. If you are thinking about a paycheck when someone is running toward you covered in napalm, I question your moral and ethical compass.

As someone who spends a substantial amount of time in New York City because my dad lives there, I know how dangerous the subways can be. While the New York Post does not seem to know much about taste, the subway photo of a man’s impending death raises a variety of ethical issues.

What would you do in this situation? The subway platform is at least several feet above the tracks. What if you did not have the ability to lift him up without putting yourself in danger? I am not sure whether I would risk my life, but I would never take a photo of a man during his final moments.

The old adage goes “a picture is worth 1,000 words.” As journalists, we need to recognize ethical issues in photos, as well as those in text.

Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu

 

 

Presentation Evaluations – Week 14

I enjoyed learning about a variety of ethical issues facing journalists during the first round of presentations.

Group 6 – “Blood on our hands”

As soon as I saw the title for this group’s presentation, I was intrigued. Until watching this presentation, I had never heard of persistent sexual arousal syndrome. I remember one episode of “Grey’s Anatomy” where a woman could not control her constant orgasms, but I assumed this was a fictitious problem.

If I had seen this post on Craigslist, I would have likely attributed it to the crazy people out there who post about all kinds of nonsense. I must admit that I do not think I would have had the audacity to message the person to ask them whether I could pursue a story about them.

I was glad this group provided context about the situation, including reporter Leonora LaPeter Anton’s background. Anton worked at the Tampa Bay Times for more than 10 years, so it was evident this was not an issue pertaining to lack of experience.

As a journalist, I always look for situations where I can learn something. Gretchen Molannen’s story was heartbreaking and complex. While people might be quick to say this syndrome is a blessing in disguise, Molannen discussed its debilitating effects. Can you imagine going through a period of arousal while in a quiet movie theater or office? I can only imagine the anxiety associated with this.

We have learned journalism’s first loyalty is to citizens. As a citizen, Molannen deserved our loyalty. While I am not blaming Molannen’s suicide on Anton, the situation could have been handled better.

Journalists should go through a period of psychological training. This training could be beneficial for reporters because it would enable them to deal with sources who may be facing demons or issues journalists may know little about. At this point in time, I know very little to nothing about suicide prevention. If I were a reporter for this story, that information would have been extremely helpful.

When members of group six mentioned the inclusion of helpful resources for those with suicidal thoughts, I thought about the Journalism for Action article we read during week 13. Wouldn’t this type of work be what Alana Moceri was referring to when she called for journalism for action? After looking at this case study, I am much more open to these efforts because telling readers what they can do about something can actually make a difference.

Group 8 – Trial Reporting

I remember learning about the Sam Sheppard case during law of mass communication. After looking at the media frenzy, can we say much has changed since 1954?

I like how members of group 8 separated the trials into sensationalistic cases, cases that created a bias and those cases that resulted in overexposure. I agree how George Zimmerman and Aaron Hernandez were victims of sensationalistic cases. Even before these cases reached the courtroom, the media framed these defendants as guilty.

Hernandez’s case will likely not be held until spring or summer of 2015, but members of the public and potential jury members already have a skewed view of the defendant because of the media. The University of Florida was also quick to distance itself by removing Hernandez’s All-American brick in July of 2013.

With the case studies of Richard Jewell and Alex Rodriguez, we also saw how the media can create a bias. We watched that heartbreaking video at the start of the semester that focused on the handling of the Jewell case. It is troubling how the Atlanta Journal Constitution and other media outlets created a bias that prevented Jewell from receiving a fair trial.

The use of performance enhancing drugs and steroids are serious infractions, especially in the world of sports where athletes are celebrated for their prowess. However, even if Rodriguez did use these substances, about 196,000 results appear when I typed in Alex Rodriguez PED. Do you think you could get a fair trial with this bias surrounding your image?

Overexposure is another issue, but I do not think it is solely the media’s fault. As the group said, journalists do not control how much access they have to a particular trial. From their presentation, it seems like Jodi Arias and Casey Anthony were victims of this overexposure. What is the media’s responsibility in these types of situations? Should they devote extensive coverage to these defendants or does this behavior glamorize crime?

The group said it is a journalist’s duty to provide “truth in order to maintain an efficient and effective democracy.” Would tainting someone’s reputation be included in this role? I do not think so.

Group 5 – Ethics Online

Watching the Buzzfeed video about people’s privacy on social media made my day. I had tears in my eyes from laughing so hard. However, it does bring up the serious issue of people being so open on the Internet. If a few people with simple search queries can find all this information out, imagine what data companies and the government have access to.

Even as I say this, I am guilty of taking countless Buzzfeed quizzes. Of course, my favorite one is “Which Disney Princess are you?” In all honesty, it does not surprise me how these websites sell the data to outside companies. We freely put it out there, so why shouldn’t these companies utilize it?

When it comes to online privacy and the publication of mugshots, I have mixed feelings. I want to be aware of the crime in my area, and I also want people to be held accountable for their actions. I think they can also serve as deterrents for people who are considering doing something illegal whether this pertains to underage drinking, drugs or something more serious. As a prospective law student, I had to fill out sections on each application about any prior criminal history. Having a mug shot would have likely killed my chances of going to law school.

However, I also know people who have had their mugshots held “for ransom” by websites who charge exorbitant fees if someone wants the photos removed. I do not agree with these people’s actions that resulted in the arrest, but I think they will pay for their mistake. Is it fair for others to profit off of their misfortune?

I may not be someone who would purchase a copy of The Slammer, but I also cannot get enough of television about crime and prison. I watch “Locked Up” almost every Saturday night. While most people may not be as interested as I am, do you think people are attracted to crude and dangerous material?

I also think my curiosity contributes to me being a constant victim of clickbait. When I see an article like “Adult Kickball Team Email: Please Don’t Fuck Your Teammates Yet,” I know I will give into the inevitable and click on it.

As the spokesman for Buzzfeed said, this material is “anything anyone might actually want to read.” Is that really too hard for journalists to admit? If we all used a little more clickbait, maybe readership would not be on such a decline.

Group 2 – Anonymous Sources

Anonymous sources continue to be a contentious issue because some situations warrant them while others do not. No publication wants to have a Jayson Blair scenario on their hands, so I think many news organizations are wary about their use.

However, members of group 2 also acknowledged some of the positive work that has been completed as a result of anonymous sources. We likely never would have heard about Watergate without Deep Throat. It is not appropriate for every situation, but it can be useful for certain topics that require a light touch.

When it comes to making sure the news organization is covered, I like the idea of at least one editor knowing the identity of the anonymous source. Anonymous sources may have a lot to lose, but the credibility of a news organization could be on the line. The identity of the source would be protected, but an editor would have the journalist’s back, something I think can only help a story.

Group 1 – Citizen Journalism

This was my cohort group’s presentation. I enjoyed discussing critical junctures for citizen journalism, including the Rodney King beating in March 1991. I also liked hearing the opinions of class members about how they feel citizen journalism will mesh with professional journalism and traditional journalists.

Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu

Blog Essay Week 14

EJ Chapter 11

As our group investigated citizen journalism, we have seen similar situations to the London subway bombings in July 2005 that involved user-generated content. It amazes me how more than 1,000 photographs and 20,000 emails were submitted by citizens. During our research, we saw how citizen coverage of the South Asian earthquake and tsunamis was a critical juncture for citizen journalism.

While I never want tragedies like these to occur, they demonstrate the power of those who are on the ground to make a difference in providing information, as well as catching possible suspects. Social media and citizen involvement was a helpful resource for catching the Boston Marathon bombers. Is this the future of breaking news coverage? If people are in the area and have a smartphone, there is a lot of potential for this shift.

I thought it was interesting how Richard Sambrook, the director of the news division for BBC, said “When major events occur, the public can offer us as much new information and we are able to broadcast to them.” No longer are citizens relegated to the receiving end of news. They have the ability to cover the news, which I think is one reason the media world is in flux. Roles are no longer set in stone, which creates confusion and tension.

When I was reading about the Digital Storytelling Project, Island Blogging and BBC Action Network, I began thinking about counterparts in the United States. The only citizen journalism entity from a major news organization that I could think of was CNN iReport. If Great Britain is so progressive in this regard, why is the United States not following suit?

The Island Blogging project particularly caught my attention because I think this concept could be effective for covering underserved areas. When looking at WUFT.org’s coverage area, it is easy to see areas that receive little to no news coverage. What if citizens took on this role? Upon further inspection, it appears that Island Blogging no longer exists, but I think its model can continue serving as a template.

I also thought it was compelling how Sambrook continued to emphasize truth, accuracy and impartiality. Instead of removing citizens from this equation, he said these standards can be strengthened through a wider range of opinion and perspective. I had never looked at it like this, but many citizens could likely elucidate on certain topics they are much more familiar with than the average journalist would be.

Kovach and Rosenstiel mentioned how journalism and democracy were basically formed together. Thomas Jefferson once said, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” While it is funny to think of these words coming from a powerful political figure, can the two ever truly be separated?

I sometimes struggle with the idea that journalists not only have to provide audiences with information, but they also need to make sense of all the material inundating members of the public. I think this is because our generation grew up with the Internet, and we have seen the exponential growth of the media. We have come to learn what entities do an impeccable job of doing the news compared to the satirical work of The Onion.

Also, as a journalism student, I feel I can separate the coverage performed by ABC News versus the National Enquirer. What is the best way to go about helping the public make these distinctions? Should they be able to choose what they want to consume or do journalists have a role in guiding them to the more credible media sources?

The tenth principle said, “Citizens have rights, but also responsibilities when it comes to news.” This serves as an effective bookend for the other principles, as well as providing a springboard for additional standards to be added as journalism continues to change.

Even though we always talk about how the business interests should remain subservient to the journalistic interests, I find it fascinating how we allow market demand to dictate so much of what we do. Everything is put in terms of consumers and products, and I am still not sure whether journalism can be put into this mold.

It also caught my eye how this chapter advocates for journalists to tell the public how the sausage is made. As a vegetarian, I think if someone told me how sausage is produced, I would never consider eating meat in a million years. Even when I ask people who eat meat, they are more than content not knowing what goes into sausage, hot dogs, etc. While I acknowledge what Kovach and Rosenstiel were getting at, I am not sure sausage production is the best analogy for being more transparent.

To me, it seems obvious that citizens have the right to expect truthful coverage of the news. However, I found it interesting how important unanswered questions should be stated. Whenever I read a story, I do not feel like journalists do this enough. Is it because editors do not want their reporters admitting information is missing? Would acknowledgement of these missing details help or hinder a publication’s credibility?

I also thought it was interesting how this demand for truthfulness emphasized follow-up stories on certain topics. Throughout my work at WUFT.org, I have noted how this is something I think we can improve upon. I think a recent story about dog tethering provided an effective update on an issue we had covered a couple of months ago. These follow-up stories could also help us answer the unanswered questions from our earlier coverage. However, are people more interested in following up on past stories or do they only care about what is happening currently? Does this vary based on the publication?

I think the most important point pertaining to loyalty to citizens is the concerted effort to understand the entire community. Many news organizations are quick to fall into covering stereotypes because it is easier. Why should a reporter expand his or her scope when the generalization is often supported by evidence?

Whenever hearing about crime in New York City, I feel like an overabundance of stories come out of Harlem. When I typed “Harlem NYC Crime” into Google, approximately 23,700 were provided to me. While I am sure crime is occurring in this area, I also know it is taking place in other areas. My dad lives in Riverdale, a section of the Bronx, and I can attest to seeing troubling issues that could make for interesting stories.

This section also discussed how news companies should put their own interests at risk once in a while. While the chapter mentioned how “countless others do it every day,” I question why only one example is used.

Katharine Graham may have done this when she published the Pentagon Papers. However, the abilities of the Washington Post to take a chance on something is much different from the Gainesville Sun or other small papers going against companies or interests that they depend on for advertising revenue, etc.  Personally, I do not think most news organizations are willing to take these risks in such troubling economic times.

Independence is another vital aspect in journalism. Will we see CNN being critical of the Affordable Care Act or Fox News criticizing Ted Cruz? In our increasingly partisan media, I am not sure whether this will ever occur. Honestly, this does not bother me as much as journalists writing speeches for politicians without disclosing this information to the public. Even with disclosure, I know deep down that these people cannot write objectively about said speech because of their large part in it. Also, I will continue to question their work on future stories based on this collusion.

When it comes to monitoring power, I think this role is multifaceted. The public looks to journalists to serve as watchdogs over various bureaucracies, but I also think citizens have a role in keeping watch over the power of the press. A blogger, who went by the name Buckhead, was instrumental in questioning the authenticity of documents featured in a CBS News report about President George W. Bush receiving special treatment in the National Guard. While Buckhead’s motives came under fire because of his political affiliations, his initial criticism resulted in an investigation into the coverage. Why don’t we see more citizens questioning what the media says or does?

While I admit the importance of public forums, I think this service is much easier for newspapers and television stations based in small or moderately sized communities. These news organizations have ties to specific locales where it would make sense to meet with civic clubs and attend PTA meetings. I am having difficulty grappling with how this is possible for a national or international news organization.

Is a website like MSNBC doing enough to support a public forum when it allows comments on a video about Jeb Bush becoming a presidential contender? What else can these entities do to show their readers and viewers matter? Does including more user-generated content give a voice and platform to those who might be critical of a news entity?

Proportionality and engagement are two areas the media needs to continue working on. CNN’s coverage of Flight 370 is at the forefront of my mind. Without any new developments and other breaking news occurring, I wonder what the network’s motives are. While people are continuing to watch, I do not think this should serve as a blank check for this incessant coverage to continue.

Also, with our hectic schedules not allowing us to digest as much news as we would like, I am disappointed to see journalists writing about Pope Francis taking “selfies” with people. He is a public figure, but I think more important issues are deserving of the media’s attention

Are “selfies” newsworthy? Even even they involve the Pope?

I was not aware of the Marv Albert scandal until reading this chapter, so I looked up what transpired. Testimony revealed how Albert bit a female companion 15 to 20 times followed by him forcing her to perform oral sex. It disgusts me that his toupee was even a factor in the coverage. Is hair care material to a case that involves a twisted perpetrator?

The chapter’s conclusion focused on actions citizens can take if these rights are not recognized and met to their satisfaction. While discontinuing a subscription or choosing to stop watching a certain channel might have demonstrable effects for community media, I am not sure how this translates for the large media conglomerates.

We have learned The New York Times is not too big to fail, but we have also seen it is not closing up shop just yet. Even with people dropping subscriptions, the company is finding innovative ways to keep its doors open. What can the public do to make these larger media members listen to what they have to say?

I largely disagree with Carol Marin’s quote that “there are no laws of news.” I talk about this idea in greater detail with my discussion question. While journalists may not have a specific section devoted to their profession in the U.S. Code, we have seen how there are certain agreed upon principles and standards. What would be the purpose in reading about the elements of journalism if they did not serve a guiding function for journalists

While saying the elements of journalism are the “only protection against the force that threatens to destroy journalism and thus weaken democratic society” may be a little dramatic, a new media without these standards will not maintain the credibility of its ancestors.  The next challenge will involve current entities staying true to these standards while simultaneously introducing them to citizens.

It is positive to hear that we have not lost all hope for journalism’s future. While we could reminisce about the days of Pulitzer and Hearst, these periods were seriously flawed. Ultimately, we must continue to reassure the public of the media’s trustworthiness. However, words can only mean so much. This must be demonstrated to the people through objective journalism that has undergone a process of verification.

While it is a stressful time to be entering the field of journalism, it is also an exciting time full of opportunity to be a part of a newly transformed media. Pope John Paul II said, “The future starts today, not tomorrow.” Let’s get started!

Discussion Question

Do you agree with Carol Marin when she said, “there are no laws of news?”

After participating in the class activity where we answered questions posed to Chinese journalists, I am glad we are not a licensed profession. However, I would consider codes of ethics and consciences to provide guidance and structure for journalists. Even our text, The Elements of Journalism, provides us with “principles that have helped both journalists and the people in self-governing systems to adjust to the demands of an ever more complex world.” From our Media Ethics Issues & Cases text, we also learned how codes of ethics can assist journalists as they do their jobs, as long as they are accompanied by a personal moral compass. As more citizens continue to get involved with journalism, I think principles and standards need to continue providing structure if we do not want to see credibility and public confidence in the press decline. Mark Twain once said “Laws control the lesser man…Right conduct controls the greater one.” I am hoping most journalists identify with the latter. Ultimately, even if these laws are not formalized, journalists can choose to follow certain principles.

Link to Ethical Issue of the Week

During the semester, we have talked extensively about native advertising. The Harry Winston advertisement included on the outside of the wrap and the bottom of Thursday’s New York Times front page brings up a variety of issues. When we watched “Page One: Inside The New York Times,” the battle to get on page one of the paper was evident. This is prime real estate, especially for a publication that has international readership. Why would the newspaper waste this coveted space on advertisements? The New York Times included the first native advertisement on its website on Jan. 8. We have learned that these advertisements are often formatted and written in a similar way to the non-sponsored content prepared by journalists. Throughout the initial Dell advertisement, the New York Times was transparent about how this post was produced through collaboration with the computer company. I think there needs to be differentiation between native advertisements online and those in print. With the Internet, there is unlimited space for these types of posts. However, the printed product is limited. As the “paper of record” and destination for many top journalists, it appears like economic interests are outweighing loyalty to citizens. I appreciated how iMediaEthics provided an update on this post. If the New York Times were trying to be transparent, the publication should have been honest about their previous use of advertising wraps. The public, including myself, would be much more receptive to the publication admitting it is trying something new in order to support its journalism efforts than lying about using advertising wraps “many times previously.”

Updates are helpful for providing additional context.

Questions from Dr. Rodgers – Vocabulary Terms

No vocabulary words are listed for week 14.

Summing Up of Class

When I originally signed up for ethics, I was confused about how the class would be structured. I assumed ethics was something that varied from individual to individual. Can it really be taught in a four-month period?

While I do not think my personal ethics have changed, I feel much more equipped to respond to various dilemmas. As an indecisive person, I am grateful for the helpful guidance of the IWC Systematic Process and the Potter Box. It will no longer be necessary for me to ponder an issue for an excessive amount of time without an effective protocol to come to a decision.

It is still difficult for me to deal with the subjective nature of ethics because black and white issues are easier to comprehend. However, each situation has different factors that must be considered. As the media continues to change, this will likely only get more difficult.

When I enter law school in the fall, I will be facing ethical issues, as well as legal ones. I am hoping my training from ethics and law of mass communication assist me in this next academic venture.

Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu

 

 

 

 

Blog Essay Week 13

EJ Chapter 10

During my spring break in Washington, D.C., I was able to see all of the security measures in place in this vast metropolis, so I can only imagine how scary it must have been in October of 2002. I often get freaked out by the constant UF Alerts, so I know I would have been paralyzed by fear.

The fierceness of media competition is to be expected. Everyone wants to receive credit for shedding light on a particular issue or scandal. However, it surprised me how the New York Times was still disappointed about coming up short in the Watergate coverage. To me, it seems like a no-brainer that the Washington Post, which is based in our nation’s capital, was able to devote its resources to uncovering this government secret. Does being the “paper of record” mean you have to be everywhere, all the time to get the next blockbuster story?

After seeing the well-oiled New York Times machine in “Page One: Inside the New York Times,” I saw many talented journalists and editors working diligently and looking at topics in ways I never would have considered. With this access to the best and brightest in journalism, it concerns me how reporter Jayson Blair, with less than two years of experience, was sent to D.C. during the fall of 2002.

Red flags were also raised when established reporters, such as Eric Lichtblau, questioned some of Blair’s reporting. While egos and jealousy are rampant in the field of journalism, Lichtblau had questions based on the input of trusted sources. I wonder why this was not taken more seriously. I ponder this issue further in my discussion question because I do not see why a news organization would not want these types of internal checks and balances to benefit the organization. Section, managing and executive editors cannot keep their eyes on everyone all the time, so they should value the “on-the-ground” perspective from other journalists.

It angers me how it took an outsider from another paper to cause executive editor Howell Raines and managing editor Gerald Boyd to take a closer look. In 2001, Boyd became the first African American managing editor at the New York Times. Did this factor into special treatment for Blair, who was also an African American? I do not like to speculate, but I question how this behavior could have gone undetected for so long.

I give some credit to the management of the New York Times for attempting to open up the lines of communication, but I think it was too late, at least on this particular issue. An article pertaining to the resignation of Raines and Boyd mentioned how 36 articles written by Blair raised ethical concerns. This is not exactly something you can sweep under the rug.

Having no laws or licensing in journalism can be viewed as a negative, but these types of regulations would hinder the work of journalists. In lecture a few weeks back, we saw what it takes to be a journalist in China. I think I am content to pursue a journalism career here where there is much less restriction and emphasis on following those who are in power.

However, I think the lack of rules and regulations also places a heavier burden on individual journalists. We may not be bound to follow certain laws, but do we have any credibility if we do not follow some standards? While codes of ethics provide a sound foundation, I think an ethical compass must also be found in every reporter.

Ultimately, I do not think we can avoid an oligarchic media structure. Editors need to use their news judgment to evaluate and monitor what their journalists are doing. Within these structures, I think more can be done to allow for discussion and internal audits about what is going on. It is much better if an ethical issue can be dealt with from the onset instead of months or years later when a problem of a greater scale attracts the attention of the outside media and the rest of the public.

In my first blog post for this course, I defined ethics as “a moral foundation that allows someone to evaluate and make decisions in his or her personal and professional life.” I think this relates to Kovach and Rosenstiel’s ninth principle that states, “Journalists have an obligation to exercise their personal conscience.”

Journalists must use their voices to announce when something is ethically questionable or biased. I applaud Sharyl Attkisson, not only because she is a Florida Gator, but because she decided to leave CBS because of its alleged liberal bias and lacking focus on investigative reporting. While this chapter mentions how calling attention to issues at an organization are rare because journalists are worried about job security, it is refreshing to see when someone’s morals are considered more important than salary.

Even though many journalists could likely not afford to do what she did, she sets an example for others to follow. I wholeheartedly agree with Carol Marin when she said, “I think a journalist is someone who believes in something that they would be willing to quit over.” It appears that Attkisson took this advice.

Our media ethics text by Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins also referred to the NBC “Dateline” special about General Motors. To me, it seems obvious how journalists and producers should never manufacture anything when it comes to the news. If the actual crash tests had resulted in small fires that burnt out on their own, this is what should have been shown. Adding additional crash tests “rigged to be more dramatic,” leads to journalists crossing boundaries into the land of make believe.

This situation also raises the question of why aren’t the concerns of journalists taken more seriously? Michele Gillen, like Eric Lichtblau at the New York Times, did her job by voicing her issues with the segment. Michael Gartner might still have a job with NBC News if he had listened to her.

It interests me how websites like Mediabistro exist to provide news about the world of journalism. Journalists are no longer only celebrated or critiqued for the reporting they do. They also receive attention for various judgment calls they make, such as when Bob Costas chose not to host the “Larry King Live” special about Natalee Holloway. Members of the general public and other journalists are serving more and more as “media watchdogs,” which hopefully will continue to help with transparency.

I do not think we are facing an industry-wide degradation of ethics. While shows like “House of Cards,” show journalists sleeping with congressmen and threatening sources, I think these ideas make for good television. I may be naive, but I think the moral dimension continues to lead people to careers in journalism.

However, I think we are seeing a change because of the influx of citizens who are producing journalistic content. These citizens do not have managers exercising the final judgment about what they can and cannot publish, which is why they sometimes engage in fabrication. Our group saw this when a citizen journalist falsely published that Steve Jobs had a heart attack in 2008. As Kovach and Rosenstiel said, exercising conscience is not easy, especially when someone’s moral compass is skewed.

Credit must also be given to Carol Marin for refusing to anchor a station that was heading down a path of hype and sleaze. She knew how journalists “live and die by their reputation as people with ethics.” If a journalist does not have standards and a moral compass to guide himself or herself, can that person’s work be trusted as being believable and credible? If journalists allow their work to become about hype and infotainment, audiences will not continue to place their work in high esteem.

I am struggling with something said by Linda Foley, the former president of the Newspaper Guild. She declared, “It’s credibility, more than objectivity, that’s important for us in our industry.” Can journalists or media organizations be deemed credible if they are not covering the news objectively? Covering the news accurately and proportionally without bias leads to credibility, so I think they go hand in hand.

I do agree with the discussion about the importance of collaboration when dealing with a decision or dilemma. Whenever I am considering the news value of a pitch or whether a story is biased or missing a certain stakeholder view at WUFT, I always like to ask my fellow advanced editors and supervisors what they think. Donald Shriver effectively expresses this view when he said, “If journalism is a medium of dialogue among citizens, it seems right for the dialogue to begin in the newsroom.”

My various political science courses have exhaustively discussed the publication of the Pentagon Papers by the Washington Post. However, hearing from Katherine Graham about the views of different journalists and editors demonstrated how collaborative discussion and decision-making was essential for the publication decision. The publication of the Pentagon Papers had far-reaching implications that resulted in the “passing of an era” for the American press.

Do these types of discussions still occur today? Journalists are largely thought of as being lone rangers working individually without the necessity of teamwork, apart from consultation with editors. However, I think we need to get away from this belief because it limits the reporting capabilities. Having a second set of eyes or someone’s advice on working with a particular source can be invaluable. Editors and management not only have to listen to journalists, but journalists must also listen to each other.

Diversity is one of those terms that is used so frequently that it has lost its meaning. As I have applied to law school, I have seen the negative impacts of ethnic, racial and gender quotas. While I understand that universities and news organizations want to embrace different ethnicities and races, I do not think that quotas are an effective way to do this. Does choosing to hire an African American mean he or she is going to report about life in the ghetto? It is preconceived notions of this nature that people of a certain race all come from the same background.

All white people are not the same, just as all African Americans are not all similar to one other. Newsrooms need to look to hire journalists who will bring new perspectives and those who will challenge the status quo. If these journalists are of a different race or ethnicity than the majority of a newsroom, this should come secondary in the admissions or hiring process.

I appreciate how Kovach and Rosenstiel acknowledged the factors inhibiting newsrooms from including journalists from more heterogeneous backgrounds. Investigative journalism, like what uncovered Watergate, seems to be few and far between in today’s media. Is this because of the bureaucratic inertia preventing people from pushing the envelope? At first, I was struggling with what these terms meant, but it can be thought of as routines becoming safe havens. As I continue to see CNN’s coverage of Malaysian Flight 370, news organizations giving into the routine is all too apparent.

John Quincy Adams once said, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” While editors and publishers want to maintain their authority, they should also look for reporters to question their antics and even to defy them when it is appropriate. Efficiency may be important, but is a homogeneous newsroom in this period of cultural change and progress the key for long-term media success?

Heterogeneous newsrooms can facilitate communication with citizens who are as unique as each falling snowflake. (I apologize for the corny metaphor). One of the duties of a journalist is to help build a bridge across people’s differing views. This role is made much easier if people in the newsroom are well aware of the views based on their own backgrounds. While some might call this bias, these background experiences can contribute to more well-rounded reporting that does not leave out important details because of ignorance.

While citizens have a role in driving what receives coverage, they are not wholly responsible for the state of the media today. However, as they begin to take on a more active role, their future role may be transformed. As Poynter’s Kelly McBride said during a recent interview with our group, the terms “citizen journalist” may be redundant as everyone is able to create and publish content.

Journalism for Action

As I began reading this article, I definitely identified with what Alana Moceri was saying. Whenever I scroll through Twitter or watch the nightly network news, which is not as often as I should, I constantly feel like there are only bad things happening.

When I looked at ABC News on Sunday night, this is what I saw. It is easy to be overwhelmed by these menacing headlines.

Where is the news about the good happening in the world?

In this article, Moceri also said three words that do not usually come out of a journalist’s mouth: “I’m an activist.” Journalists are instructed to be objective and unbiased, so it is rare to have a reporter bucking the trend and saying something so unusual.

Is it ethical for someone to call himself or herself both a journalist and an activist? Can you accurately report on something if you are passionate about a particular aspect of the issue or topic? This seems to be where journalism is headed with the growth of citizen journalism. Many citizen journalists are not reporting on city commission meetings. They are writing blogs and creating websites about what they are passionate about.

Upon scrolling through ChicagoNow, I see posts about parenting, pets, sports, etc. While traditional journalists also write about these topics, citizens do not have to follow the standards of objectivity and fairness. They can, but their paychecks are not on the line if they choose to pursue an activist approach. This ethical shift is raising many questions about the future of journalism and its credibility.

Citizen journalists add their voices to the conversation

Moceri is supporting a “journalism for action” that not only reports the facts but also provides resources and information for readers who want to do something about a problem or issue. I am struggling to determine how this would work in everyday practice. Would a story about an attack on a lesbian woman have to be accompanied by where people can go to receive counseling if they have been attacked? Will providing these resources become a part of a journalist’s job description?

Would the pursuit of finding out what people can do to solve a problem detract from journalists having the ability to keep track of news as it changes ever day? It does not appear as though this would be economically feasible for news organizations that are already struggling to stay afloat.

I agree with Moceri how people need to become more civically involved. Many people wrongly believe that their civic abilities are limited to voting for elected officials. What ever happened to people coming together and expressing their views? The civil rights movement and the women’s movement would have been much less successful if citizens had not engaged in collective action.

Vince Lombardi once said, “Individual commitment to a group effort – that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.” With access to new tools, people have the ability to engage and express themselves more than ever before. What is stopping people from taking this step to take on a more active role?

The press serving as a watchdog over government is a widely held belief in this country, especially after the Pentagon Papers and Watergate. However, we are entering a new chapter as citizens are able to post photos, tweets and videos that keep power in check. Just ask Scott Prouty, the man who videotaped Mitt Romney’s now infamous 47 percent video. With this access, it is easier than ever to post, but it may lead to people making decisions without considering the possible ethical consequences.

Moceri focused on journalists providing citizens with an ability to take action on governmental issues. How would this work without journalists revealing their political leanings? Would journalists be required to do this equally for all party positions? While it is one thing to tell people how they can contact a member of Congress, it is a whole other issue to instruct someone how to get involved with a pro-rights or pro-choice group. I think false equivalency would become an issue for many of these topics because journalists want to avoid being called bias. However, as we have seen, false equivalency can provide a jaded view of reality. Global warming, anyone?

I comprehend how journalism for action does not need to translate into biased journalism. However, I do not see how an activist would not be biased. Is someone capable of switching between his or her journalism and activist hats?

Maybe so. If Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Nicholas Kristof is partaking in this journalism of action by providing the names of organizations helping to solve assorted problems, I feel like this type of journalism has a future.

This type of journalism is a shift from the status quo, but we must remember that journalism’s first loyalty is to citizens. If the citizens want to get involved and be told ways they can take an active role, journalists should do what is in their power to provide this information alongside objective reporting of the news.

In Praise of the Almost-Journalists

While many are quick to say journalism is a dying field, I have always been quick to point out that it is an industry going through a transformation. Finding a reporting job may no longer be a guarantee but more avenues continue to open up.

Citizen journalism is one area revolutionizing the media. The advent of digital technology, including smartphones and social media platforms, has given ordinary people the opportunity to become publishers. Forums like CNN’s iReport help amplify the voices of those who were relegated to the audience in the past.

While citizen journalism can often be celebrated, it also has its critics. Are platforms like AllVoices where anyone and everyone can write about everything a positive for journalism? I want people to have a voice, but I am also skeptical about whether these citizens uphold the same ethical standards that paid journalists subscribe to.

I am still having trouble considering advocates to be journalists. The American Civil Liberties Union is described on its website as “our nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.” While I appreciate this passion for liberty, I question whether this disqualifies the organization from considering itself to be journalistic.

However, I agree with Dan Gillmor when he said how citizens and advocates can provide more ample coverage than traditional groups. I wonder if this is because of their access to resources or whether this ties in with their passion for a particular subject.

In various classes, we have often discussed how journalists are not typically viewed as experts. Journalists are often considered to have working knowledge of various topics, which allows them to do their jobs more effectively.

Many of these citizens and advocates are experts in their respective fields. We can debate for hours the ethical dilemmas of whether they can provide accurate information without letting their biases infiltrate coverage. However, wouldn’t the input of experts provide better reporting on topics that are difficult to grasp?

Gillmor points to the ACLU looking into surveillance and freedom of information lawsuits long before Edward Snowden entered the scene. While I think journalists should continue knowing a little bit about as much as they can, I think these citizens and advocates should be consulted more regularly in the future. Why shouldn’t Human Rights Watch be contacted about stories and investigations into a potential rights violation?

It is interesting to consider how advocates used to have to pass through gate keeping organizations, such as the New York Times or “60 Minutes,” before people were made aware of their work. However, they now have the ability to post their research on the Internet where people from around the world can access it. This is true for the Cato Institute, as well as moms blogging about new parenting trends.

I follow in the steps of Gillmor when I attempt to gather news from a variety of sources, including those who tend to be more liberal and conservative. While I acknowledge how CNN and Fox will not give me everything, I feel much better about hearing from multiple organizations before exercising my judgment.

Ethical dilemmas will continue to appear in the future, especially as these “almost journalists” gain stronger footing. However, it is also an exciting time where publishers may have more knowledge about a topic than ever before. If we can impart some of this “expert” knowledge onto the general audience, aren’t we providing an invaluable resource people will be willing to pay for? As someone who wants to be employed in the near future, I am hoping so.

Discussion Question

How would you notify editors and management if you had suspicions about a colleague plagiarizing?

As we saw in this Kovach and Rosenstiel chapter, journalists in the newsroom are sometimes able to find red flags and issues with the reporting of their colleagues. This included the journalists at the New York Times who worked with Jayson Blair. “Complaints about Blair’s work had infected the newsroom in New York like a persistent fever for months before Blair was sent to Washington.” Reporters, including Eric Lichtblau, raised their concerns, but it seemed like management and editors higher up the food chain did not want to listen. It also troubled me when the chapter mentioned how “the doubts about the quality of his work didn’t travel with him, as if the editors worked on different continents rather than a few years or miles from each other.” In our class discussion about Janet Cooke’s article “Jimmy’s World,” we saw how flukes can occur when a journalist’s typical editor is out of town or not consulted for a particular story. A news organization’s credibility can be threatened when a single journalist does something ethically questionable, especially when he or she fabricates and plagiarizes. Editors and management should take the concerns of journalists seriously before brushing them off, especially if publications or news outlets do not want to see their credibility and integrity questioned.

Link to Ethical Issue of the Week

Kovach and Rosenstiel focused on hype in chapter nine by discussing the principle of the “naked body and the guitar.” In order to attract audiences in today’s competitive media markets, it appears like many news organizations are providing more “naked bodies” or sensationalistic work instead of substantive reporting. This news is not only limited to celebrities and infotainment. As this ethical issue demonstrates, it also applies to the outbreak of infectious diseases. Publications, such as the Washington Post, largely stuck to the facts about what was happening in Africa with the spread of Ebola. Other news outlets, including the Daily Mail, were more sensationalistic. The Daily Mail used the excessively long title of “A terrifying fight against the deadliest virus on Earth: Medic reveals true horror of Ebola outbreak as incurable disease liquefies victims from the inside.” While I agree that people need to be made aware of this disease, I think news organizations are quick to give into hype to attract more clicks and sell more papers. Do you think this is wrong in every case? Can sensationalistic tactics ever be harnessed for good? The media, including ABC News, also speculated how the infection could reach the United States. This is technically possible, but many factors were overlooked. The disease is transmitted from wild animals to people. People can only contract the disease from other people through bodily fluids. It is easy to cause panic among the masses, but isn’t it the media’s job to educate the public about what is going on to reduce any potential panic? Fewer papers might be sold and articles could receive fewer hits, but is that all journalists care about these days?

Questions from Dr. Rodgers – Vocabulary Terms

No vocabulary words are listed for week 13.

Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu

 

 

 

 

Blog Essay Week 12

EJ Chapter Nine

The Valerie Crane scenario from the start of the chapter does not surprise me. As a society, I think we are a bunch of followers. When we see someone else do something, we feel as though it is appropriate and okay. As someone who is 5 feet tall, I never thought I would be the type to wear a maxi dress. However, once it was established that these dresses were in style, I found a dress that could work for my petite frame.

This chapter also begins with the age-old question of what is news. This question engenders so much debate because different journalists and various people define news differently. For some, Kim Kardashian being on the cover of Vogue is major news, while others are much more concerned with searching for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.

I agree with Kovach and Rosenstiel’s eighth principle that states “journalists should keep the news comprehensive and in proportion.” Even though I recognize the importance of Malaysian Flight 370, I think the media’s coverage of this one tragedy is widely out of proportion. Our favorite Jon Stewart took members of the media, including CNN, Fox and MSNBC, to task for their never-ending coverage.

I had never considered journalism to be analogous to cartography, but I think the news does serve as a map that guides people throughout their daily lives. One of the first things I do each morning is watch the news to see what is going on. This provides me with some interesting information I can discuss with my work colleagues or classmates. The depressing part is members of the news media are more focused on the sex of Christina Aguilera’s baby instead of focusing on the potential repercussions of President Obama’s meeting with the Saudi king. The news map featuring the Aguilera story reminds me of the maps that depicted England or Spain to be the same size as Greenland.

It is interesting to me how newspapers began to only target the affluent demographics in the 1980s. Cable television is a niche media because there are so many different channels allowing viewers to pick and choose exactly what they want. However, newspapers are supposed to offer readers a wide variety of news that is a snapshot of everything happening. How is this possible if whole segments of the population are left out?

I had never considered looking at the readers who did not attract advertisers as those adding to the costs of the newspaper. Personally, I think a loyal customer who purchases the newspaper on the way to work each day or has a subscription could never be a bad thing. When I think of newspaper advertisements, I do not think of unaffordable luxuries. Even though my family is financially stable, my mom subscribes to the weekend newspaper for the sole purpose of getting coupons. I see a major disconnect in the rationale of these newspaper companies.

It also seems like these companies followed a poorly designed business model in the late 1970s when they started ignoring the rising immigrant communities. Even if these people earned smaller incomes than their other readers, what would be the harm in covering issues that impact their communities? In addition, other businesses that work with various ethnic groups would likely have been more interested in advertising in these publications if they thought any of their customers actually read the paper.

When it comes to Floridian newspapers, I have always thought the Miami Herald was one of the best. It shocks me how the editors and publisher were largely ignorant about the greater forces at play.

As is true with many topics in journalism, news comprehensiveness and proportion are subjective. I like the point Kovach and Rosenstiel made when they mentioned how what citizens and journalists consider to be important can vary, as long as citizens believe the reporters have chosen what to publish for the right reasons.

Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth. A journalist or publication’s credibility will be largely based on whether they stay true to this journalistic principle. This idea also ties into hype.

I must say I never thought I would read the words “naked body and the guitar” in a class text, but there is a first time for everything. However, I think this metaphor effectively explains hype. Many news organizations are quick to put flashy headlines to attract clicks instead of focusing on a story’s substance. One story on Gawker today is under the headline “Allen Ginsberg Teaches You How to Give a Blowjob.” This headline lacks taste, but I will not deny that it jumped off the page.

While I disapprove of this type of hype, I do not think all displays of emotion by journalists are inappropriate. As this chapter said, it is worse to act like a robot than a human when tragedy strikes. When Megyn Kelly showed emotion during the Sandy Hook coverage, I knew she was reacting as a human, not a journalist. If journalists can then wipe away the tears and devote themselves to uncovering the full story, I will continue to appreciate their humanity.

I think people are quick to overlook the limitations of market research. If you ask me what my favorite dessert is and restrict the options to a brownie, a piece of cake or a cookie, I will select the brownie. However, if you ask me what my favorite dessert is, I will answer ice cream. When the options are limited, the person is restricted to certain responses. Someone could say fruit salad as his or her favorite dessert if the options are not strictly listed.

When it comes to journalism, this process is not as simple. Some people prefer the reporting style of Diane Sawyer, while others like to get their news from Brian Williams. Maybe some people like hearing the news from a woman or others like how NBC produces its news programs. However, based on the ratings, it seems like not many people are watching either Sawyer or Williams. Ultimately, these decisions are much more subjective than deciding which sweet treat to enjoy.

Many of these news organizations are getting bogged down in the market research. Instead of looking at what people in the community care about, they are focusing on individual statistics that often create confusion instead of eliminating it.

This does not mean I think all market research is useless. Valerie Crane’s comprehensive approach aims to provide a more complete picture of the community. In addition to learning about people’s backgrounds, I think finding out what motivates people to watch the news is essential. If many sampled viewers say they look to the news as a way to connect with their town or community, the news team can incorporate these sentiments into the stories being pursued.

It did not shock me that storytelling is thought to be more important than the topic. Two people could tell you the exact same piece of news, but one person can tell it in a much more compelling way.  When reading about the recent developments in the Chris Christie “bridgegate” fiasco, I looked to the USA Today and the New Yorker.

The USA Today article provided me the basic facts, including how an internal investigation showed how Christie had no involvement in the situation.

As a person who is passionate about politics, this topic interests me. However, this article was a total snooze-fest, including the incorporation of lackluster quotes. “Our findings today are a vindication of Gov. Christie,” lawyer Randy Mastro, who headed the investigation, said at a news conference Thursday. Why waste a quote on this boring statement? While this lawyer is an integral part of the story, I am sure he said something more quoteworthy.

The New Yorker article hooked me immediately. It began, “How has Chris Christie ‘carried himself?’ In a way that supports any story he wants to tell, apparently. There is a good man in the governor’s office of New Jersey—the lawyers whom he hired figured that out, after spending a million dollars in taxpayer money on an internal investigation into the decision to choke the town of Fort Lee with traffic.”  This article also featured segments from the report, but sections were skillfully included to expand upon the narrative the reporter established. From these types of stories, it is easy to see why this publication still has a loyal following.

From personal experience, I believe what John Carey said about people listening to television news instead of keeping their eyes glued to the screen. When I am eating dinner or completing homework, I often put the television on in the background. It is easy for me to follow what is going on without watching everything that is happening. In our multitasking society, I am led to believe this is the norm.

While I expect market research to continue being utilized, journalists need to focus on finding out how members of the community live, as well as why they consume the news.

Once the connection is reestablished, journalists and audiences can engage in conversation. As Orson Welles once said, “I can think of nothing that an audience won’t understand. The only problem is to interest them; once they are interested, they understand anything in the world.”

Is CSO online magazine the future of arts journalism?

This Theater Loop article really interested me because I think it brings up many of the issues we have been discussing during the semester. With our emphasis on objectivity, I was immediately wary of an organization preparing its own “music journalism site.”

The fourth key principle of journalism, according to Kovach and Rosenstiel, is “journalists must maintain an independence from those they cover.” How can the Chicago Symphony Orchestra remain independent from CSO Sounds & Stories? Isn’t it the point to have the relationship with the symphony orchestra to focus more on previews and additional media coverage?

Even with the hiring of talented arts editors and journalists, including Laura Emerick and Wynne Delacoma, I think these reporters would have trouble maintaining “independence of spirit and mind” when writing about the orchestra. It would be extremely hard to do this because the CSO would likely be signing their paychecks.

This practice also opens up Pandora’s Box because it can lead to native advertising. What would stop the CSO from advertising for its newest shows alongside articles that are supposed to be strictly objective?

Jones also brought up some interesting points pertaining to breaking news. If the CSO breaks the news in its own publication, will it reach as many people as if the Chicago Tribune or Chicago Sun-Times release the information? However, publishing truthful news to the public is one of the main job duties for a journalist. If someone refrains from publicizing the news in order for it to receive more media play, are you still serving as a journalist? Have you crossed the line to being a public relations practitioner?

As the purse strings of various news organizations continue to tighten, lifestyle sections are likely to continue losing budgets and members of their staff. It is similar to cuts in education funding where the art, music and other auxiliary programs are cut first. I see why various organizations want to continue receiving publicity because they need it to survive. However, I think these companies need to leave journalism out of it, unless they are willing to follow journalistic standards.

Case Study 10-B Bob Costas and Jerry Sandusky: Is Sports Entertainment or Journalism?

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

The Pennsylvania State University football program, led by Joe Paterno for more than 40 years, was widely regarded as an exemplary program. The Nittany Lion players were successful on the field, as well as in the classroom. However, this narrative came crashing down in the fall of 2011. Jerry Sandusky, who had served as the PSU defensive coordinator for many years, was accused of child molestation. One of the most shocking developments of the investigation revealed how Paterno had known about the transgressions. In addition, he advised the university and the administration not to act. American audiences love reading about sports, including when there is a scandal. Some studies show how approximately 30 percent of newspaper readers only look at the sports section. Journalist Bob Costas held an interview with Sandusky before his trial. Costas asked hard-hitting questions during the 36-minute interview. Were people tuning in for entertainment or to hear directly from an accused criminal?

2.) Weigh alternatives

Costas had a variety of options for how to conduct himself during the “Rock Center with Brian Williams” interview. His first option would have been to ask “softball” questions. Costas could have justified this by saying he did not want to negatively impact Sandusky’s right to a fair trial. A second option would be to ask critical questions, while removing anything that could be damning in a court of law. With this choice, Costas could have inquired about what Sandusky meant by “horsing around” with these young boys. A third option would be to ask pointed questions. If anything was considered damaging for his trial, the network lawyers could be contacted. If it was not a legal issue, the full video and transcript could be posted online for interested people to see. The fourth option would be similar to the third, but everything would have been placed on the air without concern for the legal ramifications. The network could always engage in post moderation if a problem were to arise with the video and online posting.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

This scenario would be difficult for any journalist. While it would be easy to allow personal prejudices to impact how an interview is conducted, journalists must attempt to be as objective as possible. Taking Aristotle’s golden mean of finding the virtue between extremes into account, the third option would be the best to pursue. While the second option would allow the network to cover itself, the third option keeps in mind the audience who wants the truth. The constitutional right to a fair trial is fundamental, but viewers would want to know the truth. If someone says, “I didn’t go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I’ve helped,” people need to know. The fourth option introduces post moderation, which is ethically troublesome because it allows journalists to change the news once members of the public have already seen it.

Case Study 10-G Crowdsourcing a Book: Jonah Lehrer, Bob Dylan and Nonfiction Truth

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

Crowdsourcing is opening up new opportunities in the field of journalism. During and after the Boston Marathon bombings, crowdsourced photos and videos helped reveal what happened. However, it can also be utilized to highlight journalist error or wrongdoing. Journalist Jonah Lehrer resigned from the New Yorker after a fellow journalist discovered quote fabrications in his third book. Lehrer had a history of self-duplication during his time writing for Wired, the New York Times Magazine and other publications. However the Tablet’s Michael Moynihan noticed the quote fabrications because he is a major fan of Bob Dylan. Moynihan did not recognize the quote from Dylan, a man who is known for staying relatively quiet about his creative process. When Moynihan questioned Lehrer about the quotes, Lehrer issued vague responses. This made it clear he had manufactured them. Lehrer ultimately resigned from the New Yorker on the same day Moynihan published an article detailing the fabrication.

2.) Weigh alternatives

One option would have been for a journalist to take what a fellow author or journalist said at face value. Most journalists place an emphasis on the truth and verification, so many reporters would assume their colleagues would never publish anything they knew was not true. A second option would be to remain skeptical of other journalists’ work. As the reporter, if you discovered some inaccuracies, you could immediately post how a certain journalist plagiarized quotes from a famous musician. A third option would include a reporter verifying the work of another journalist. If a possible inaccuracy was discovered, this reporter could contact the journalist who wrote the article or book under suspicion. This would give the journalist in question an ability to respond to the accusations before being accused of the serious journalistic crime of plagiarism.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

The scenario in the book was particularly compelling because of the journalist’s extensive knowledge of Bob Dylan. In many situations, journalists will not have the expert knowledge in all subjects to detect when plagiarism or quote fabrication occurs. As journalists we are told, “if your mother says she loves you, check it out.” Reporters should always question what other people say, even if these people are journalists. However, I think the third option, which includes consulting with the reporter who may have done something wrong, is appropriate. I would not want to defame someone unless I know he or she actually did something wrong.

Discussion Question

Do companies or organizations have the ability to write objectively about themselves or their products?

The article by Chris Jones we read this week got me thinking about this issue. I understand why these companies and organizations want to promote themselves and what they are doing. However, can members of the public trust what they publish as the truth? Is the CSO Sounds & Stories magazine going to feature anything negative about the Chicago Symphony Orchestra? Even with the magazine hiring Laura Emerick, who worked at the Chicago Sun-Times as an art editor, I am still skeptical. I am in agreement with Jones when he says this magazine should refrain from calling the publication journalism. Instead, CSO Sounds & Stories should admit it is serving more of a public relations/promotional role. However, if the magazine would like to keep the term journalism attached to its name, the publication and writers must maintain independence from what is being covered. While previews would be okay some of the time, some articles would need to be critical of performances, music selection, etc. This example also made me think of GatorZone.com. This website is affiliated with the University Athletic Affiliation and is home to journalists Scott Carter and Chris Harry. However, would these journalists ever be extremely critical of a Gator coach, player or team? How is this similar to the symphony creating CSO Sounds & Stories?

Link to Ethical Issue of the Week

Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth. This principle holds true for hard news reporters, as well as editorial writers. About four years ago, Toyota was facing harsh criticism because of an acceleration defect in some of their cars. Holman W. Jenkins, a Wall Street Journal columnist wrote, “overwhelming evidence that the real menace to drivers is their own right foot stamping the gas instead of the brake.” We learned in our discussions about journalists maintaining independence from faction that opinion journalism “is not fundamentally about reporting the news, but about making sense of it.” Jenkins was not the only journalist who harbored these types of feelings. Megan McArdle, formerly of the Atlantic, wrote an article in March of 2010 titled “How Real are the Defects in Toyota’s Cars?” McArdle pointed out how the older ages of many of the drivers may have been the cause of the problem instead of a product defect. Fast forward to the present. Toyota agreed to a criminal settlement last week. In the statement of facts, the company reveals it knew more about the defect than it made known to the public. “Contrary to public sentiments that Toyota made in late 2009 saying it had ‘addressed’ the ‘root cause’ of unintended acceleration through a limited safety recall addressing floor mat entrapment, Toyota had actually conducted internal tests revealing that certain of its unrecalled vehicles bore design features rendering them just as susceptible to floor mat entrapment as some of the recalled vehicles.” It seems like Toyota is finally ready to take responsibility for its actions. However, Jenkins is continuing to write columns about how Toyota, GM and others must face “defect” politics. While opinion journalists and columnists do not have to remain neutral about issues, do they not have to follow the principles of accuracy and verification? If Jenkins continues to act like Toyota did nothing wrong, will this impact his own credibility and that of the Wall Street Journal editorial page?

ESPN and Frontline – Tension between sports journalism and sports entertainment

“League of Denial” was a major source of discussion in my sports media and society class. How did ESPN allow its business interests to supersede its journalistic function? ESPN has deals with various leagues, can it really be expected to cover the leagues, players and teams objectively?

ESPN received a lot of criticism for not uncovering the Sandusky scandal. With its extensive resources, why was the foremost sports conglomerate not leading the charge? Sara Ganim of the Patriot News ended up breaking the story.

This has been a continuing problem for ESPN to choose between its entertainment and journalism duties. Deadspin broke the news about Manti Te’o’s dead girlfriend being a hoax. It is thought ESPN knew about the hoax before the January 7 BCS Championship between Notre Dame and Alabama. What may have stopped the network from releasing the information? It is probably because the game was being shown on ESPN.

There were also concerns ESPN did not unveil the story because the network wanted access to Te’o. Ken Armstrong of the Seattle Times said something many other journalists agreed with. “Deadspin breaks the story; ESPN, which is all about access, gets the Te’o interview in the story’s wake. Deadspin comes out ahead. Deadspin crushed this story, going from tip to publication in a matter of days.”

ESPN has been discussing its collaboration with Frontline for a while, so what caused a shift in the relationship? The network issued a statement that said, “Because ESPN is neither producing nor exercising editorial control over the Frontline documentaries, there will be no co-branding involving ESPN on the documentaries or their marketing materials. The use of ESPN’s marks could incorrectly imply that we have editorial control.”

However, why would ESPN be announcing this issue after so much work had been completed? James Andrew Miller and Ken Bolson wrote a New York Times article called “N.F.L. Pressure Said to Lead ESPN to Quit Film Project.”

This story discussed how the decision came a week after a lunch between ESPN and NFL officials.  “It was a table for four: Roger Goodell, commissioner of the N.F.L.; Steve Bornstein, president of the NFL Network; John Skipper, ESPN’s president; and John Wildhack, ESPN’s executive vice president for production. The meeting was combative…with league officials conveying their irritation with the direction of the documentary, which is expected to describe a narrative that has been captured in various news reports over the past decade: the league turning a blind eye to evidence that players were sustaining brain trauma on the field that could lead to profound, long-term cognitive disability.”

As I watched the documentary, it was evident why the NFL might have issues with the content. There is substantial evidence that the league has known about the potential health risks for players.

According to its website, “ESPN, Inc., The Worldwide Leader in Sports, is the leading multinational, multimedia sports entertainment company featuring the broadest portfolio of multimedia sports assets with over 50 business entities.” If it is calling itself an entertainment company, can we trust any of its journalistic pieces?

Journalists maintaining an independence from those they cover is one principle that should never be ignored. If journalists cannot keep their independence, questions arise about conflicts of interest. This is my main issue with ESPN coverage. They seem to be in bed with the NFL and other leagues, so this must impact what they cover and how they cover it.

We also look to journalists to serve as independent monitors of power. PBS and Frontline are well known for their watchdog reporting. This includes coverage of how the Department of Justice has responded to mortgage fraud and the prevalence of rape for immigrant women working in fields.

I question how seriously ESPN will take its investigative role in the future. “Outside the Lines,” ESPN’s program where much of its investigative reporting is showcased, was moved from Sundays on the main ESPN channel at 9 a.m. to ESPN2 at 8 a.m. By placing this show in an earlier timeslot on a lesser channel, it seems like the network is placing its investigative pursuits on the backburner.

Journalism’s first loyalty is to citizens. Unless ESPN removes its loyalty from the leagues, the journalism moniker should be removed from the network. If I were an ESPN executive, I would have the network stay true to the entertainment aspect by showcasing the games and focusing on the hired personalities. It is a disservice to actual journalists and those who want objectively reported sports news to continue pretending that journalism is ESPN’s prime focus.

Alfred Harmsworth once said, “News is something someone wants suppressed. Everything else is just advertising.” ESPN ignored the opportunity to report on the rampant concussion cover-up by the NFL, so maybe it should stick to promotional pieces about the various leagues it is in bed with.

Questions from Dr. Rodgers – Vocabulary Terms

No vocabulary words are listed for week 12.

Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Blog Essay Week 10

EJ Chapter Seven

The anecdote about Cody Shearer being named on cable television as the man who confronted and threatened Kathleen Willey turned my stomach. It appeared that “Hardball” host Chris Matthews coaxed Willey into saying Shearer’s name. When it comes to making an assertion, a journalist must always verify the information before reporting it as fact.

The unverified assertion in this case led to Hank Buchanan, the brother of Patrick Buchanan, going to Shearer’s residence with a gun. In addition, Matthews made an apology only after being contacted by Shearer’s attorney. While words can go flying during these talk shows, Matthews knew where the discussion was headed that night. An open discourse is an essential part of journalism, but the process of vetting is also integral.

Kovach and Rosenstiel’s sixth principle is “journalism must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.” I found it interesting how the Hutchins Commission thought this principle was only second to telling the truth. While the Matthews incident allowed for public discourse, it largely ignored the part about telling the truth.

Technology is revolutionizing journalism as a forum. It is easy for readers and viewers to comment on a particular story. In addition, journalists can be easily reached through Twitter and email. This dialogue is a fundamental part of journalism. It was entertaining to read the comments on a CNN article about the latest General Motors recall. People aired their thoughts about outsourcing and particular car brands. Sometimes, the comments section is more entertaining than the actual article.

I found it interesting how Kovach and Rosenstiel asserted that it would be possible to make a democracy even in a large and diverse country by encouraging compromise. Merriam Webster defines compromise as “a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute.”

The concept of the press creating democracy through its forum function is difficult for me to understand. As a cynic, I do not believe it is that easy. Many wars have been fought over democracy, including our own nation’s revolution, so we must not exaggerate the power of the forum function.

I like the analogy of a journalist as the “honest broker and referee.” There is a substantial amount of spin circulating on a daily basis, and journalists must be the ones to provide the facts and not the fluff. By focusing on truthfulness and verification, journalists can provide audiences with a forum to share criticisms and an opportunity to foster collaboration for change.

I also found it interesting how the media should not only focus on the extremes of an argument because a majority of people lie somewhere in between. Abortion is an example of an issue where the media only seems to emphasize the extremes. Someone is either “pro life” or “pro choice,” and that is the end of the discussion.

However, empirical data does not demonstrate this tendency of people being drawn toward the extremes. Twenty percent of people said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, while 26 percent of people said it should be legal in all circumstances, according to a 2013 Gallup poll. Where was everyone else? About 52 percent of people said abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances. However, you would not be able to tell how people have varying opinions based on coverage by the media.

While I think new technology allows for people to discuss and post without the interference of a journalist, I also think the journalist plays a fundamental role in asking poignant questions and getting to the heart of an issue. It is easy for people to create websites saying President Obama is not a United States citizen, but who do we trust to verify these assertions? The blogosphere and citizen journalism complicates this issue because who can serve as an overseer of what is published in these forums?

I must acknowledge the danger of live interviews, which are characteristic of radio shows, morning news and cable news. This forum can allow for the interviewee to take control of the situation, while making it difficult for the journalist to fact check the information as the source speaks. However, an interviewee might hurt himself or herself by trying to promote a particular message. Recently Kate Gosselin and her twin daughters were interviewed on the “Today” show. Instead of coming across as the matriarch of a happy family, Gosselin came off as callous. Journalists cannot be undervalued in these situations.

Wikipedia is an important part of the conversation about journalism providing a forum for citizens to utilize. Users have the ability to create and edit posts. However, verification is an issue once again. While the goal of Wikipedia is for others to make changes and to correct errors, this does not always occur. Just ask various celebrities who have faced death hoaxes because of posts on Wikipedia and other social media platforms.

I was shocked to find out how Encyclopedia Britannica had almost as many errors as Wikipedia, according to a study published by Nature. While the 42 entries may have been chosen for a particular reason, I do not think we can write off Wikipedia quite yet.

Noah Webster once said, “Newspapers are not only the vehicles of what is called news; they are the common instruments of social intercourse, by which the Citizens of this vast Republic constantly discourse and debate with each other on subjects of public concern.” I had never heard this quote until reading this chapter, but it perfectly encapsulates the role of newspapers and other mediums.

In today’s world, it is hard for me to comprehend a newspaper lobby serving as an open salon for the public. While it may no longer be appropriate to venture to the Gainesville Sun for a discussion with fellow citizens, the principle should remain the same. These publications must provide an avenue where people can discuss the issues of the day. Whether this is in a physical space or online, this duty is integral for journalism’s future.

It seems like this forum is especially necessary today because of the “Argument Culture” that has pervaded the media. While the 1990s were a time of bitter partisan politics, it does not appear that much has changed. Frances Lee, a politics professor at the University of Maryland, recently wrote an article for the Washington Post about why this partisanship continues.  The omnipresent campaign and continued focus on the next election leads to politicians not reaching across the aisle for compromise.

The media is not helping this issue in any way. With ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” NBC’s “Meet the Press with David Gregory” and CNN’s “State of the Union with Candy Crowley,” it is easy to see how talk shows dominate. Plus, this list, which is not exhaustive, only includes Sunday morning shows.

It interested me how younger pseudo-experts are being chosen to host these shows. These pundits are apparently being hired to attract younger audiences. Why then are the guests featured usually older white, conservative men? A Media Matters report from January of 2014 revealed the discrepancies in the number of appearances of these white men. While white males only make up 30 percent of the population, they accounted for 67 percent of all guests on “Face the Nation” and “Fox News Sunday,” as well as counting for 62 percent of guests on “Meet the Press.” Many of these pseudo-experts interview these actual experts for a short period before sitting back to bicker while pretending as though they are qualified to perform various analyses.

Another issue with the current media forum is the lack of coverage devoted to substantive issues. Instead of discussing childhood obesity and the shrinking middle class, it is now much easier for journalists to write simple stories that have little impact. Instead of reading about these important topics, we are stuck reading about a young girl who allows a squirrel to reside in her ponytail. What type of meaningful conversation can be had about this story?

I believe the “Crossfire Syndrome” with its focus on polarization is definitely a real phenomenon. Argument is prized over compromise, and questions are phrased in a manner to elicit conflict. What if I asked you, why do you feel women should have the right to abort a fetus in all situations? This is extremely different from asking someone why they are a baby killer?

By focusing on the extremes of pro-abortion versus anti-abortion or feminism versus chauvinism, we are leaving many people out of the conversation. People do not want to listen to “experts” arguing about an issue, and they do not want to only hear from those on the far left or the far right. At the start of 2014, Americans said  the government, with its poor leadership, corruption and abuse of power, is the most important problem, according to a Gallup poll. If the media was doing its job of actively serving as a watchdog, a productive dialogue could ensue about the government’s behavior.

I agree with Robert Berdahl, who served as the chancellor for the University of California at Berkeley, when he said journalists are not “observers with no stake in the issue at hand.” The journalist has a role in transforming this Argument Culture into a meaningful conversation that will attempt to find solutions to problems, including unemployment and the federal budget.

After reading the exchange between Paul Begala, Tucker Carlson, and Jon Stewart, I wanted to watch the “Crossfire” video. While I am still not sure how to classify Jon Stewart, he did something that journalists often fail to do, which is to hold politicians and pundits accountable for what they say and do.

While “Crossfire” ended soon after this incident, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann engage in this type of behavior where they promise answers as they argue from a particular side. If audience members want to witness an argument, they can look around themselves to their family and friends. However, to escape an argument on the television, a person simply has to switch the channel and never look back.

The Jim Brady situation demonstrates the power of journalism as an engaging forum because people responded and debated about a situation. Journalists must focus more on this type of citizen involvement if they hope to maintain their roles with the advent of digital media and other technologies.

As Winston Churchill once said, “It is always wise to look ahead, but difficult to look further than you can see.” Technology continues to open new forums, but we must not lose sight of the role of journalists, particularly in preserving the truth and in verification.

ME Chapter Eight

Compared to words, photos have had a much shorter history. A critical juncture for photography occurred during the Civil War, largely a result of Matthew Brady’s photography.

Today, images continue to have a powerful role. When Gary Green spoke to our class, it was interesting to hear him discuss the role of images in both the Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman trials.

We have briefly discussed the role of citizens as reporters with various projects, including Chicago Now. However, what about citizens submitting photos to publications and television stations? Everyone with a cell phone can serve as a photojournalist at any given time.

During my sports media and society course, Professor Spiker discussed a photo he posted to Twitter that was picked up by various media outlets, including ESPN. The photo showed Aaron Hernandez’s brick being removed from outside of Ben Hill Griffin Stadium. While Spiker is also a journalist, he posted this photo to his personal account. It amazes me how technology allows people to connect and share content in a seamless fashion.

I agree with Arthur Berger who says that a picture is an interpretation of reality, not reality itself. As the Pulitzer Prize winning photo by Nat Fein demonstrates, a particular angle and focus can make all the difference. Those nearby photographers all captured photographs on the day Babe Ruth’s number was retired, but their particular interpretation was not compelling enough to be awarded a prestigious honor.

Journalists are often quick to post stories and images because they want to be first. However, context is key. People are aware of various manipulation techniques, so they expect to be told the situation surrounding a particular photograph. Journalists should use the powers of technology to share information and link to other resources that can provide additional analysis. The photos from Hurricane Katrina were extremely powerful, but they also needed the written word to inform people about what was happening as the chaos ensued.

Photojournalists have a difficult job because they must determine whether it is appropriate to shoot a particular photo. With a phone or camera in hand and the intent to shoot pictures, it is hard to feel like you are not intruding on someone during a potentially vulnerable moment. When I was covering the Gainesville City Commission election last week, I felt somewhat uneasy as I snapped certain photos, including one of Susan Bottcher looking at the video screen as her loss to Craig Carter was revealed. While I was standing a good distance away, I thought about what I was doing.

I like the checklist Garry Bryant uses when he arrives at a tragedy, including taking into consideration whether the moment should be made public, as well as whether the photo could send subjects into further trauma. While the loss of a commission seat is not a serious tragedy, I think we all must aim to act with compassion and sensitivity in all that we do.

Patterson and Wilkins seem to suggest that it is better to take the photo and make the editorial judgments later. Like bringing a slicker on a rainy day, it is better for the photojournalist to be prepared.

Deciding whether to publish a photo can be a double-edged sword because it can spread awareness about a particular problem, but it can also invade the privacy of a victim and his or her family. While this image of law enforcement officers helping a wounded man following the Virginia Tech Massacre is powerful, is the photo subject being treated as an ends or merely a means of getting a point across? This is a dilemma photojournalists and photo editors face on a regular basis.

I have previously discussed the power citizen journalists have in submitting both written content and photos. However, I am still concerned whether they value the same principles as professional journalists, such as accuracy, fairness and originality. Journalists have editors to hold them accountable, but who do citizen journalists have to keep them in check?

As this NBC episode of “Dateline” shows, news photos and videos should never be staged. Staging alters the way something is naturally occurring. This type of behavior is a fabrication of what actually happened. Over time, photos have been staged or altered by various photographers and editors, including a Reuters image of Georgians encountering the dead body of their “son.” Even with various reasons, can lying to audiences ever be justified?

When it comes to electronic manipulation, I think people are accepting of slight touchups, including minor cropping or lighting changes. People attempt to make themselves look better by using Instagram and other applications that provide various filters. Why should journalistic entities be any different?

The problem is journalists often take the manipulation to a whole other level. Photoshopping has become a somewhat dirty word, according to a recent Mashable article. Whole websites are even devoted to Photoshop disasters. The uproar is appropriate because as Martin said, “while art may be manipulated, information may not.” Just like you would not alter a quote to make someone sound smarter, you should not alter an image to make someone look thinner, more tan, etc.

The issue of eyewash arose in my law of mass communication class when we discussed the station whose broadcast made it look as though a particular pedestrian was one of 20 million Americans suffering from herpes. I think these types of photos or videos are dangerous because they are casting false light on someone. I think it is analogous to publishing the information of the wrong John Smith in connection to a crime. It is better to find someone who is actually an example of what you are discussing, just as it is integral to make sure you have named the right suspect. While it may be hard to find someone who is willing to come forward as a victim of herpes, another image or graphic could be used.

The “Post Toasties Test” does not have one hard and fast rule to utilize in all situations. Ultimately, I think newspaper editors and morning news show producers must be cognizant of the audiences they tend to have in the early morning. This is typically a time when parents are getting their children off to school, so a gory image may not be appropriate. While something that may be offensive to one person may not be so to another, editors and producers should be cautious about what is featured during the early morning hours.

I must agree with musician Lauryn Hill when she said, “Reality is easy. It’s deception that’s the hard work.” Journalists must be honest with their audience, and this applies to both the written word and images.

Case Study 8-A The Case of the Well-Documented Suicide

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

Filmmaker Tony Scott, the director of “Top Gun,” “Pelham 123” and others, committed suicide by jumping off the Vincent Thomas Bridge in San Pedro, Calif. in August of 2012. Various people saw Scott leap to his death from both the bridge and the water below. Some of these witnesses captured photos and videos of what occurred. As a news organization, how do you report on the suicide? Do you include photos submitted by citizens? Also, is it ethical to pay for the video showing the whole jump in order to post it to your website?

2.) Weigh alternatives

Suicides occur every day, and they are tragic for the family and friends of each victim. These types of deaths tend to be underreported. However, that is not usually the case when someone famous commits suicide. A publication would have several options about how to report on Scott’s death. One option would be to run a short blurb about the director’s suicide without any photos. This would provide the news to the public without any concern for causing queasiness at the breakfast table. A second option would be to run an article about the suicide, accompanied with a photo submitted by one of the witnesses. Open source journalism has revolutionized the news. By providing video of Rodney King being beaten up by a Caucasian police officer in Los Angeles and Sen. George Allen of Virginia saying something racist, Patterson and Wilkins acknowledge the role of citizens in the journalistic process. However, the next issues arise when deciding on a particular photo. Should the publication include a photo from the perspective of the bridge or water? Is it  appropriate to include the photo showing Scott crouching right before jumping, considering many people will be reading this at the breakfast table? A third option would pertain to a publication’s online presence. The publication could pay for the tape showing the full jump or work out some sort of deal with the business who caught the jump on its surveillance camera. Is this ethical? Would this be considered checkbook journalism?

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

A publication should acknowledge the suicide because of his work on popular films. However, I do not think any photos should be included with the story. One reason is there is the potential for copycat suicides. In addition, Scott left behind a family that included a wife and two young sons. How would they feel opening up the newspaper or watching news coverage and seeing play-by-play action of their loved one’s suicide? When it comes to the video, it is unethical for a publication to pay anyone for material to be used in a story. If a news entity exhibits this type of behavior, readers and viewers may wonder about other types of coverage that resulted from these types of deals. Credibility could be called into question. It would also be a matter of taste to not include the final moments of someone’s life to attract hits.

Case Study 8-B What Do I Do First?

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

Associated Press photographer Gerald Herbert was headed to Biloxi, Miss., when he came across a sport utility vehicle that had slammed into some trees in August 2012. Two women were trapped inside as the fire began to engulf the vehicle. Should reporters or photographers consider their role as people or journalists first in these types of situations? Should a publication include these photos and a short story if the situation occurred outsider their coverage zone?

2.) Weigh alternatives

Herbert was a hero that day when he ran for almost a mile to find 18-wheelers because they have fire extinguishers. He said, “It never occurred to me to go into journalistic mode until the fire was knocked down.” In these types of situations, journalists have the opportunity to focus on humanity. The journalist or photographer may miss out on a story or blockbuster photo, but does that matter in a life or death situation? If a reporter or photojournalist is able to capture this course of events, should a publication include it even if it is way outside the coverage area? Do audiences want to hear about people collaborating to save a life or would they rather read about something that occurred in their backyard?

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

Herbert’s actions serve as an example for other journalists to emulate. Research from Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project revealed only 28 percent of survey respondents think journalists contribute a lot to society. This is a 10-percentage point drop from 2009. If journalists were seen as helping members of society, in addition to continuing to serve as watchdogs, this number could rise again. People’s interest in stories with happy endings is widely underrated. A woman recently performed CPR on her young nephew. What was particularly noteworthy is the various people on the Dolphin Expressway who assister her. As we discuss the power of photos, this Miami story was accompanied by many powerful images. It was also featured in publications and newscasts across the nation.

Case Study 8-C Problem Photos and Public Outcry 

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

University of Florida campus police were called after a substantial amount of blood was discovered in the women’s bathroom of one of the dorms. When looking through the trash bin, investigators found a 6- to 7-pound female infant in a bag with bloody towels and plastic gloves. Once they took the body out of the bag, they placed it on a towel next to the Dumpster. While the body was placed here only briefly, the photographer for the Independent Florida Alligator captured the shot. The editorial staff for the Alligator debated how to include the photo and whether it was appropriate for publication. Ultimately, this newspaper published the story on the bottom of the front page, which then jumped to page three. The photo was placed on the third page. Was it appropriate for the photographer to take this photo? Was it ethical for the newspaper to include the photo?

2.) Weigh alternatives

The newspaper had a variety of options to consider in this dilemma. Ultimately, the story needed to be covered because it took place on the UF campus. In addition, this is not the sort of thing that occurs on a regular basis, so it is out of the ordinary. One option would have been to write the story without any additional media.  The title of the story, “UF police investigate baby’s death at dorm,” gets straight to the point without relying on sensationalistic word usage. A second option would have been to include the article with the image.  When it comes to a photographer deciding whether to shoot something, decisions must be made quickly. A photojournalist must ask themselves if this should be made public and whether he or she is acting with compassion and sensitivity. Garry Bryant, a staff photographer with the Deseret News in Salt Lake City said, “A general rule for most photographers is ‘Shoot. You can always edit later.’” The photojournalist did his job by capturing the moment because leaving this part out could result in readers missing some of the truth. While this situation occurred many years ago, the Internet provides a third alternative. The print publication could have included a smaller version of the photo or no image at all in the print publication, while directing people to its website. With this alternative, people could seek out the image only if they wanted to. No one is being forced to view an image that may cause discomfort.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

If we were in the present, I think the best scenario would include placing the article on page one, while directing people to the Alligator website for the image. The Alligator engaged in similar behavior when it posted an edited version of a photo on the front page, while leaving the unedited version on their website. The photo pertained to a wall of stereotypes and phrases as part of People Awareness Week. If a publication makes something available without forcing people to view it, I think this lessens criticism of poor taste because it is giving audiences an option instead of making the decision for them.

Case Study 8-E “Above the Fold:” Balancing Newsworthy Photos with Community Standards

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

The Oregon town of Springfield was struck by a series of tragedies in the early 1990s. Over a period of 20 months, eight children died following experiences of child abuse. The eighth incident occurred on Nov. 10, 1993, when Alan McGuire held his 2-year-old daughter, Shelby, hostage in their home. While Alan’s wife was able to escape, Shelby remained inside. When police were finally able to go inside after Alan jumped through the front window, police found Shelby with a plastic bag over her head. Photographer Andy Nelson and police reporter Janelle Hartman from the Eugene Register-Guard were at the scene. Nelson captured a detective sprinting out of the house with Shelby in his arms, as well as a photo of the officer giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Alan and Shelby were rushed to the hospital, and the police did not tell members of the press whether she was able to be resuscitated. The standing policy at this particular publication was to not publish photographs of children’s dead bodies. However, the editors believed this situation was an exception because of the compelling situation, as well as wanting to show the situations police officers face on a daily basis. Do you think the publication should have ran both photos? Would people have been less critical if the photos were placed on later pages instead of page one? Whose feelings should editors take into account when publishing photos of this nature?

2.) Weigh alternatives

The newspaper could have run Hartman’s article without any accompanying photos. This option would have likely curtailed the several hundred phone calls the paper received. What if Nelson had chosen to not shoot these photos? As Patterson and Wilkins discussed, photographers might be placing their jobs in jeopardy if they decide to not shoot an emotional moment other photographers capture. Nelson was only doing his job when he took these photos. However, the publication had options in terms of color, size and placement. Our book showcases these photos in black and white, which can lessen the overall impact. The publication could have chosen to include black and white versions of the photos. In addition, the newspaper could have placed the photos below the fold or in later pages. This decision would likely have lessened the criticism levied against the publication. It is interesting how the biweekly Springfield News included a front-page photo of Alan McGuire falling out of the window under a wrapper that read “Caution to Readers.” This is another approach the Register-Guard could have considered.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

I had difficulty making a decision in this case because I can make rational arguments from both sides about whether to include the photo. However, I reflected on the statement that most photographers and photo editors make their decisions for the “Post Toasties Test” based on bloody pictures. These photos show the efforts of law enforcement to save a young girl’s life. While this story ended in tragedy, people need to be made aware of what occurred. I recently saw the power of images showing attempts to save a life with the woman in Miami giving CPR to her nephew. I think the use of a 6-inch front page color photo is slightly sensationalistic, so I think the paper should have included smaller black and white photos on an inside page. The story could have started on the front page with a jump to a later page. The newspaper has a loyalty to citizens, including the surviving mother and brother of Shelby. A publication must take into consideration how the community will feel because these people can choose to get their news elsewhere if a publication continues to offend them.

Case Study 8-G Death in Print: Publication of Hurricane Katrina Photographs

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

Hurricane Katrina wreaked a lot of havoc in August of 2005. Many photos were taken in attempts to capture the significance of the tragedy. Photographer James Nielsen was one photographer who shot a powerful image. The image shows a woman standing on a bridge with her dog as a body floats below. Various newspapers employ a similar process when choosing wire photographs. This process includes reviewing and narrowing down the options from the entire collection sent by the various wire services followed by a morning or afternoon review of the initial edit. It is interesting to see how three different publications, including the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and St. Louis Post-Dispatch made decisions regarding what Hurricane Katrina photos to publish.

2.) Weigh alternatives

One option would have been to publish the Nielsen photo in color on the front page of the newspaper. However, this decision would have likely resulted in criticisms of sensationalism. Another option would be to include this photo in a later page, which is what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch did by placing the photo on A10. This allows a publication to include the compelling photo without plastering it across the front page. Another option would be to not include the photo at all. Rob Kozloff, the metro picture editor for the Chicago Tribune, said many photos captured what was happening. An image from another wire service may fit more with articles that would be featured in the publication. A fourth option would be to publish this photo on the publication’s website either on its own or as part of a gallery. This would allow people to seek out more images if they would like without being accosted by the tragedy and death during their breakfast time.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

I think the fourth option provides a virtue between extremes, something Aristotle’s golden mean suggests we pursue. Placing the image online allows the publication to feature this photo without facing criticism for including the photo on page one. It also allows for another compelling photo to be placed in the print version. After hearing Danny Green discuss the various decisions that go into what photos to include, I do not envy those who are placed in this difficult position on a daily basis.

NewsWhip Analysis – Wall Street Journal

Whenever I am on a particular website, I always check to see if they have a category, such as “Most Emailed” or “Most Popular.” I often look to this section for articles I might be interested in. I have noticed that the most popular stories are often completely different from the story featured as the primary focus on the homepage. When I looked at Fox News tonight, the central story on the website’s front page was about the electric car company Tesla. However, the most popular story was about Kevin Trudeau, a best-selling author, being sentenced to 10 years of prison for fraudulent behavior.

After seeing these types of trends, it was not surprising to me that the people-powered page was different from the actual front page for various newspapers. My group looked at the Wall Street Journal. Ukraine is a topic the media has focused on for the last several weeks. However, it seems like people do not want to focus on this particular subject. It may be because the nation is more than halfway across the world or it could be that people are sick of hearing about it, especially when little progress is being made. Putin and Obama are talking, but readers may question how this influences them in any way. Unfortunately, people will likely only pay attention once a tragedy or something extraordinary occurs in the region.

Above the fold on the people-powered version was dominated by a story about Obama seeking more money for veterans as part of the 2015 budget. This story likely registered with readers because many people have some sort of connection to our nation’s servicemen and women. This particular story applies to members of the audience or people they may know. This is in sharp contrast to Ukraine, which many people have no connection to.

The story about Beijing brings up a similar point. If a story is outside of someone’s expertise or interest, he or she is likely to pass it over. However, a story about plane seats would pique many people’s interest, including my own. With millions of passengers and thousands of flights each year, it is no wonder people would be interested in discovering ways they may be getting gouged. Whole websites are devoted to cheap airline tickets, so there is a definite interest in this subject matter.

When it comes to a story titled “Unlikely Mix: Rappers, Dragons & Fantasy,” it is not shocking that people were curious about what the article contained. While we are taught to write clear headlines and ledes, is it so wrong to craft interesting headers to draw people into a story? While we can be critical of the new emphasis on hits and views, journalists need to adapt if this is the way of the future.

Upon looking at the comments, I agree with braddillman who posted, “At a casual glance, people seem more interested in domestic and personally relevant items than international affairs.” Do journalists have a duty to provide people with what they want or do journalists have a responsibility to report on what members of the public should be aware of? Ultimately, I think it is a balancing act. People need to be informed about world events, but occasional stories about airline seats are also okay.

Bryan, another commenter, said “The ones on the right are totally better…the ones on the left mostly talk about things that you don’t want to know or is about other countries problem.” While many people largely care about what is occurring in their local area and in their nation, do journalists have a role to provide a global outlook of events? If journalists do not provide information about the rest of the world, I am afraid people will no longer receive this information.

Journalists must adapt by considering stories that may interest their readers, as well as featuring articles that will educate people. By opening the lines of communication with audiences, journalists can better learn about what people want to see in their daily news. Switching from a gatekeeper to a participant in the process will also help open the dialogue.

Discussion Question

Do you think the Argument Culture has driven political polarization or the other way around?

Author and linguist Deborah Tannen said the media helped cultivate the argument culture in the 1990s through various programming, including CNN’s “Crossfire” and commercial television’s “The McLaughlin Group.” This change was also accompanied by an increase in the amount of talk shows. These talk shows are cheap to produce, but they are lacking in the verification that traditional news products have. Guests are able to come on these types of programs and largely say whatever they want. Also, the argument culture emphasizes extremes. People can be classified as either pro-private sector or pro-big government, etc. Where is the compromise that the foundation of our democracy was built on? Is the type of argument-based discussion leading to government gridlock or are bureaucratic differences leading to this media culture?

Link to Ethical Issue of the Week

As we have frequently discussed in this course, technology is changing the way we do journalism. In many ways, it is making our lives as journalists easier. However, it also opens up the possibility for even more gray areas. No journalist likes to make factual or grammatical mistakes. Corrections lead to embarrassment and may cause others to question future work. However, these corrections are necessary. A journalist’s first loyalty is to citizens, and he or she must be honest with the audience. In the past, newspapers issued corrections and retractions on the printed page. Today, the Internet allows journalists and publications to make changes with the simple click of a button. However, this also allows for corrections to be made without any announcement or notification. That is the issue with a recent Guardian article about journalism startups by Emily Bell. Is it ethical for a publication to make a change to a story once it is published without calling attention to the change? While I do not think it is necessary for a publication to acknowledge a grammatical or word usage change, I think it is integral for journalists to be transparent with their audience about matters of fact. If I reported a man stole $500,000 from the bank when he really stole $500, this is an egregious error that audiences should be made aware of. Even if a reader never returns to a particular story, it should be a matter of principle for an organization to admit its mistakes. Resources like NewsDiffs now track story changes, which will help audiences hold the media more accountable. While constant mistakes would raise a red flag, audiences are much more likely to continue trusting a source that is honest and forthcoming when a mistake is made than one that uses deceptive practices.

Link to Ethical Issue with a Video or Visual Image

Photos have undergone manipulation since the days of darkroom “burning” and “dodging,” according to Patterson and Wilkins. However, digital technology, such as Photoshop, takes this manipulation to the next level.

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

Target, who has faced a lot of criticism for a recent credit card hacking, is dealing with another crisis. Two junior swimsuit images show models with part of their bodies missing. This Photoshop fail includes part of their shoulder blades missing, as well as a manipulated thigh gap, a new trend that is leading to additional body issues for women. Target has apologized for the error, but the company has not answered consumer questions about why this type of photo manipulation on a young girl was done in the first place.

2.) Weigh alternatives

Patterson and Wilkins cite research that says “while art may be manipulated, information may not.”  When a young girl shops online for a bathing suit, she is assuming the photo she is looking at is of a real girl. However, as more manipulation occurs, people are becoming more and more skeptical of what they are seeing. While Target cannot take back what they did, they have at least two options. The company can remain silent and wait for the next big scandal. I would not be surprised if Lululemon’s founder was placed in the spotlight again for voicing his opinions about women’s bodies. Also, the article mentions how Target has nothing to gain by admitting how they make young models even skinnier. However, an alternative would be for Target to be honest about their electronic manipulation techniques. Target could say this is the industry standard they have followed to remain competitive with other brands. A third option would be for the company to say they have engaged in this behavior, but they will stop performing these body manipulation techniques on models featured on their website.  Apart from lighting and background changes, the photos would remain untouched.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

While I acknowledge how it makes sense to remain silent, I think Target has an obligation to its consumers. The company has already seen a drop in its number of customers following the data breach. In order to save face, the best option would be to admit the mistake and to create a new policy going forward. It may take time for people to trust its advertisements again, but consumers will take notice of the company’s honesty.

Questions from Dr. Rodgers – Vocabulary Terms

• Post Toasties or Wheaties test: A sensitivity test for media that may be consumed at the breakfast table, such as the newspaper or morning news. This test is used to determine whether a photo or video should accompany early morning news stories. The question posed by this test is, “Does this need to be shown at breakfast?” It earned its name from the popular breakfast cereal.
• Public sphere: Marketplace where people can share attitudes, ideas, information and opinions. Journalism has been a forum for public discourse from the time of the Greek marketplace to the colonial American taverns and beyond, according to Kovach and Rosenstiel.
• Argument culture: Media helped develop in the 1990s, according to linguist and author Deborah Tannen. Various programs, including “Crossfire” on CNN and talk radio, led this movement. This culture assumes that each person resides at one extreme or another in regards to a particular topic. For example, someone is either pro-abortion or anti-abortion, with no variation in between.

Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu

Blog Essay Week 8

EJ Chapter Six

It surprised me that the Pulitzer Prize category of “Investigative Reporting” was not added until 1964. It shocked me even more when I did a little digging and discovered there are 30 different categories for the Pulitzer Prize.

It was interesting how A.M. Rosenthal, then executive editor of the New York Times, transformed this publication’s Washington bureau after the Watergate story broke. In today’s media, pack journalism dominates. No one publication or news outlet seems to scoop the others because they are all generally publishing stories about the same topics. Even when looking at the front pages for ABC News and NBC News, you see coverage about the arrest of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman and the Olympics. While these stories are important, we are not seeing the level of deep investigative pieces that were characteristic in the post-Watergate years.

ABC News Sunday Homepage

NBC News Sunday Homepage

Kovach and Rosenstiel’s next principle states “Journalists must serve as an independent monitor of power.” The public trusts journalists to keep an eye on politicians and other officials, so they are not able to get away with corrupt or abusive uses of power.

However, history has shown how those in power were not too keen on the press serving as a watchdog. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said it best when he declared, “The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.”

The developments of the Freedom of Information Act and sunshine laws allowed for journalists to gain access to a lot of information that was previously out of reach.  However, these laws still have their limitations. During my fact finding final project, I received various denials from the Department of Homeland Security and the Central Intelligence Agency. I wonder if my letter was not specific enough or whether these agencies decided to hide behind statutes and exemptions.

I like how journalists were viewed as examining the “unseen corners of society.” It is easy for people to get wrapped up in their own individual issues, myself included. Society is largely uninformed, so it is the duty of journalists to keep us aware. A recent article from the Atlantic caught my attention because it discusses an idea called “family churn.” This is the term to describe what happens when parents split up, often resulting in the father leaving the family and a new man eventually coming in.

Statistics show that between 40 to 50 percent of American couples get divorced, so these family developments are important. My parents divorced during my senior year of high school, and I continued to live with my mom. I noticed this trend among many of my friends with separated and divorced parents. It is informative to read about how this behavior is relatively widespread.

It is reassuring to see that journalists think the press “keeps political leaders from doing things they shouldn’t do.” This role is also changing because of citizen journalists and people’s ability to record and publish the actions of politicians. Was the man who recorded Mitt Romney discussing the 47 percent being transparent with the audience about how a potential president views the country? While I think it woke a lot of people up, I am still concerned with how it was recorded surreptitiously. Yes, these comments would likely not have been said if Romney knew he was being recorded, but at what point does this reporting cross the line?

I am having trouble with the principle of “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I do not think it is our job to attack those who are successful and in power and to only champion the downtrodden. I think it is a journalist’s duty to hold people accountable and to cover the community to the best of his or her ability. Journalists should monitor the actions of politicians, but they should not look for ways to cause unnecessary friction. It seems like this type of behavior would cross over into activism.

I prefer the view expressed by Kovach and Rosenstiel that says how journalists must make known and understood the effects of power. The recent case of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell illustrates this well. In addition to finding out how he has been charged with illegally accepting gifts, luxury vacations and large loans, it is integral to hear about the greater ramifications. This includes how McDonnell is the first governor to face criminal charges, which is especially surprising in a state whose politics are well known for being clean and ethical.

It is always fascinating to see the history of journalism developments, and investigative journalism has a riveting past. I find it comical how federalists and anti-federalists had publications to keep watch over the opposite party. Sometimes, I feel like we have that today with publications like The Weekly Standard and The Nation. While it is helpful to see the claims of each side, people tend to go to the source that reaffirms their beliefs. This is problematic because it prevents them from seeing issues or problems from all sides.

When I read about “muckrakers” and all of the incredible work they did, I question where these people are today. Where are today’s versions of Nellie Bly and Rachel Carson? While railroad tycoons and oil trusts do not dominate the headlines anymore, there are stories about politicians and powerful officials waiting to be discovered.

Of the three categories of investigative journalism, I think original investigative reporting is the most difficult to pursue, as well as the most valuable to the public because it has not been previously revealed. The investigation of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich demonstrates this. After running two successful campaigns that were based on eliminating corruption, Blagojevich was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and solicitation to commit bribery. As this section alludes to, digital media provides the opportunity to obtain even more documents and records for these types of investigations.

I am struggling with the idea of interpretative investigative reporting. While I think it is important for journalists to put these investigative pieces into context, interpretative seems like it would allow biases and opinions to seep into coverage. Organizing and interpreting the Pentagon Papers is effective, but it appears that Donald Barlett and James Steele may have crossed the line. Even their titles, “America: What Went Wrong” and “America: Who Stole the Dream,” imply a one-sided argument that does not take into consideration some of the positives, as well as all of the circumstances that have contributed to the current state.

Investigations and studies can be extremely important, but these stories seem to dominate. It is hard to read through a newspaper or website’s front page without seeing the phrase “a recent study showed” or “an investigation into X revealed….” However, I think this type of reporting pales in comparison to original investigative reporting because reporting on investigations focuses more on what documents reveal or what officials say about a particular investigation.  It baffles me how reports have just been released from the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings in 2008. It is disconcerting that the Federal Reserve faced so many problems in dealing with the financial crisis, but why is this news now? Journalists should have been critical and constantly questioning the Fed during the economy’s downfall. I understand that investigations take a substantial amount of time, but journalists should also be aware of these issues while they are going on, not just because an investigation is opened.

Another issue with reports on investigations is the use of anonymous sources. Journalists want to get a scoop, so they are often desperate to get the information in any possible form. However, how much stock does the audience put into these sources? Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is expected to unveil a plan to reduce the size of the U.S. army. Instead of hearing from government and military officials about what this plan means, an anonymous source claims the army will continue to be “capable” and “trained.” I do not expect any high-level critics to emerge on this issue yet, but it would have been beneficial to hear from someone who journalists could reveal by name and title to their audiences.

I am in agreement with Kovach and Rosenstiel about the weakened role of the watchdog. Take for example, ABC’s “20/20,” which is referred to as an investigative journalism and news magazine on its website.  I am pleased to see how journalists are investigating overmedication in foster care, but I am dismayed to see pieces, including Butt Glue? 20 Secrets and Tips from Miss America Contestants. As the investigative arm of a major news network, this is disappointing.

As this chapter also mentions, many local stations include an investigative team. The main team in the Rochester community is “I-Team 10.” Upon searching its website, I was surprised to see some hard-hitting pieces, including a story about a sex offender running a hotel. However, I think these investigations are more the exceptions than the rule. Stories about “dangerous doors” and bacteria on clothes should not be lumped into the category of investigative journalism because it degrades this type of reporting.

Journalists must not lose sight of what it means to be a watchdog. About 68 percent of people say press criticism of political leaders keeps them from pursuing actions that should not be done, according to an August 2013 poll from the Pew Research Center. Before attaching the investigative journalism label to a story, journalists should consider whether it is justified.

Kovach and Rosenstiel’s section on investigative reporting as prosecution reminds me of Reid MacCluggage’s article on skeptical editing. According to MacCluggage, “Our biggest weakness is unchallenged information.” This relates to investigative reporting because we should be wary of writing an exposé on something if there are ambiguities or concerns about whether something wrong is actually taking place.

An exposé on fraternities and the actions of members is the cover feature of The Atlantic’s March edition. It is troubling how more than 60 people have died in fraternity-related incidents since 2005, but does this article deserve to be labeled an exposé? Hazing, binge drinking and sexual assaults plague universities across the nation, but is it accurate to pin these actions solely on Greek life and fraternities? I think the focus is on fraternities because roughly 50 percent of college student sexual assaults involve alcohol, which many students have access to at fraternity parties. While I am not saying these Greek organizations should not be investigated and criticized, this is one ambiguity I would want addressed.

It was reassuring to hear from journalists Loretta Tofani and Susan Kelleher about the importance of documentation and sources going on the record. It is difficult to trust a story that is based largely on unsupported assertions and anonymous sources. The essence of journalism is a discipline of verification, and journalists must make sure they stick to this ideal.

In today’s world of media conglomerates, independent voices to monitor powerful institutions in society are more threatened than ever. Time Warner Inc. owns 21 print publications, including Fortune, Time and Sports Illustrated. Can journalists at Time objectively cover the proposed merger of Time Warner Cable and Comcast? I am not so sure.

As our cohort group looks into citizen journalism, it will be interesting to see how many concerned citizens like “Buckhead” are out there. Are there enough citizens challenging the work journalists are doing to effect a change?

Luckily, there are bright spots of journalists monitoring issues and powerful players that require extensive research. The Center for Public Integrity has a section called Primary Source that looks into campaign finance developments since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. I hope this organization does not get sucked into a conglomerate that would alter the stories being written.

If network television news divisions are to provide a warning of what could happen to the Center for Public Integrity and Open Society Foundations and what they cover, I hope the “fragile and embryonic” efforts are strengthened.

Matt Drudge once said, “Because I have success, it doesn’t mean I’m part of the mainstream. I’m still an outsider.” Hopefully citizen bloggers and forward-thinking professional journalists can continue to serve as independent monitors of power or else we are in trouble.

ME Chapter Seven

I do not take issue with paying for a service that is streamed over the Internet. I willingly pay the $7.99 a month for Netflix because I am able to watch “New Girl,” “Scandal” and various romantic comedies whenever I want. However, Netflix always had a charge associated with it; it was never free. I think this is the main problem I have with news organizations charging for their online content. While I am aware these organizations are struggling financially, they have published their articles online for years. Why should I start paying now? I get annoyed whenever the Wall Street Journal prompts me to pay, so I hope other media outlets do not follow suit.

I was shocked to find out how the magazine industry is struggling the most. Whenever I travel anywhere or have some free time, I love to spend time flipping through my favorite magazine. I do not get the same feeling when I read a book or magazine on my iPad. With Newsweek and other magazines cutting pages, I am nervous about their future.

The social responsibility theory of the press with an active news consumer being satisfied by a socially responsible press is a great ideal to look up to. This press would provide a truthful account of what happened, as well as context and an opportunity for comment and criticism. I think the Guardian is leading the way in this regard. However this theory falters slightly because it does not take into account political and economic power. While explaining the ideal functions of the media is great, how does this factor into the current age of media conglomerates?

A January Politico article discussed how ABC has been “Disneyfied.” In 2013, ABC devoted a significant amount of coverage to sports and entertainment instead of focusing on the changes happening in health care and the National Security Agency. Could this shift be because Disney owns ABC and ESPN?

While I do not think all of the news sources out there are truthful and objective, there is definitely not a shortage of publications and websites producing content. As Patterson and Wilkins mention, the main problem is whether audiences can filter out the clutter. When I read articles about how people think The Onion is a real news source, I am concerned if people can even recognize what news is.

As a conservative, I shy away from any government regulation. However, certain rules must be put in place to make sure the public ultimately benefits. The British government sets the licensing fee the public pays in order to receive the BBC. In 2010, the fee was frozen at 145.50 pounds. The BBC is a news organization U.S. media outlets should want to emulate, so would a move of this nature really be so bad?

It is evident that we are living in a hyper-competitive media world where supply exceeds demands. My freshman microeconomics course taught me that this will lead to fewer outlets being able to succeed at an optimum level. When I Google news, about 2.62 billion results appear on my screen. While some of these results are probably incorrectly tagged and not actually relevant, 2.62 billion things cannot be expected to all thrive in the same marketplace.

This hyper competition leads to news organizations trying to find niche markets. A similar phenomenon is occurring on television because there are hundreds of channels. Networks are hoping to get a small share of the ratings. For the week of Feb. 10, the Olympics dominated the TV show category, according to published results from Nielsen. However, even this international cultural event only attracted between 9 and 13 percent of households. It is difficult to convince advertisers to advertise in a particular show, especially with shrinking audience sizes. Print publications are also struggling with this. Is it possible to target more specific audiences without sacrificing profits? From the failed Plenty and SI Latino, I am not so sure.

If news organizations become desperate enough, they could violate their code of ethics in order to attract an audience share. This seems to be the model Gawker and Deadspin follows. Should A.J. Daulerio be proud of the title “worldwide leader in dong shots?” And in all seriousness, is publishing photos of people’s private parts really news?

Frederick Douglass said, “If there is no struggle, there is no progress.” Journalists must innovate until they find success. “Liquid journalism” is an appropriate way to describe what is currently happening in the industry. What is a potential solution to the disconnect between communities and traditional journalists? Maybe, this is where citizen content creators come in the picture. After learning about Chicago Now and its successes from Gary Green, I can see the possibilities.

Conglomeration and consolidation were two ideas my introduction to telecommunication course focused on. I learned how 100 episodes is the magic number of shows for syndication. Once “Modern Family,” reached this benchmark, it has become available on ABC and the USA Network multiple nights a week. While the networks do well in these deals, where does it leave consumers?

I do not think members of the public see the impact of networks acquiring production facilities, but it is problematic for a newspaper company to also own television stations in the same area. In Gainesville, we have the Gainesville Television Network, WCJB, WUFT and the Gainesville Sun. I do not want any of these entities to be owned by the same company because coverage would likely be identical. It would be a major loss for the community and more importantly for citizens who want to be informed.

News organizations are not the only ones struggling to be financially sound. Movies are one area where directors and producers have been shying away from risk. While I loved “Toy Story 2,” and I am obsessed with “Toy Story 3,” these follow-up films prevented Pixar from releasing anything new during this time period. What about the trilogy started by “Meet the Parents?” We love these characters and story lines, but we are missing out on new ideas and independent films. Unfortunately, companies will continue putting money into these films because they are much less risky than something new and unknown.

When it comes to music, I am proud to say I have never downloaded anything illegally. While it sometimes pains me to do it, I pay $1.29 for each iTunes song.  Although I never utilized the services of Napster, I have loaned out a CD for a friend to make a copy. If I pay $15 for the “Pitch Perfect” soundtrack, is it wrong that I let my friend Colleen make herself a copy? I consider this to be different from mass copying one CD to sell to people on the streets of New York City. I understand that most people do not stop at one copy, but are there different levels of theft or am I just kidding myself?

Whenever I hear discussions of stocks and share prices, I think of my Disney dividend check I receive on an infrequent basis. Even though Disney owns ABC, I am having trouble comprehending how news organizations allow shareholders to have so much control. These same shareholders bought stock in the company because it was doing well. If a news organization is doing well, members of the audience are seeking out the content it is producing. Wouldn’t a news organization that loses sight of this also see negative consequences on the business side?

I am much more enthusiastic about business ethicist Patricia Werhane’s “enriched stakeholder” model. If we were to create one of these models for a news organization, a citizen could be placed in the center. Company shareholders and the government may be on outer rings, but the citizen would remain the focal point. Do citizens want LOL Cats or do they want to know about the most recent developments in Ukraine? Let’s hope it is the latter.

It would be hard to transform the stakeholder theory from principle to practice, but the media can look to the successes of their fellow media members. Successful radio stations were well received when they were audience oriented during programs and community focused in their promotions. Would it be that difficult for newspapers, magazines and television stations to take this advice into consideration? With the way things are headed, they have nothing to lose but a lot to gain.

Podcast: The People’s News: Media, Politics, and the Demands of Capitalism

I enjoyed hearing the perspective of Joseph Uscinski, a political science professor at the University of Miami. His argument effectively says that news consumers are telling news producers what to report and write about, as well as how to do it.

This is in sharp contrast to the Ted Koppel quote cited on the first page of the book. Koppel said, “Most television news programs are designed to satisfy the perceived appetites of our audiences. That may be not only acceptable but unavoidable in entertainment; in news, however, it is the journalists who should be telling their viewers what is important, not the other way around.”

As Uscinski said, journalists should be able to identify the important stories free of market demand, yet that would only take place in a land of fairytales. I agree with Uscinski because members of the media must satisfy their customers or they will go out of business. The public loves reading about celebrities and gossip. This is likely why CNN’s homepage on Sunday featured videos pertaining to Nicki Minaj, Christina Aguilera and Kate Upton instead of Kiev and Venezuela.

CNN Sunday Homepage – Who or what is driving coverage?

It was also interesting to hear Uscinski’s thoughts on the growth of cable news in the late 1990s, particularly the emergence of Fox News. Uscinski said, “They are out there to serve, what was, an underserved market.” Instead of looking at Fox as a propaganda machine, he recognizes how it provides conservatives with an alternative to CNN and MSNBC. However, I think he should have touched on how this journalism of affirmation can prevent these viewers from hearing different opinions and viewpoints that are more to the center and left on the political spectrum.

However, we must not forget that news is a business. CNN, compared with Fox and MSNBC, attempts to cover stories from the middle of the road without allowing biases to infiltrate the reporting. How has this impacted the network’s success? CNN continues to struggle the most in terms of ratings. Will it continue to be economically feasible for CNN to continue on this path?

Uscinski’s definition of news, which is “news is anything the producer says is news,” also made me think. As an advanced editor in WUFT, one of my duties is to help approve story pitch ideas. I am a news producer, so if I say a story about a school program is not news, is that the final verdict? What if another fellow news producer considers it to be news? Does my news judgment determine whether something is news or is this just my opinion? This definition seems to need some focusing.

Even though news producers can publish what they consider to be news, they are likely taking into consideration what members of the audience care about. In Gainesville, people care about Gator athletics, which is why the Gainesville Sun has gatorsports.com, an entire website dedicated to University of Florida sports. While a news producer may say the Gators recent win at Ole Miss is news, Gainesville residents have made it obvious that they care about this topic. Who is the ultimate driver of this coverage?

While the public has a lot of power to determine coverage, we often point the finger at the “big bad media.” After Uscinski mentioned the Jimmy Kimmel video, I had to watch it. This reminded me of a video we watched in law of mass communication where people signed a petition to repeal the First Amendment. Media analyst Mark Dice talked about hate speech and the New World Order, but it was sad to see how people were happy to sign away one of the fundamental rights of being an American citizen.

When the interviewer asked where should a discerning, socially perceptive news consumer go, I was hoping his answer would point us all toward a few progressive sources. However, this problem is so widespread that it is too difficult. Ultimately, the public needs to scrutinize what is being reported, as well as demand better. Journalists owe their first loyalty to the public, so hopefully the wishes of the masses will fall on receptive ears.

Case Study 7-E Crossing the Line? The L.A. Times and the Staples Affair

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

A breach of journalism ethics came to light on Dec. 20, 1999 when the Los Angeles Times released an exposé about a special relationship the publication had formed with the new Staples Center. The Los Angeles Times became a founding partner of the Staples Center on Dec. 17, 1998, which required the exchange of cash, profits and joint revenue opportunities. On Oct. 10, 1999, the Times had released a special Sunday magazine edition dedicated to the new arena. However, most of the publication’s journalists did not learn until after publication that the Times was splitting the magazine’s advertising profits with the Staples Center. Journalists were angered because of this conflict of interest, and many readers were skeptical about trusting anything the paper had written about the Staples Center. Did the Los Angeles Times cross the line by becoming a founding partner of the Staples Center and being a participant in joint revenue opportunities? How did the association differ from the relationships big-city papers tend to have with local professional teams?

2.) Weigh alternatives

The Los Angeles Times could have declined any type of relationship with the Staples Center in an attempt to remain objective about the coverage of the athletic teams and entertainment acts that would be featured in the area. However, the Staples Center was seen as having the ability to revitalize downtown Los Angeles. To assist with this revitalization, the Los Angeles Times could have agreed on a promotion agreement with the arena in exchange for cash payments and free advertising in the paper. These sorts of relationships are often found between large publications and professional sports teams. The Los Angeles Times could be of even greater assistance to Tim Leiweke, president of the Staples Center, by agreeing to become a “founding partner” that would put the newspaper on the same level as McDonald’s, Anheuser-Busch, United Airlines and Bank of America. With this option, publisher Kathryn Downing could choose whether to tell editor Michael Parks about the arrangement. If Parks was not told, Downing could claim there was technically not an ethical breach because reporters would not have been aware of the arrangement.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

The Los Angeles Times should have followed the examples of other large papers who assist sports teams by providing free advertising. As this chapter states, people look more favorably on media entities that are audience focused and community oriented. This option would allow the city’s prominent paper to assist with the development of a major arena that would bring jobs and entertainment to the community. In addition, this option would not cause people to question allegiances and whether there were any improper arrangements. During his guest lecture, Gary Green emphasized the importance of journalists maintaining credibility. Ultimately, if readers and viewers cannot trust what you report and write, you likely will not be around for much longer.

Case Study 7-F Profit Versus News: The Case of the L.A. Times and the Tribune Company

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

The Tribune Company bought the Los Angeles Times from the Chandler family in 1999 largely as a result of what occurred with the Staples Center conflict. Even though the Tribune Company owned a variety of different papers, television stations and the Chicago Cubs, the company’s stocks were not doing well. In response to this, the Tribune Company focused on cutting jobs at the Times to help boost company earnings. The staff decreased in size from about 1,200 to 940 journalists. In addition to cutting journalist positions, the photo department decreased by about a third and the graphics and design department also lost about 40 percent of its staff. All of these changes contributed to major changes at the paper, including the resignation of editor John S. Carroll and the firing of publisher Jeff Johnson. Should the financial side of a company affect the journalistic side’s ability to do its job? At what point, do publications answer to stakeholders versus shareholders?

2.) Weigh alternatives

The Tribune Company could have focused solely on the business side with no regard for the journalistic goals of the Los Angeles Times. The emphasis would have been on cutting as much staff as necessary, as well as increasing technological efficiency. If photographers and graphics positions needed to be cut in order to have a better bottom line, these measures must be done. As an alternative option, the Tribune Company could have ignored the money side and devoted itself to making sure the Los Angeles Times had the opportunity to produce the best news it could. With this option, the Tribune Company would consult with publisher Jeff Johnson and editor John S. Carroll about what allowed the publication to win 13 Pulitzer Prizes during a five-year period. A third option would allow the Tribune Company to take into consideration the needs of the paper, as well as the financial ramifications for the Tribune Company. Some positions may need to be eliminated in order to operate more effectively, but the Tribune Company would never determine drastic cuts without consulting Johnson and Carroll. In addition, operations in Ventura County and San Fernando Valley would be evaluated but allowed to continue serving the community.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

With many of these dilemmas, it is helpful to utilize Aristotle’s golden mean. The third option that allows the consideration of both the business and journalism sides is the most realistic and effective plan. While I would love to say the only focus should be on the journalistic side, as Joseph Uscinski said, this would be in “fairytale land.” News companies must make money in order to survive, but the journalistic aspects should not be completely sacrificed in order to make extra profits.

Discussion Question

How can journalism entities strengthen their roles as watchdogs? Is an individual or institutional change needed?

After Woodward and Bernstein reported on Watergate more than 40 years ago, investigative journalism was viewed as an exciting career path to pursue. However, we are at a critical juncture. Almost every local station now has an “I-team” that claims to perform investigative journalism, but a shift is occurring. Instead of keeping track of the powerful elite and their abuses of power, these investigations are focusing on personal safety and finances. It is alarming that Victor Neufeld, who served as the executive producer of ABC’s “20/20” said, “Our obligation is not to deliver the news. Our obligation is to do good programming.” If reporters claim that a story about the opening and closing of doors is investigative, the public will likely be desensitized to the meaning of investigative journalism. We do not want “investigative journalism” to become a buzzword because these terms lose meaning after being constantly repeated. Words like “strategic” and “innovative” have lost their meanings in the job market because almost everyone incorporates them into their resumes and LinkedIn profiles. When I look at the Investigative Reporters and Editors website, I have faith that quality investigative reporting is still being completed. However, I am concerned that individual efforts may not be enough to combat this diminution.

Link to Ethical Issue of the Week

We have heard a lot about the protests in Venezuela over the past week. This is largely a result of various media outlets covering and providing the public with updates about what is happening. CNN is an international news source widely recognized for its in-depth coverage of issues and conflicts. This is why I was shocked to find out President Nicolas Maduro had revoked the press rights for several CNN reporters on Friday. It is also disturbing how Maduro called CNN’s coverage “war propaganda.” From my exploration of CNN’s website, it appears that reporters have worked diligently to discuss various perspectives, including sources who support Maduro, throughout coverage of the Venezuelan protests. If a government attempts to remove members of the press, I usually think it is because the government officials are not satisfied with how they are being portrayed in the media, even if the coverage is accurate. The antagonism between the Venezuelan government and CNN has been increasing for several days, including CNN cameras being taken away at gunpoint last Wednesday. Reports have also been released that the government has blocked social media, television stations and even Internet access. This seems to show Maduro and his government will stop at nothing to control their image or what is left of it. Edirin Oputu did an effective job reporting on the development of this press situation, including an update about how the government reversed its stance and allowed CNN journalists to continue reporting. I am glad the government came to its senses, but if I were one of those CNN journalists I would be afraid for my safety and security during these unstable times. I would want to remain as objective as possible, but I would be on edge, especially as violence continues to occur. Do you think these journalists will continue reporting as they did before their credentials were revoked? Would you be worried about your safety, and do you think this would impact how you do your job?

Questions from Dr. Rodgers – Vocabulary Terms

• The Enlightenment: A period that extended from 1685 to 1815. It was regarded as the “Age of Reason.” The theory of free press that evolved during this time period said there would be an independent voice that could monitor the influence of powerful institutions in society.
• Watchdog role: Watching over the powerful few in society on behalf of the many to guard against tyranny. It extends beyond making the management and execution of power transparent. This role requires making known and understood the impact of that power. For the press, this also requires reporting where powerful institutions are working effectively, as well as where they are not.
• Social responsibility of press – Hutchins Commission report 1940: A panel of scholars called the Hutchins Commission developed this theory with financial support from Henry Luce, the conservative founder of Time magazine. The theory envisioned a time when an active consumer of news and information was satisfied by a responsible press. The Commission said the media have various functions in society, including providing a truthful, comprehensive and intelligent account of the day’s events in a context that gives them meaning. One flaw of the theory is it does not devote an ample amount of attention to modern media economics.
• Conglomeration: “A process in which different things come together to form a single thing,” according to Merriam Webster. In terms of media, companies acquire various assets to make more money, as well as to find various sources of income through vertical integration. An example of conglomeration includes networks acquiring production facilities because it allows networks to own the shows they broadcast without having to rely on independent producers. This process makes the situation more predictable for stockholders.
• Consolidation: “The process of uniting; the quality or state of being united; the unification of two or more corporations by dissolution of existing ones and creation of a single new corporation,” according to Merriam Webster. This process allows for a diversification of income. When NBC acquired Universal, income went from being primarily advertising based to including more revenue from subscriptions, admissions, licensing and other ancillary income.
• Native advertising: Ads that match the look, feel and visual design of the publication they are featured in. It is often difficult to distinguish these advertisements from journalistic content. As the New York Times prepares to include this type of advertising, it is likely a tool more organizations will incorporate into their publications.

Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu

Blog Essay Week 7

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

Blog Essay Week 6

EJ Chapter Four

The essence of journalism is a discipline of verification. It seems as though Thucydides had a better sense of how to report on events than journalists do today. Journalism distinguishes itself from entertainment, propaganda, fiction and art by focusing on providing an accurate account of what happened.

However, accurate reporting is sometimes hard to come by. Questions are surrounding NBC’s recent coverage of hacking that is supposedly taking place in Sochi. Why did Richard Engel report on this? Was it because the hacking was actually occurring or was there another reason? Verification is currently under pressure from various sources, including how easy it is to instantaneously publish something, while knowing it can be corrected later. In addition, outlets are quick to publish information if other news organizations have already put it “out there.” When I Googled Sochi hacking, about 175,000 results popped up. I wonder if NBC was following the pack before the network went a little too far.

It struck me that objectivity in journalism did not originally apply to journalists being free from bias. Personally, I have never thought anyone, even journalists, can be free of bias. We are influenced by our own experiences and upbringings. However, as a journalist, we must be able to put these biases aside when reporting. I think we need to return to the idea from the 1920s where objectivity pertains to a consistent method of testing information so biases do not get in the way of accurate reporting.

The idea of objectivity provides better guidance than realism and its emphasis on putting the facts in order. If we just want a list of facts, we can leave the work to computer aggregators. Journalists add analysis and context. We just need to make sure bias does not also find its way into the mix. This also fits hand in hand with the importance of studying evidence and verification. The University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications requires that we take fact finding, a course designed to teach us about public records and the power of documentation. This curriculum is a far cry from the “trade schools designed to fit men for higher salaries in the existing structure,” discussed by Walter Lippmann.

Kovach and Rosenstiel threw me for a loop when they said “the impartial voice employed by many news organizations – that familiar, supposedly neutral style of newswriting – is not a fundamental principle of journalism.” Fox News receives a lot of criticism for not remaining neutral. However, what about the networks that select sources to express what is actually their own point of view, but then use the neutral voice to make it seem objective? Ultimately, I think the public mainly cares about transparency. Maybe if Fox stopped referring to itself as “fair and balanced,” the network would receive less condemnation.

In addition, if more focus was placed on objectivity as a method, we could continue to incorporate distinct media entities under journalism’s umbrella. If fact checking and verification were widely utilized, everyone might be more accepting of Fox leaning toward the right and MSNBC leaning toward the left.

Why has this objective method of journalism not taken the world of journalism by storm yet? The problem is journalists are not learning their verification techniques from their universities or editors. According to research by Stanford’s William Damon, colleagues and trial and error have been the best teachers. We are approaching a critical juncture in this area. The question is, how will we respond?

It is comical that the culture surrounding the modern press is hindering verification. We have access to so much technology that should make our jobs easier, but it is hurting the journalistic process. As Karl Marx warned, “The production of too many useful things results in too many useless people.” Al Gore is one victim of technology weakening the process, which is ironic because of the claims that he invented the Internet.

As a journalism student, I never thought I would have to think much about science. Chemistry is to remain a distant high school memory (nightmare). However Phil Meyer made a valid point when he said, “That’s what scientific method is—our humanity, our subjective impulses…directed toward deciding what to investigate by objective means.” Whether we are pursuing a study of how various cells interact or why a corporate merger is taking place, maintaining an objective method will be essential to the success of both ventures.

Throughout the past few weeks, we have learned how a focus on balance and fairness as principles can be problematic.  If 2,000 scientists support the claim that there is life on other planets, and 20 scientists say Earth is the only planet that can sustain life, it would be a distortion to have one source from each side. Journalists are too focused on being equal to both sides, but there are often more than two sides. This issue may stem from the two parties that dominate the American political system. However, even getting a Democratic and Republican source may not be enough. What about members of the Tea Party, Libertarians and Socialists?

Fairness can also be problematic because of its subjective nature. One source may claim your coverage is unfair to their stakeholder group, but you need to focus on who your loyalty belongs to, the citizens.

As Pulitzer Prize-winning author John Hersey said, journalism’s promise to citizens is “nothing here is made up.” Following from this, it makes sense that a journalist should not add anything that did not happen, and they should not deceive the audience in any way. However, it is often tempting to dramatize events to make the story juicier and more enticing, which is one reason audiences tune into CNN instead of C-SPAN.

Journalists should also attempt to be as transparent as possible. Just like the demands to know what is in our food, people have a right to know the ingredients of a particular news story. The Internet can be a major ally in an effort to be more transparent because additional sources and information can be provided through hyperlinks. David Barstow and Alejandra Xanic von Bertrab won the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting. Their coverage of bribery in Mexico involving Wal-Mart included links to notes and other pertinent records. I am glad quality journalism like this continues to be rewarded.

Being transparent also raises the issue of anonymous sources. While it is evident why a source would want to remain anonymous to protect his or her own interests, why should reporters allow some sources to remain anonymous while revealing the identities of others? It is difficult to put stock in a story that relies on anonymous sources. Have you heard the rumors about the United States and Russia teaming up to rig the pairs and ice dancing competitions? An unnamed Russian coach released this information, so it must be true, right?

In addition to being wary about the use of anonymous sources, journalists should be forthcoming about questions they are still unable to answer. During the recent developments in the Tiffany Sessions case, journalists have been honest about questions that are still unanswered.

It bugs me that network television newscasts are able to get away with saying “sources said.” Who are these mysterious sources? Television producers can say timing is of the essence, but space is a premium in newspapers and magazines. Does this shortness of space make it okay to not identify sources by name? Readers would likely not stand for this, so why should television viewers?

Journalists must not only be open with the audience, but they also should not mislead their sources. Blockbuster stories can result from masquerading, but journalists must be careful about crossing the line. Do shows like “To Catch a Predator?” go too far? The suicide of Texas prosecutor Louis Conradt Jr. during the filming of one episode makes me question whether this masquerading is appropriate.

Is the information provided by this show sufficiently vital to the public interest to justify deception? Is there no other way to get the story? Does the show explain to the audience why deception is justified, as well as being the only way to get these facts? These questions can be adapted before any masquerading is used as an investigative reporting technique.

Journalists also owe it to citizens to be original. We saw how easy it is for members of the media to utilize the same lines and material as their colleagues and competition. Does Conan O’Brien “pushing the envelope” ring a bell?

In addition to being original, journalists must be aware of the different levels of knowledge in reporting. When there is a car crash, citizens want to know what happened. Reporters must provide details about the crash location, time of the crash and who was involved. The Orlando Sentinel’s coverage of a crash in Tampa involving a few University of Southern Florida students goes into these external details.

Why was the other driver going the wrong way? What were the young men doing on the Interstate at 2 a.m.? These questions pertain to the interior world. While journalists might want to hypothesize and speculate about the answers to these questions, they need to be honest about lacking proof to make these judgments.

As Nelson Mandela once said, “I stand here before you not as a prophet, but as a humble servant of you, the people.” As the public’s provider of information and news, journalists must be skeptical about their ability to cover topics they are unfamiliar with. Journalists are expected to cover anything and everything, but they cannot be experts on every topic they write about.

If reporter Lisa Prevost were an expert on home equity loans, she would probably work in finance or real estate. Journalists should perform research and interviews to try to learn as much as they can about a topic, but they should not go into a story thinking they know exactly where it will go.

This skepticism about what a journalist knows during the reporting process should continue through the editing phase. By going line by line, you are not only looking for any fact errors but issues with sweeping assertions and assumptions. A recent Alligator article looked into how Gainesville residents were reacting to the CVS tobacco announcement. One line in the article reads “For some local convenient stores, the change could mean an increase in profits.” (This is a direct quote, but the reporter should have said convenience stores.)  However, the reporter only had one source to support this claim. When did some become reference for one? Ultimately, the reporter should have included additional sources to bolster this assertion.

I like the idea of incorporating an accuracy checklist into the reporting process. Two of the most important questions relate to whether the lead is sufficiently supported and concern over the identification and inclusion of various stakeholders. I think stories must also live up to what the headlines say. If the headline says “Experts warn of coming wave of serious cybercrime,” I want to hear from multiple sources who explain how and why this will occur. In addition, what makes these people experts in this area? I am expecting reporters Danielle Douglas and Craig Timberg to include this information.

When dealing with assumptions, anonymous sources and verification, it is important to remember that everyone has a role to play in the process. Owners and publishers must encourage transparent journalism that is supported by verifiable sources. Editors must be ready to “prosecute” stories line by line, and reporters must focus on using objective methods to remove any bias from their work. In addition, the public must maintain an active role in holding journalists accountable. As the great Edward R. Murrow once said, “To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful. It is as simple as that.”

Skeptical Editing/Reid MacCluggage

Reid MacCluggage said our biggest weakness is unchallenged information. As editors, when a reporter gives us a story, we are quick to assume that the information is accurate and truthful.

However, we all know the saying about what happens if you assume something. All joking aside, this is a serious issue. When I was recently editing a story, I checked all the names and statistics. The reporter had spelled all of the names correctly and properly included the correct percentages from the applicable report. However, I also checked the photograph accompanying the story. I am glad I did because her caption had not properly identified who was who. In the field of journalism, assumptions will only lead to embarrassing corrections and a decline in credibility.

As Sissela Bok said, incredulity is an important quality in editors. As we have always been told, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” After the reporters complete their initial edits, we must be the next line of defense.

Editors must challenge reporters to think critically, as well as how to write about complex topics that may not have a simple explanation. As MacCluggage says, we may not be able to nail down why something is happening, so we should not report as though we are all-knowing beings. This goes hand in hand with Kovach and Rosenstiel’s discussion of humility and how journalists must be skeptical about their ability to know what something means.

MacCluggage expresses some helpful points in the section about prosecuting the story. Placing our reporters on the witness stand and grilling them as Jack McCoy does may not be appropriate, but editors need to cross-examine stories to determine holes that need to be filled and questions that still need to be answered.

While it may not be feasible to assign a naysayer to each story, this step could help in preventing unchallenged information from being released. If someone had taken on this role at “60 Minutes,” holes would have been discovered in the reporting process before Mike Wallace went on air.

Editors need to make sure reporters have the information to back up what their stories assert. As astronomer Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

ME Chapter Five

I was always a little fuzzy on what happened with the New Orleans Saints in 2011, but it disgusts me to hear about their “bounty system.” There has been a lot of discussion about concussions and other injuries throughout the NFL. While I understand why Steve Gleason would not want to betray the trust of those who worked on this project, I am glad this situation forced a discussion on this topic.

Privacy is an extremely complex topic. Merriam Webster defines privacy as “the quality or state of being apart from company or observation” or “freedom from unauthorized intrusion.” However, does everyone have a right to privacy in every situation?

The Bernie Fine investigation involved an ethical dilemma. Do you reveal the accusations before all of the information can be verified? Do you have a duty to protect the privacy of someone who could be considered a public figure in the community? When privacy and the harm principle come head to head, how do you respond?

I learned a great deal about the tort of privacy during the law of mass communication. It seems obvious that I cannot claim in an advertisement that Tim Tebow loves my cookies without his permission. However, the disclosure of embarrassing private facts is a difficult area to maneuver because privacy continues to change. A recent Cosmopolitan article looked into how relationships were impacted by abortion by talking to various couples. I doubt you would have seen an article like this in the 1970s or 1980s.

While I think many lawsuits result in excessive verdicts, it surprises me that the courts consider someone’s reputation to be more valuable than privacy. I think reputation is important, but this relates to how people perceive you to be. If my privacy is protected, including making sure no one peaks into my windows or has unlimited access to my social media accounts, I think I am better able to preserve my reputation. Do they not go hand in hand?

If the primary purpose of journalism “is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing,” journalists must care about privacy because it is an integral component of democracy. Unlike freedom of the press and freedom of speech, privacy is not listed as one of our rights in the Constitution.

However, the idea of privacy has been around since way before the Constitution. The Talmud’s focus on the role of the community is compelling. In this regard, privacy is a two-way street. As individuals, we must be on alert for any intrusion of privacy, but our fellow community members also have a role in respecting physical and emotional boundaries. While it is easy to understand that a locked door means keep out, what about password-protected sites? Are you going to attempt to fiddle with a locked door? Probably not, but we have all attempted to guess a friend’s password to access their iPhones or Facebook accounts. Think about this before you choose 1234 or password as your “clever way” of keeping people out.

Even though the government is no longer the only institution that forces you to provide private information, it is ironic that Edward Snowden gave the federal government a dose of its own medicine. Part of the reason this occurred is because of the continuously changing technology. Firewalls and other protections can only go so far. Just ask Target and Neiman Marcus.

I found it interesting how Patterson and Wilkins differentiated secrecy and privacy. What is one secret I have? I have a Disney Princess nightlight next to my bed. No one, apart from those reading this blog, knows that information. What is something I keep private? Which law school I am leaning toward attending. My parents and best friend are aware, but I am wary about who I tell. My mom, dad and best friend are each in one of what philosopher Louis Hodge calls “you plus one” circles. As I get further out to casual acquaintances, I will not share this intimate detail with them until a final decision has been made and a deposit has been sent. These circles provide a helpful tool for determining how much you trust the people in your life.

Good journalists must use discretion when handling private information. Unless your ultimate goal is to work for TMZ, you need to be careful as an information protector. This AIDS story is a little different because it involves someone coming forward with their story, but with illnesses and things outside the norm, a journalist must determine whether revealing information is intrusive and injurious.

The right to know, need to know and want to know was applicable to the case study about campaign finance. While we may have a legal right to know certain information, people often assume their want to know gives them a right to demand access to information. Were people always curious about Anderson Cooper’s sexuality? Yes, but did they have a RIGHT to know? Definitely not. Need to know is a gray area because it bridges the gap between want to know and right to know. The public does not need to know all information related to a physician’s practice. However, don’t they need to know when doctors, such as Dr. Kermit Gosnell, abuse their power? Absolutely.

When I read about people taking advantage of people’s privacy to make some money, I was not the least bit surprised. I knew several acquaintances who were charged for being in possession of alcohol while they were underage. Their mug shots were plastered all over various websites that were easily accessible with a simple click of the mouse. What was the only way to get these sites to remove the photo? Shelling out hundreds of dollars. While this public shaming is incredibly offensive, it is a product of the world we live in today. Hopefully, this will serve as a warning for anyone who wants to behave in a dangerous or illegal way.

Ultimately, I think the “veil of ignorance” boils down to removing all possible biases. As a 21-year-old female from western New York, I have biases that are different from a 52-year-old man from Kansas. In addition, I am a journalist, and let’s say he works at a manufacturing plant. Under the veil, we must put the biases that result from our backgrounds aside. If we do this, the best possible option will hopefully be decided upon.

Ethical Issue involving Coach Lute Olson

This anecdote from Lute Olson brings up a lot of interesting questions. Journalism’s first obligation is to truth. While the reporter went to the coach and likely the best source for information about Arizona’s uniforms, he did not accurately report on the information. He made assertions about the team’s uniforms costing more than those for the Phoenix Suns, an assertion made outside of the proper context. In addition, the reporter failed to do his homework by not including how Sand-Knit was no longer under the ownership of MacGregor.

While the reporter may claim he verified the information with the coach about why the Sand-Knit uniforms were purchased, the information was not portrayed accurately. Where were the editors in this process? By employing Tom French’s red pencil technique, editors would have realized the assertions did not match the facts.

I was also disturbed by the response of several members of the University of Arizona administration. They probably did not want more publicity to be devoted to this, but they should have considered how this story painted Olson in a negative light. I have much more respect for those in leadership who stand behind those below them, especially in tough times, as we saw when Jeremy Foley defended Will Muschamp.

You can tell a lot about a person by how they respond to ethical dilemmas and adversity.

PoynterVision: Ellen Shearer on what journalists need to know to cover drones

The discussion of drones is especially applicable to us as students at the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications and as residents of Gainesville. The Innovation News Center has a drone. While it may not be a predator or land drone, it could have a large impact on reporting completed by members of the WUFT news team. Gainesville is also home to a couple companies who work with drone technology, including Prioria Robotics and Altavian. If this industry grows to be worth $89 billion by 2025, we need to figure out how to use drones during the reporting process, as well as have an understanding of how the various kinds are used.

Privacy on own computer – MAXA Tools – Privacy Test

I decided to check my results while at the library this past Saturday. It was disturbing that the program knew I was in Gainesville. While I expect this pinpointing on my iPhone because of Google Maps and other applications, it freaks me out that my location can also be identified through my computer. It was also interesting how it knew I was logged into Facebook and Google. Neither of these windows were open during the completion of this exercise, so it came across as very sketchy.  I am highly considering using proxy cascades. This may also be the motivation I needed to start placing tape over my computer’s webcam.

My results from the privacy test:

Case Study 5-B Facebook: Should you opt out or in?

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

Social media sites, including Facebook, continue to collect more and more information about users. In 2007, Facebook introduced Beacon, a service that tracked what users were doing on various websites and then announced actions and purchases to Facebook friends.  Other websites have typically done this, but the tracking often occurs without user awareness. What if you do not want Facebook to have the ability to track you? What if you were worried about your privacy? In 2009, the New York Times published a guide that showed how users had to go through 100 different steps to alter their privacy profiles. Within a year, the process was made easier, so it only took two steps. Facebook continues to introduce services where issues of privacy arise, including the automatic facial recognition service in 2011. Should you continue to use Facebook and other social media platforms, such as Twitter?

2.) Weigh alternatives

One option would be to go cold turkey and discontinue use of these platforms. However, one multi-national study in Europe found that young people who were asked to refrain from using their electronic devices, which many use for social media, displayed physical, psychological and emotional signs of withdrawal that is typically associated with addiction during the 24-hour period. In addition, social media is a way many people connect for group projects and other forums. If someone tells me they do not have a Facebook, red flags immediately go up in my head. Another alternative would be to opt in and allow Facebook to use all of your information to target advertisements based on what you like, as well as make it easier to tag photos and locations. The consequences of this choice must be considered. Do you want your future employer to see that album from spring break in Cabo San Lucas? Employers are utilizing social media as a tool to find out more about candidates. Is it worth their time to interview someone who they worry cannot even present themselves in an appropriate manner, let alone allow them to represent a company? A third option is to effectively use social media to build your brand. Employ privacy settings, so only your friends can see your posts, and be aware of what statuses and photos you post.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

As the phrase goes, “everything in moderation.” Social media should be maximized to the highest possible potential. A journalist’s Facebook or Twitter is another outlet to interact with readers and viewers. However, it is also integral to use proper privacy settings and always think twice before posting. It is easy to post information without vetting, something we saw applied to Twitter in chapter four. Overall, in this digital age, it is not really possible to opt out completely of social media. The important thing is to monitor settings and keep posts appropriate and tasteful on Facebook and all other platforms.

Case Study 5-C Politics and Money – What’s private and what’s not

IWC Systematic Process

1.) Identify the Dilemma

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizen’s United case revolutionized campaign finance. Corporations and unions now have the ability to donate unlimited sums of money to political campaigns. However, do citizens have a right to know who is donating to whom? Do we need to know how much these donors are contributing? As this chapter discussed, right to know, need to know and want to know are very different. A right to know pertains to the law, and a want to know emphasizes curiosity. Need to know is the most ethically compelling argument because it applies to making known information public that some want to keep private.

2.) Weigh alternatives

One potential answer to releasing information about campaign finance is to make everything public. If billionaire Harold Simmons gave $1 million to Newt Gingrich’s political action committee, we should also know who else donated and how much they gave. To support this idea, we could again point to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia saying publicity is part of the price of getting involved in the game of politics. Another alternative would be to have zero transparency. The public would know absolutely nothing about who gave to whom or how much they contributed. Members of the audience would just see the advertisements on television without any idea about how much these promotions cost. This option would provide anonymity and protection for those who wish to donate. These donors would not have to worry about how their donations will impact their businesses, something that would make Frank VanderSloot very happy. A third option would be to provide the names of donors without getting into the specifics of how much each person donated. People could see that Sheldon Adelson supported various conservative candidates, but they would not know whether he donated $50,000 or $10 million.

3.) Cite a persuasive rationale

In this dilemma, I am drawn to using Aristotle’s golden mean where virtue lies between extremes and also utilitarianism. I think the best option that “provides the greatest good for the greatest number” is providing the names of donors without the financial details. With this option, the transparency allows the public to see who is donating, while donors also maintain some of their privacy. Overall, this choice has a little something in it for everyone.

Discussion Question

How does the use of anonymous sources impact the credibility of individual journalists and their publications?

It was interesting to compare the tests various editors utilize before allowing anonymous sources to be used. However, I do not think a series of questions can fit every situation. Consider the two-question test Joe Lelyveld used when he served as the executive editor of the New York Times as applied to the Richard Jewell case. Law enforcement sources informed the Atlanta Journal Constitution that Jewell had become a suspect, but these sources also wanted to remain anonymous. Lelyveld’s first question asks “how much direct knowledge does the anonymous source have of the event?” As part of the team investigating the bombing, the reporters would say the law enforcement sources possess a significant amount of information. Lelyveld’s second question poses “what, if any, motive might the source have for misleading us, gilding the lily, or hiding important facts that might alter our impression of the information?” While law enforcement people may not want to mislead, they are often focused on finding who is responsible for a crime or act of violence as quick as possible. This can lead to a rush to judgment without proper evidence. In this case, there was no physical evidence linking Jewell to the crime and police had not even interviewed Jewell as a suspect. While these tests can be helpful guides, there are a lot of extenuating factors to consider when deciding whether to use anonymous sources.

Link to Ethical Issue of the Week

If the above link gives you any trouble, the Daily Princetonian also discussed this topic.

I came across this story about Albion College suspending the student newspaper while perusing Jim Romesnesko’s blog. The college suspended the print version of the Albion Pleiad because administrators had a problem with “content verification.” As Kovach and Rosenstiel discussed in chapter four, “the essence of journalism is a discipline of verification.” Sally Walker, the vice president for student affairs at Albion College, suspended the paper after the Pleiad published an article on Jan. 31 about the death of an Alma College student. As we have learned, journalism’s first obligation is to the truth. When the paper was contacted about an issue with the article in question, they removed it and posted a revised version of the story several hours later. Verification is under pressure because in the digital age, it is easy to post something immediately. Once an article is posted, it can easily be edited. Some publications may not even acknowledge an updated version, something Carla addressed in her ethical issue last week. However, members of the Pleiad staff acknowledged the mistakes, including the use of quotes out of context and a deviation from their fact-checking policies, on the paper’s Facebook page. I think the student newspaper took the proper steps in addressing their mistakes, and I think the college should not have enforced such a strict sanction. Do you think the college made an appropriate choice to suspend the paper? What would you have done as a member of the Pleiad staff?

Questions from Dr. Rodgers – Vocabulary Terms

• Harm principle: Each person has the right to act the way he or she wants so long as these actions do not cause harm for others. John Stuart Mill was central to developing this idea. Maintaining trust or privacy may come into conflict with the harm principle. Patterson and Wilkins discussed how people would be hurt if filmmaker Sean Pamphilon did not release how New Orleans Saints football players were targeting other players, especially those who had previously experienced injuries.
• False Light: False light is one of the four torts related to privacy. Successful claims of false light usually require that the defendant published the information widely, the publication identified the plaintiff, the plaintiff was placed in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and the defendant was at fault in publishing the information. Patterson and Wilkins said enhancing a subject’s biography to sell additional book copies is an example of false light.
• Discretion: “The intuitive ability to discern what is and is not intrusive and injurious,” according to Bok.  When a source decides to reveal private information, a reporter’s ability to discern whether this information will cause injury to the source remains the only barrier between the source and members of the public who may need or just want the information.
• Objectivity: Idea began to appear as part of journalism discussion in the 1920s because it was evident that journalists were full of bias, often bias they were unaware of. This idea was part of an appeal for journalists to develop a consistent method of checking information, so these biases would not discredit their work in any way. The more transparent the approach is, the better.
• False Equivalency: In an attempt to be balanced, journalists attempt to give equal attention to both sides. However, there are often more than two sides to a story. Patterson and Wilkins discuss how if a large percentage of scientists believe in global warming or one medical treatment is leaps and bounds ahead of the rest in terms of safety, it is a disservice to citizens to create the impression that the debate is evenly split. The media continues to struggle with this distortion.

Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu