Ethically Challenged

So this last class we discussed at length...ethics.  You might think that ethics are something that's cut and dry... black or white... but no, there is definitely a lot of gray!
Here's a tribute to the King of Pop...
"They Print My Message
In The Saturday Sun
I Had To Tell Them
I Ain't Second To None

And I Told About Equality
An It's True
Either You're Wrong
Or You're Right

But, If
You're Thinkin'
About My Baby
It Doesn't Matter If You're
Black Or White"

This song works when we talk about diversity.  Since there is no such thing really as being truly "objective," having many different views in a newsroom is an extremely positive thing.  Objectivity has been brought up numerous amounts of time during class that I think the point of knowing that it's basically impossible to be objective has set in.

SO! I'm going to focus more on the other topic... which is Ethics.  Okay, ethics is super important, but it varies from person to person.  One may think that one thing is okay, while the other would rather die than report on what happened.
FOR EXAMPLE............. The tragic story of 4-year-old Ethan Stacy shocked many in Utah.  The violent couple of days that eventually led to his death were awful.  Here's where the ethics come in.  So I personally feel that ABC4 News always strives to get the best news and first.  They have one of the best if not the best content out of all the news stations.  But here is something that I did not agree with.  The Sloop's Probable Cause statements were released by the police and they were very graphic.  ABC4 decided to post them on their webpage, while another news station (KSL) chose not to.  They instead just described the statements in a tasteful manner. Now to give ABC4 credit, they did as well and then gave the option of looking at the document.  I personally agree with KSL on this one.  I wouldn't post the statements, because how are they news worthy?  What do they provide to the story?  Why does the public need to read them?

Journalist have the responsibility of being a gatekeeper.  It is up to the journalists to decide what exactly is important for the public to know and really to protect them from things they don't.  We wouldn't show dead bodies on T.V. Journalists have to use their conscience and also their common sense.

Professor Campbell gave us a list with questions to make good ethical decisions. The list gives ten questions to ask yourself when facing an ethical situation.  I think this was a great idea!  These questions really do help you to think about all the possible ramifications and what harm you could possibly bring by reporting something.  I will definitely use that list in the future.

Independence vs. Neutrality

So I feel that in class we go over the same things each time.... with a few new information tid-bits thrown in.  My thoughts... well it must be important than.  It's like in the scriptures... when they say something more than once, it's something you better remember!

So last class period we talked about independence in journalism. The New York Times did an article on this very subject that was really interesting. It talked about their independence as a paper.  The Times described independence as, "The best exhibitions of genuine, honest independence have come from journals that are not in the habit of boasting their self-righteousness.  The comments of the Republican Press upon Congressional Salary bill furnish a case in point.  They have criticized fairly and honestly, speaking of individuals and parties in a just and candid spirit.  This is true independence."
   That being said, they went further to give an example of how they have shown their independence.  I'm assuming this was an editorial or a column, but this writer backed up a candidate for mayor, because of what the mayor stood for.  The writer relates that as soon as this candidate was elected and then went back on what he said and turned his back to those who voted for him, the Times "did not hesitate to rebuke him with it's usual plainness of speech. But it was guided by reason and not by passion or caprice." The Times acted independently from their support and presented the story based on facts and not emotions.

In class we discussed the differences between neutrality and independence.... and I think I understood.. so let's just see if I can explain it.
 Neutrality= reporting just the facts, seeking out both sides... but doesn't create an opinion.
Independence= it's a "spirit and mind" thing that bases opinions off of facts.

Dictionary.com defines independence as...

in·de·pend·ence

 /ˌɪndɪˈpɛndəns/ Show Spelled[in-di-pen-duhns] Show IPA

–noun

1. Also, independency. the state or quality of being independent.

2. freedom from the control, influence, support, aid, or the like, of others.

3. Archaic . a competency. 

 

So when we compare that to independence in journalism... here are the connections I make and also what we talked about in class. "1. Also, independency. the state or quality of being independent."  In journalism this would mean that you are independent from all outside forces and influences.  In class we talked about acting independently by refusing gifts, favors, fees, etc. Also by remaining free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

What I just said also fits with "2. freedom from the control, influence, support, aid, or the like, of others." I like what was said in class that we should be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Just like the example from the New York Times... or the famous Pentagon Papers. It took a lot of guts for all parties to print that about the government... just for the sake of doing what's right.  But that is what this country is all about! That's why we have our independence! So people can question what our leaders are doing and have the freedom to question why things are the way they are.  And this is where the media can help raise this awareness and work together with the people they serve.

What is really interesting right now is the "List".  Many claim it was an infringement on private documents (as was the Pentagon papers) Others are claiming whistle-blowing on illegal activities.  It's a tough call, but it is interesting to see it play out. So far, the news stations and media all seem to be taking the same angle (worried about legal issues), but being in the newsroom you can see people definitely have opinions about what is going on, but are gearing more towards the neutrality side and even borderline siding with the state.  They are more worried about who put out the document (also like the Pentagon papers) instead of what has led up to this, what can be done to fix the problem, etc.  (I think I've gotten off topic... but it's just another example of what's going on today).

What I do agree with is that we do need to keep ourselves independent.  We need to be able to report on what is necessary without feeling like we need to walk on eggshells so that people won't stop advertising with us. I understand and know that money makes the world go round, but money shouldn't have the power to cover-up corruption or facts.  It's important that we have people willing to stand up for things that are right just because it's the right thing to do. Now... I hope I can take my own advise :) 

Gotta check the facts

Class discussion this time was about journalism of verification. According to The Elements of Journalism verification is the essence of journalism, meaning if you don't check your facts and make sure you are telling the truth... then it's not really journalism.

Journalism of verification requires checking and double checking your sources, quotes, facts, information, everything.  That is the ideal... don't report it just for the sake of reporting.  But, we know that journalists are on a time constraints and there is the ever present pressure to be the first one to get the news out.  This is where journalism of assertion comes in.  There's an interesting article  titled, Journalism by Assertion Rather Than Verification. The article talks about this pressure and how unfortunately, immediacy sometimes wins out over fact checking.  It says:
.   "For airline industry officials, the immediate action seems plain enough. When a big-time safety-related story breaks, the cooler, more professional heads in the media are likely to be outnumbered by transient amateurs chasing what Shakespeare called "the bubble reputation." Officials staring at a packed roomful of reporters and banks of television cameras are advised to err on the side of caution. Stick to known facts, not presumed, assumed or purported facts."

The article is suggesting that journalists should only report the facts and not worry about getting a big reputation.  Lakia showed a good example of this with the clip from ESPN radio.  The announcer didn't report what everyone else was, because he 1. figured it wasn't true and 2. the facts weren't out.  This announcer saved himself a lot of embarrassment by not giving in to the pressure of reporting just because everyone else is. 

How does this affect bias? I don't know if there really is a direct connection between verification and bias.  I guess if you are sure that you have your facts right and are really really trying to report just the facts, then that could assist you in being more unbiased.  However, we talked more about managing your bias and making things more balanced.  When you are aware of your biases(?) then you can see where you are showing more bias than not.  Sounds great on paper, but can it really be done?  One reporter named John Stossel wrote an article about his experiences called The Double Standard About Bias in Journalism. He talked about his career and how he figured out how to be more profitable, "Then, gradually, I figured out that business, for the most part, treats consumers pretty well. The way to get rich in business is to create something good, sell it for a reasonable price, acquire a reputation for honesty, and keep pleasing customers so they come back for more."  Later he recounts how this changed when he changed his way of reporting. "
My reporting changed. I started taking skeptical looks at government—especially regulation. I did an ABC TV special, "Are We Scaring You to Death?" that said we TV reporters often make hysterical claims about chemicals, pollution, and other relatively minor risks. Its good ratings—16 million viewers—surprised my colleagues. Suddenly, I wasn't so popular with them. I stopped winning Emmys."  He said there is a bias in journalism as well as a double-standard.... this leads actually into the topic of showing intellectual humility...

Elements says, "Journalists should be humble about their own skills."  It goes on to describe the meaning... saying they need to be skeptical about what they see and hear, but also be skeptical about their own ability to know what it really means.  Also that you are open-minded enough to accept the next person that you talk to.  I'm assuming that when you are humble enough to know that you aren't the greatest thing since sliced-bread (why do I think of Top Gun?) that you will be able to have more well-rounded stories... and who knows... maybe you will even get a whole new twist to a story, just because you were humble.  No wonder it's also a christlike attribute.

How can media best serve democracy?  This is the wonderful thing about being a journalist in America! Due to the wonderful  first amendment, we have the freedom of speech, press, to assemble, religion, etc.  The media can report on what is happening in our government and call the public to action!  The media can bring awareness to the public it serves.  In class we also talked about it being a two way communication between the leaders of the country and the people. Just think back to the 2008 elections (ok so I'm not the expert as I was in another country on a mission away from news or TVs)... but I can only imagine that the election was kind of a big deal that took up a lot of air time.  Here's what CNN was reporting.  Without the media... getting out campaign promises, information about the candidates, etc would be extremely difficult! People even like Stephen Colbert wouldn't even have a medium to give his little spin on what Colbert Nation should do. (How do you post videos?.. just click on Stephan Colbert to see it).  Anyway, the media plays a big role in democracy in that it gives the voiceless a voice.  It has the ability to call people to action, to make a difference and to bring awareness to all.  They can be the watchdog for the people they serve.  Media plays a huge role in society today.

P.S. Big thanks to Don Hudson and Professor Nelson for taking time to come and give us the real life application!!

Don't worry... I'm a professional.

Journalism... as a profession.

 

Our last class discussion talked about just that... journalism as a profession.  The Mind of a Journalist, compared journalism to a professional priesthood.  Now... upon hearing this, one may think this could be borderline sacrilegious and I'm still not sold on the comparison, but we talked about it in class and that helped me to see where they were going with it.   

    Dictionary.com says priesthood is:

priest·hood

(prēst'hŏŏd')   n. The character, office, or vocation of a priest. The clergy.  This of course would not work when describing journalism as a professional priesthood... they are neither part of the clergy or an actual priest... but maybe they mean it this way....

In the Church as well as in many if not every religion, the aspect of faith is involved.  President Eyring discusses how important faith is when dealing with the priesthood in his talk in Spring 2008 General Conference. So we know that faith is required to see miracles, we have to have faith in others, in our leaders (especially our priesthood leaders) that they are truly inspired and are leading us down the correct path.  I think this is where the comparison comes in.  The class talked about how faith is required in reporting.  The audience has to believe that we (the journalists) are in fact telling the truth.  So, we have the responsibility to make sure we have all the facts, and get the story to them.  I agree with it in that sense of the journalist having the responsibility of telling the truth and creating that trust and faith in the audience.

Journalists are unique in that they see the world through different eyes.  As an intern I get the privilege of shadowing several reporters and they have many things in common.  1. A desire to make a difference in the world. 2. curiosity. 3. confidence and 4. a sense of major skepticism.  Journalist question everything they see... they don't just take it for face-value.  This of course can generate some great stories.  This is still an attribute that I'm working on.  A lot of times I hear something and just believe it right away (this is also not a bad thing... until you get taken advantage of).  I like to think of journalists as that watchdog... protecting those whom they serve.  When they are always questioning things... answers get unearthed, problems can be resolved... and people can be protected against corruption or being taken advantage of. For example, there is an interesting article from poynter.org and it talks about a former investigative reporter named John Dougherty.  He is now running for Senate in Arizona. He visions putting a bunch of investigative reporters on his staff in order to root out corruption and scandals. Journalist's unique ability to question and dig deeper goes beyond what most people would do on a daily bases. 

So there's been an interesting question that I have been struggling with lately.  So much that I'm not even sure reporting is the path for me.  The question was, "How close do you get to your story and how far away do you stay?"  I have a hard time not letting stories get too personal.  One day I was shadowing Noah Bond on a tragic story about a father who was shot to death in a drive-by shooting.  Later that day we were interviewing the brother-in-law and I played with the kids.  I just kept thinking... these little boys have no idea that their dad was killed!  I really had a hard time holding back the tears... but as I was talking to Noah and the photographer about it they both said they are just used to doing stories like this.  They hold the balance of not getting too involved, but also getting enough to tell a great story. I guess it's something that just comes with experience?

*** Interesting article about the future of journalism....http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=101&aid=186467

"Give Light and the people will find their own way."

In connection with the last blog... I'm going to further discuss truth. On Tuesday in class we had a journey to the past as we looked at where the press and media all started. The press has come a long way since the 1700's, where "news" was brought over by a ship and or letter and just reprinted (without checking the facts). Being biased or remaining objective wasn't really a concern for these early journalists. Throughout the years, news has changed and advanced in many different ways... all of which to make the newspaper more profitable.
In class we discussed journalism as a business... and as much as we journalist would like to think otherwise... money is a HUGE factor in our industry. You have to make money in order to get paid and have the resources needed for good journalism. Unfortunately, the need to make money costs journalism to sometimes not be at it's peak. For example, one of the news stations' parent company is GE. They did a story on one of the largest jet engine planes and had a reporter standing in one of the engines. This is major PR for GE... but then a week or so later this same plane crashes (due to mechanical issues) ... what is this news station going to do? If we as journalists keep our first loyalties to the truth and to the public... then of course the story would air. However, this parent company of course would not like the bad publicity and could ultimately hurt the new station.
We as journalist will have to make these ethical decisions all the time. We will have to decide between telling the story as it is, regardless of what it will do to our financial support, or to forgo the story so that those ties aren't severed. Ideally we think that we should always be reporting the facts and covering what the public needs to know, but sometimes a little cash stands in the way of true journalism.
This sounds really cynical, and sometimes I think that I'm becoming more and more cynical each day... bad. BUT! That's why I've struggled in deciding whether I want to continue going into journalism or do something else. I don't want people telling me I can't run a story because we'll lose money (if the story is important), but journalism is soo important!! It gives a voice to the voiceless... brings awareness to the people and helps them to make decisions and to take action.
Brother Campbell talked about the difference between "Gotcha" journalism and "Civic" or "Public" journalism. Gotcha is all about getting headlines and it victimizes the people, making them feel hopeless. Public journalism leads to involvement and educates the community. Now is the time for journalist to do just that... to help the people! There's a quote from the Masthead of Scripps Co. Newspapers that says, "Give Light and the people will find their own way."

truth... isn't it about time?

After our class discussion on what truth is and how a community needs "functional truth," the more I realize how important our "gatekeeper" role as journalist is. I for one want to know the truth, regardless of what consequences may follow. I would want to be able to make my own sound decisions based upon the facts and not off of some watered down part of the truth. Truth sets you free. In class we learned that this "functional truth" is required to help a community to do just that, to function. "Truthfulness creates, in effect, the sense of security that grows from awareness to news." The people have a right to know. If what is being reported is newsworthy and is something the community needs to know in order to function properly, than they have every right to have the truth. Now, I may sound contradictory, but there are some things that not everyone needs to know. When the truth isn't helping better the community, than that part of the truth does not need to be disclosed. Journalist first priority is to the truth, but they must also keep the public's best interest in mind. I'm being vague, but an example was given about a gay magazine that "outted" a local pastor who was anti-gay. Now, did this piece of truth need to be disclosed to the public? You tell me. I don't see where the community benefited from this little piece of information... and this priest's life was completely ruined. Yes, he should not have been such a hypocrite, but he was at a support group for gays wanting to stay chaste... can't blame the poor guy. Anyway... I feel truth is to be told in it's fulness, when it meets the public's best interest and when it benefits others.

In honor of the 4th of July... I'm going to talk about the three different journalism models starting with the Land of the Free. Here in America we are blessed to enjoy the freedom of the press. Our model is called the Liberal model. In this model, the state is not as involved as it is in other countries, allowing the press to be independent and to publish or air what the real story is. We can turn on the news or read the newspaper and actually have faith that what we are reading is in fact truth. This cannot always be said for other countries. The media always strives to be neutral and objective and tells both sides of the story... they are independent from political parties... or strive to be (although many may argue this is not always the case.) All in all, I'm glad I get to be a journalist in America where I won't have to watch what I write or have the government say that I cannot publish whatever I was working on. I feel this model is the closest and most accurate way of finding out the truth.

Next is the Polarized Pluralist Model, which is found predominately in Europe. Many Europeans believe it is impossible to be neutral and unbiased and so they don't try to be. They are more involved in parties which can have "sharply conflicting ideologies." This model also doesn't always see journalism as a profession. This model will make it harder to find out what really is true and what is just opinion.

The last model is called the Democratic Corporatist model. They are strongly influenced by the government. I always think of China and how severely they regulate what is said. Truth is dictated by what the state thinks or what they want to people to think. One of the girls in the class shared an experience about journalism in China. There was an accident and one of the chinese girls told the girl in my class that the fatalities were probably more than double what was printed. The media is not reliable at all for truth, which leaves the community in the dark.

So truth... isn't it about time? Shouldn't we as journalists try our hardest to always tell the truth.. the whole truth and nothing but the truth? The answer is yes.