Final Thoughts on Journalism

Comms 239 Take Home Final Exam

Objectivity is a difficult thing to define, seeing as everyone has a varying opinion of the word. Ideally, objectivity means presenting facts and information without the presence or interference of personal biases. Objectivity is a crucial element in journalism because without it all journalism would be is opinion. Opinion is not concrete because it can neither be proven nor disproven. With so many contrasting views in the world, we need information that is valid and credible. Opinion can be very misleading, but there is indeed a need for some subjectivity in journalism. After all, the only truly objective information that exists lies in definitions and specific identities of people, places, locations, etc. (Scheuer, 71).

Although objectivity is valuable, journalism needs more substance than objectivity alone. Journalists must expand upon concrete information in order to communicate the news to their audience. Even "true objectivity" cannot be completely objective. When creating a story, a deep pool of boundless information lies in wait to be used. However, as a journalist, it is not possible or prudent to use all of the available information in a story because there simply is not enough room to publish it all. Ergo, a journalist must exercise his judgment to decide what is important and what is not. This very process contradicts objectivity, but there is no way around it; in journalism, some amount of judgment is unavoidable in your work. Herbert J. Gans said, "Objectivity is epistemologically impossible, because the moment journalists ask questions they select from a large number of possible ones."

Everyone has opinions, and being Americans, we are entitled to hold these opinions. Even journalists are entitled to having opinions. However, there is a time and a place to share these. The Editorial section, for instance, is one such place. I even think it is all right to share opinions in regular journalism pieces, as long as the audience understands that what is being presented is opinion, and not necessarily fact. If journalists were to present their opinions as fact, citizens might be left in more ignorance than they would have been with no opinion at all. There is a happy-medium that must be achieved concerning objectivity and subjectivity. Journalism is not necessarily valid without objectivity, but some objectivity must be included, as well, in order for the story to work for both the writer and the reader.

Excellence is very subjective in all aspects of life. In all types of competitions where any type of judgment is used, first place and even last place does not necessarily mean a whole lot. Each judge is entitled to his own opinion, so what might constitute as terrible in one judge’s mind might actually be considered excellent to another. One important aspect of journalism that is vital is that journalism should encourage democracy. Good Journalism needs to provide us with information that is timely and accurate, so that we, as citizens, can be better informed and have an active role in our democratic society. "Democracies are only as good as their systems of education and information (Scheuer, 56)." Therefore, not only must journalists provide citizens with ample information, but they must also provide information that is truthful.

Excellence in journalism also includes providing sufficient context. So, information must be given to the reader, but the information must be expounded upon in addition. Readers can absorb information just fine; it is another thing entirely to understand how events came about or why they happened in the first place. Journalism, if done properly, should leave a person feeling more knowledgeable about the world rather than boggled down with an excess of confusing information.

Another important aspect of good journalism is independence. The press must be independent of outside forces and it must also have integrity when covering stories. Independence is the reason that it is considered unethical for a corporation to pay for a journalist's press pass. The journalist might feel obligated to cover the story favorably for that company even if his opinion was contrasting. It is best not to subject oneself to situations where he might be pressured to cover a story a certain way. If journalists were not independent from outside sources, I do not think journalism would be worthy to be read. One major role journalists have is to serve as a watchdog to citizens. In order to fulfill this duty, journalists must be separate from government officials to help democracy to run its course.

I monitored the Kansas City Star over the course of this semester. The paper did quite well (as far as I could tell) at providing accurate information and maintaining independence. However, sometimes more context could have been provided in stories. However, this might be common in local papers. After all, if you are a local resident of a city, there is no need to provide background information that everyone probably already knows.

They say that truth is the most important element of journalism. This makes sense; without truth, all journalism would be is fiction. For something to be truthful, it must meet two different criteria: getting it right, and getting it all. (Scheuer, 45). Releasing a piece of work that is accurate is not sufficient, and this is evident in any one person's life. Teenagers (and LDS ones, I think, especially) are pros at giving their parents information that is correct, but also in not giving their parents the whole story. Leaving out the whole story is a loop-hole for avoiding trouble. In journalism it is also dangerous, and it can be misleading.

Truth in journalism is crucial, but it differs from reality many times, and it also differs from absolute truth. Reality is different for every person. Someone who experienced 9/11 firsthand has a different reality for what 9/11 really means than someone else who might not have experienced it so closely, or even from someone else who experienced it firsthand, but in a different way. I am almost certain that many articles that were published about 9/11 did not capture everything that occurred on that day for those who were deeply involved, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was incorrect. These articles are just different viewpoints. Reality is completely different from person to person, and even contradicting viewpoints can both be true, because they constitute as reality for that individual.

Absolute truth, on the other hand, is a little bit different. Journalistic truth, in my opinion, constitutes of the closest to the truth journalists are able to come up with, and is somewhat eclectic. With all of the sources that journalists encounter, they have to pick and choose who is accurate and who is not, and what they come up with is basically the truth as the majority of other people view it. Absolute truth is concrete, and there is no debating about it. Since journalism is somewhat subjective, I don't think it is possible to create absolute truth in journalism, just as it is not really possible to have complete objectivity, either.

Journalistic truth contributes to civic knowledge because it takes what journalists find out from different sources and citizens and it reveals it to the public. Without journalism and the effort to publish truth that exists, we would live in a very ignorant world. The government would not have to watch their actions as much, because journalism that did not provide truth would not be effective as a watchdog for our government. Journalism lets the public know what is going on in the world in the closest way to absolute truth that they can.

The world of news has changed dramatically throughout past decades. The news has been shared first in newspapers, then radio, then television, and now the internet. What comes next?
I don't think that the need for news will ever completely disappear, but the ways in which it is communicated will continue to change, and I don't think that will ever stop. The reason for why newspapers are failing is pretty apparent; the internet is taking over. The speed and convenience of the internet has replaced many things. Everything including shopping, banking, watching television, talking, and now getting the news, has been done increasingly more on the internet. Most of these activities are not losing money as a result, but newspapers are.

Newspapers receive a majority of their revenue via advertising, and also circulation. However, with our world becoming more and more paperless, things have changed a bit. Fewer people are subscribing to newspapers each year, decreasing the amount of money coming in to newspaper companies. Also, advertisers are beginning to put advertisements on the internet, because that's where many readers go today for news. Because of the need for newspapers to make more each year than they did the previous year, and the fact that they are not accomplishing this, has led to many job cuts all around the nation. As a result, newspaper companies have fewer people to pay, and they are able to cut costs somewhat.

People are also choosing the internet over television news, as well. I interviewed Laura Bauer, a reporter from the Kansas City Star a couple of months ago, and she had some opinions on this matter. She relayed that in years to come journalists are going to have to be very competent with all aspects of the journalism profession. In other words, there is going to be a mixing of broadcast and print journalism. A journalist might have to be able to know a lot about filming the news, writing the news (because news will probably be mostly on the internet), and maybe even taking pictures as well. Staffs will continue to get smaller, hence the importance of knowing how to do just about everything. Five years from now, I seeing journalism being much the same as it is today. Newspapers will still be out there, but most people will be getting their news from the internet. However, looking further down the road, in ten years things might be more similar to how Bauer saw them being. News will be more consolidated, and fewer people will be presenting it.

My personal code of conduct that I plan to live by as a journalist is identical to what I think a journalist's code of conduct should be. First of all, I think that a journalist should try to be as truthful as possible. Sometimes it is not possible to get all of the facts, but a journalist should persevere until her deadline to get all of the facts she possibly can. The more facts and information you can get from people, the more perspectives you are able to get, and the more accurate your information should be. More sources allow you to find common ground concerning information, and common ground among many is usually a good thing because it means the information is likely to be true. Also, getting information from lots of people allows for contrasting viewpoints, and helps you as a journalist to keep your own biases out of your story.

Along with obtaining contrasting viewpoints, it is extremely important to interview and get information from all sorts of different people. It is unfortunate, yet not uncommon, to see a majority of sources in the newspaper be classified as white and middle class. Although it is difficult, I feel it is important for journalists to get out of their comfort zones and talk to people they don't normally talk to. Yes, you will still get contrasting views if you only interview white and middle class people, but a lot of people will be left without a voice if a wider variety of people are not interviewed. This, in my mind, defeats the purpose of journalism. In interviewing, journalists need to avoid framing questions to get particular answers from their interviewees. Doing so will limit the information they find out, and it will contribute to the presence of bias in their journalistic practices.

Finished and Continuing Prop. 8

Being here at Brigham Young University, the topic of Proposition 8 was a common one. Conversations revolving around the proposition could be heard almost anywhere on campus during the weeks preceding the election. Despite the passing of Prop. 8 and the relief from supporters who put hours into the campaign, the case of gay marriage continues to be looked into.

A couple of weeks ago, the New York Times published an article about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and their involvement in the campaign. Apparently the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is upset and says that the church did not report the total amount of contributions they received for Proposition 8. The article deduces that if this is true, then the church has broken the law. The whole situation appears to be slightly complex, because "the Mormon church said it doesn’t need to report contributions that were made by members and not the church."

Despite the coverage that implies the church did break California state laws, the paper does contribute contrasting views as well, which I appreciate.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and an executive committee member of the “No on 8” campaign, contributed a slightly better opinion of the church in their involvement in Prop. 8.

"'Given the stable of very smart lawyers working for the church, I think it is highly unlikely that they did anything in violation of the law,” she said.'"

Even though this is kind of a touchy subject, I think that the journalists are doing a good job of presenting all sides of this topic, and especially with what information they have been given concerning the matter.

Coverage of Mumbai Attacks

In Mumbai, India, there have been a number of terrorist attacks. These events were covered by various news corporations, but they were covered by citizen journalists, as well. People from all over used Twitter and blogs to communicate the devastation that occurred in India.

On Twitter, citizen journalists beat news sources to the punch as far as communicating the events in Mumbai to the public. However, the information these citizens provided was lacking in concrete information. Many tweets would say things like, "Attacks happening in seven different locations," and contained somewhat vague information. Basically the people knew big things were happening, but they were unsure as to what exactly or how many had been affected. Occasionally, someone on twitter would drop some numbers as far as how many people had been killed or wounded, but in my mind the sources were not entirely credible, and most likely got their information from some news corporation.

I applaud citizen journalists revealing news through Twitter and blogs, because they are many times better at creating awareness of breaking news. However, I don't think they can replace paid journalists as far as getting accurate information, and I think that the information provided by citizen journalists should be consumed carefully. Citizen journalists are not paid, and therefore do not necessarily have the motivation to present accurate news. It is the need for accurate news that hinders the coming forth of news from big news corporations, in my opinion. There is a quote that reads something like, "There has always been a tension between getting it first, and getting it right." The Mumbai attacks illustrate this very well.

As far as Twitter and blogs affecting journalism, they might help give journalists tips since tweets and blogs can be published within moments of breaking news events. However, I think there will always be a need for accurate and credible news, which journalists have the obligation to communicate to the world.

Journalism Continues to Adapt

In the New York Times, there was an articl e about a new option for journalists who have been laid off.

The "TypePad Journalist Bailout Program" has begun to offer journalists who are recently out of employment space at their blogging location.

Although this might not be the ideal source of income, the top 20-30 bloggers receive some revenue among other benefits.

This just shows one path that can now be taken... The world of journalism continues to adapt to the current situation

...Seriously??

In the Kansas City Star There was an article about the KC Mayor (Mark Funkhouser), who says that he can't work without his wife. Indeed, his wife shows up in his office during his work hours to give him advice and help him schedule appointments among other things. The city council has said that no longer can "elected officials" have relatives volunteer for them regularly. Some people might have succumbed after this decision was made, but Funkhouser is filing a lawsuit.

One person referenced in the article said that he found the whole situation a little weird. Later on in the article, a contrasting view was shown:

"'It's a classic love story,' says Garry Cushinberry, a bank vice president who sat at the mayor's table at an awards dinner Nov. 14. 'He's risking his political career for the woman he loves. You have to respect that.'"

Even me, being the sucker for a good romance story that I am, definitely do not find this story touching in the least. I tend to side with the first opinion shown, and also the city council. It's nice to love your wife, but... seriously? Do you have to be with her 24/7? At work? And not only that, but to insist that you can only do your best if your wife is present? It just seems to me that though it may be desirable to be with your spouse, being separated from him/her sometimes is something you just do, becuase that's the way it works. Heck, I got used to leaving my mom to go to kindergarten... But hey, maybe I was just mature for my age.

Futuristic Journalism Arising Today

“'Information is now a public service as much as it’s a commodity,” he said. “It should be thought of the same way as education, health care. It’s one of the things you need to operate a civil society, and the market isn’t doing it very well.'”

This statement came from an article today in the New York Times. There is no doubt that the newspaper industry is declining.

Different web news organizations have developed recently, which receive no profit for their service. There has been some talk about using advertising revenue to pay these journalists, but it is doubtful whether money from advertising would be able to to support an entire news staff.

Web sites such as VoiceofSanDiego.org provide good, investigative journalism, and provide a peek as to what might happen to journalism in the future. Some other web sites similar to this have popped up in various big cities across the U.S., and more are expected to follow.

Journalists are responsible for their own fate. True? Or not?

I recently read an article about journalists who have lost their jobs, and the fate of jounalism.

This article states that "media futurist" Jeff Jarvis blames journalists for their own fates, and also "denies them the right to consider themselves victims".

This statement might have some truth to it, but quite honestly, it's a little harsh. No matter what caliber of a jounalist you are, staff cuts are still being made. There are still only so many spots in the job available to be occupied.

Yes, being good at what you do does increase your chances of keeping your job, but think about it. If all journalists were on the level as far as quality goes, many of those would still lose jobs because of the direction that the news business is headed. This notion has lead me to think that journalists who lose their jobs are not solely responsible for their fates. It is up to them to find another path to follow as far as work goes, but being cut from a newsroom staff is, unfortunately, not always unavoidable.

I do agree with Jarvis on one thing though; it is up to journalists to preserve journalism practices. I don't think journalism itself will be a problem to preserve.

Wiki Wiki (Fast) News

In the New York Times today, there was an article that described Wikipedia as a source for breaking news. There is no doubt that Wikipedia is updated quickly and efficiently, but is it necessarily a better source for news than a website for a newspaper company?

Wikipedia was updated every time new information was gathered about the McCain/Obama election. However, it is possible for people (who are not recent new users of Wkipedia) to update information freely.

The article said that eventually the internet will overtake print and television as far as media coverage goes. However, with credibility being an issue with Wikipedia for instance, is this such a good thing? I read a quote earlier (I don't remember who said it) that said journalism has to deliberate which to satisfy, the urge to be the first with the story, or getting the facts right.

If the world continues to turn to Wikipedia, or sources like it, where the news can basically be changed by whoever, without an employer of some kind to hold them accountable to telling the truth, what will happen to the news? Will people trust it blindly, or not trust it at all? Will news businesses go out of business?

I am holding on to the hope that people will always need news organizations to collect and distribute the news. Maybe news corporations will just have to keep on adapting and become more and more internet oriented. So... here's hoping.

Might We Have Had a Different President?

After I finished the reading for today, I had one of those moments when you think of something that would be perfect to blog about. Those moments... absolutely priceless. Anyway, the section of the reading that caught my attention talked about our beloved Ralph Nader.

The section read, "Why, he asked, when he was raising real issues, did he get no coverage while Al Gore and George W. Bush, the Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee of American politics, were covered every time they blew their noses?"

This shows that the media truly has an agenda setting role. The media has not told us what to think about Nader, but by failing to give him much coverage, they have encouraged us to think about other candidates instead (Obama and McCain), who they thought would have the best shot at winning the election.

However, might the election have turned out differently if Nader had received more press coverage? After all, there were quite a few swing states in the final stages of the election. I know that I don't know much at all about Nader's stand on the issues. My guess is that a lot of other people don't, either. Maybe that right there is the reason that Nader has not had much success in the past.

If the media had given Nader the coverage he wanted, would he have gotten more support from American citizens? Is the lack of attention given to Nader the reason he has not gotten a large portion of the votes in the past? Could the election have turned out differently than it did?

Maybe it wouldn't have changed anything, but you never know.

Election Day

The media has been all over this election for the past couple of months. While journalists might not have come right out and said it, Obama was definitely made out to be a favorite for this election. Because of the way the election has been covered thus far, the election coverage tonight surprised me somewhat.

News reporters were hesitant (from what I saw) to call the election too early. I kept hearing the phrases like, "It's to early to call," throughout the night. I even heard this referring to some states, which quite frankly, were fit to be claimed by Obama. However, the media seemed to be cautious in stating who would win the election before it actually happened, which was a smart move.

Although, I didn't realize that the election was very close at all until they showed the popular vote at the end. Obama won by a landslide with the electoral votes. Even though it was evident that Obama would win overall by the electoral votes, I think the media did a good job of illustrating and informing the public that the election was closer than most people thought it would be. Kudos to the media.

Media Coverage of the Election

The media is generally thought of as being liberally biased. In my opinion, the coverage of this presidential election is perfect evidence of that.

Much negative attention has been brought to McCain and Palin's campaigns. The press has criticized McCain for many things, including cancelling his appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman to focus attention of the financial crisis, and all of his negative campaigning leading up to the election. Palin has also been nailed by the media for various comments she has made. One of the more publicized of these comments concerns the "Bush Doctrine." From Palin's comments, the media hinted that Palin is not ready to be elected to office.

So maybe these events that took place might not have been the best of things to happen for McCain and Palin, but they got a lot of coverage, nonetheless. In one of my prior blogs, I wrote about Palin's $150,000 wardrobe, which received a lot of attention from the media, when certainly, there are more important things happening with election day looming nearer.

However, Obama has said some things that weren't the brightest either, but did they receive very much coverage? I opt to think not. His "57 states" comment was not not widely publicized to my knowledge. This comment to me is one of the more obvious mistakes compared to not appearing for a show. But which one got more coverage?

Also, what do we know about Biden? I know I don't know much about him. The articles I have read have all been about Obama, McCain, and Palin.

Is this fair coverage? Is the media trying to sway the public to vote for Obama?

While we may never have a sure answer of this, the media has covered the election in a way I think will sway most voters towards Obama and Biden.

My Epiphany... Accompanied With Many Questions

The other day, I was exposing my brother to the wonderful world of Saturday Night Live.

For me, the humor I find in SNL has grown exponentially this semester as I have become more informed. I must admit, this is probably thanks to Comms 239 for making me read the paper every day.

Anway, as my brother and I were trying to find SNL spoofs on one of the presidential debates, we clicked on a link that wasn't quite what we were looking for; the link showed us clips from the actual second presidential debate, and contained some news reporters talking about the debate as well.

I am somewhat grieved to say that when we realized that we were watching "real news" we both said, "Oh," with heavy hearts, and wasted no time reembarking on our quest for these specific video clips.

I find it really sad that even though I am going into jounalism, that I don't really enjoy watching the news, but love SNL. I think people miss out on important information if they only watch SNL and not other news stations, but who are we kidding? We all know which out of the two are more entertaining.

Is it right for people to have this view? Is there anything that people are missing out on by choosing SNL over standard news programs? Should people already be well informed if they are going to watch SNL? Is SNL even legit for a news source?


(Oh, and if you were wondering, here is the clip we were looking for. It's way good.)

Too Much Attention?

Palin's $150,000 wardrobe has gotten much attention from the media, and a jab was even made at the amount Palin's clothing cost on SNL. The question I would like to ask is this: Are Palin's pricey outfits receiving too much coverage from the media?

Yes, $150,000 is more than the majority of people would spend on clothing, but is it really that big of a deal? Did this deserve to have its very own article?

The media's explanation for Palin's wardobe coverage (as I gathered from the article), was that as Palin is trying to appeal to the "working-class voters," her wardrobe does not necessarily reflect that.

Palin's wardrobe has changed over the course of her campaigning, but I don't think that has to be considered as negative as the media is making it out to be. Yes, Palin's wardrobe might not be that of the typical working class voter. However, her wardrobe could be an effort to make her appear more professional, seeing as Palin's reputation has been somewhat tarnished by the media, which has been partially successful in portraying her as an ignorant politician.

Either way, I think any possible reasons for Palin's wardrobe change are not significant enough to have received media attention. There are probably more compelling stories that could have been written in its place.

Is it Being Cocky to Think Citizen Journalists Couldn't Do All That?

Today in class we talked (among other things) about muckraking, investigative journalism, and watchdog journalism. During our discussion, a question was asked that caught my attention, and... you guessed it. The rest of this blog is devoted solely to that question.

If journalists couldn't or didn't do investigative journalism, would citizen journalists do it?

The conclusion I have come to is a resounding NO. I mean, I suppose there are always the exceptions. You know, those eccentric people who are hardcore into digging up information, but aren't employed as journalists? Yeah. That's them.

In theory, all journalism is investigative, but when I think of investigative journalism I think of in depth reporting over an extended period of time. Quite frankly, I don't know of many people who would be willing to sacrifice enough of their time to do investigative journalism out of the goodness of their souls, and without pay.

I think that bloggers and citizen journalists mostly do regurgitate information that employed journalists have already dug up. Citizen journalists are definitely capable of posting some news, but I don't think that it will ever be classified as investigative journalism. There's just not enough motivation there. Anyone agree? Disagree?

(Here's the reading that related to this discussion in class)

Laura Bauer

Laura Bauer, a reporter for the Kansas City Star, was introduced to journalism in high school, and has loved it ever since.

Bauer graduated after five years of attending college, and got a job soon after at the daily newspaper in Springfield, Missouri where her older sister also worked. At first, she wrote for the neighborhood news, bi-weekly section. Two years after she was hired (in about 1995), Bauer began working full time as a cop beat. It wasn't until January of 2005 that Bauer was granted a presence on the Kansas City Star staff.

While she worked as a cop beat, Bauer felt like she had a purpose.

"When I solely covered crime, my goal was to open people's eyes to the underbelly of society," Bauer said.

What she meant by this, was that she tried to show people what was happening in their community so they could try to improve circumstances or try to protect themselves.

While she was working as a cops reporter, Bauer worked on a story about a toddler who had died in foster care, and who should never have been put in this foster home in the first place. Because of the investigation about this boy and the information that was retrieved from of it, this child care agency was reconstructed, and some of its leaders had to leave the agency. This experience is evidence to Bauer that jounalists can make a difference in communities.

"That little boy didn't die in vain," Bauer said.

Currently, Bauer's news writing is more generalized. Bauer's new focus is on front page enterprise stories, which she describes as "people-oriented stories."

With so many bloggers and other forms of communication available today, it is sometimes difficult to define what journalism is. Bauer has her own opinion on what constitutes not only journalism, but "good" journalism.

"...It accurately depicts what is going on in people's lives and how it affects them, telling their stories in a way that others feel like they are living it themselves. Journalism that holds people accountable and that gives people information they otherwise wouldn't have."

However, Bauer admits that her view of journalism has changed since she began work in the field. She believes that the purpose of journalism is basically the same as it always has been, to "inform, educate, entertain and evoke emotion." The thing that has changed, in her opinion, is the audience in terms of wants, though not necessarily needs.

Despite the changes that have taken place, Bauer feels that The Kansas City Star does a good job of providing news that balances the wants of readers with news they can use.

The Kansas City Star, like many newspaper staffs around the country, has suffered lay-offs and has lost one fourth of its staff as a result. Although these circumstances are not ideal, Bauer encourages all who are interested in journalism to stick with it.

"Newspapers will survive, they're too important," Bauer said.

Changes are definitely due to come, though. The advice Bauer had to give to young journalists is to become well rounded. She said it was important to learn how to do video and audio, and to become experienced with working on the web. Bauer's sister, a newspaper editor, has speculated with Bauer that there probably will be a time in the future when newspapers will not hire reporters who can't do both of these things. She relayed that small newpapers are most likely the best places to gain experience in this. Bauer ended the interview with a few words of wisdom for upcoming journalists.

"Prove yourself, pay your dues, specialize in a type of reporting that interests you and be the best in it."

Temple in Kansas City!

In the Kansas City Star, there was an article about the new temple that will be built in the Kansas City area. The media really is amazing, becuase this article was posted on the internet on Saturday, the same day that President Monson announced the locations of the new temples-to-be.

Anyway, this news was SUPER exciting for me, because as you might have guessed, I am from the Kansas City area (Liberty, specifically). Until now, my stake has been assigned to the St. Louis temple, which is about three and a half hours away. The Nauvoo and Winter Quarters temples are also about three hours away from where I live.

Now, the new temple in Kansas City is going to be FIFTEEN MINUTES from where I live! Words cannot express how excited I am. It's funny how quickly word travels in the church. Anyway, the temple will definitely stand out on highway 152.

Opinion vs. Journalism

Today while I was looking at the New York Times, I came across an article about a journalist (Heather Mallick) from Fox News who got nailed for writing baseless opinion.

(Click here to view the article about Mallick)

We discussed in class today if opinion is considered journalism or not, but never really came to a group consensus. Regardless, this article shows that opinions must always be factual. The article that Mallick wrote received 300 plus negative comments. As journalists, if we do not use correct information... Well, the effects well be less than desirable.

I've been doing some pondering, and I don't really think that opinion is journalsim. It can be included in journalism, but it, by itself, is not journalism. It seems like it is more of an element than anything else.

Is the Media Truly Objective?

As a pre-communications major hoping to go into journalism, I have been firm with the belief that journalism is strictly objective. After all, that is how I have learned to write in all of my classes for journalism here at BYU, so isn't that how all journalists write?

Unfortunately, lately my "firm belief" has gotten somewhat shaky. With the upcoming election only five weeks away, I have been paying more attention to politics than I ever have in my life. Part of the reason for this is that this will be my first year to vote. Rather than watching the debates, however, I have taken to reading the paper to find out how the debates went.

I'll be the first to admit that when it comes to politics, I am poorly informed. Thus, when reading the paper, everything journalist write about the candidates is relatively new to me.

When I was reading the articles this morning about the vice president debate, I don't know if I can say that what I read was biased, but it did shape my opinions about the Palin and Biden. Articles in the paper have helped shape my opinions about the candidates from president, as well. From what I have read, the newspaper is saying that Obama seems to be handling the financial crisis better than McCain, and also that Biden has a better grasp on the issues than Palin.

I already know where I stand party-wise, but regardless, what the media is telling us is becoming my "knowledge" about these candidates. But who really knows if this is factual, or just the opinions of journalists? It is hard to say what is opinion and what is not, when I am receiving information about the candidates through other sources rather than directly observing it myself.

The Biggest Tragedy in Modern-day Journalism

In the film we watched in class on Wednesday, one of the editors for a newspaper made the comment that now journalism gives "[the public what it wants, not necessarily what it needs,]" and deemed this the biggest tragedy in modern-day journalism.

While the news does provide information that we need to know, such as information on the current financial crisis, it is hard to ignore the fact that newspapers have a big motivation to sell their papers. They need circulation, and they need revenue from advertisers. In order to get people to read the papers, unfortunately, a lot of attention is given to the questions of what interests people, and what will sell.

I remember on the day that Heath Ledger died, I had gone to the Yahoo! website to check my email. On my homepage there was a big picture of Ledger and an article about his death, and somewhere on the same page was a feeble picture containing a tragedy that had occured to many people in a country in the middle east.

It hit me then that most people in the United States would be more concerned about this one celebrity's death, than the terrible death of many, despite the fact that those who had died were not Americans. I, myself, am a prime example of these people with misplaced, or exaggerated concerns. I confess that I don't remember many details about the events of this tragedy, or even the country in which it took place.

The reason I say these things is to point out that becuase of the newspaper's need to earn money and satisfy the public's wants, certain important events are being overshadowed by others that are made out to be extremely significant, when in reality, there are bigger things happening in the world.

Holy Cow!

I watched the "infamous interrogation" of Vice President George Bush and Dan Rather (that was referenced in class) on You Tube. Man! The only way I know to describe it is that it was crazy. Seriously; I was lauging while I was watching it becuase of how ridiculous it was. Both Bush and Rather were interrupting each other right and left throughout the interview. Rather was very persistent in talking about the "Iran-contra," and for me, it felt like he would just not give it up. He definitely did not appear very professional in the interview, and I think that he let his own emotions and biases hinder his performance in the interview. Ignoring if this information was indeed important for the public to know, it seemed to me that Rather sort of tricked Bush into being interviewed, becuase as said in the interview by Bush, Bush was supposed to have been speaking about his views on education.
I guess one thing I learned from this is how crucial it is to stay calm and in control when interviewing, even if you have differences with the person you are interviewing.

You should check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiFE1f4-zRA

Tricky Business

Yesterday we talked in class (briefly) about people who provide false information for journalists. When is this ok to do? It is really difficult to say, and I have not had much experience dealing with this or evern heard very much on the subject. However, my gut instinct says that you probably can't point this out in print. I don't imagine it would be very good to call someone a liar in print.
I guess this would be where you do some digging and find out what the truth really is from other sourceS (plural, not just one), and use the ones that you know are truthful and fit together. In the process of digging, you might even find out that what you at first though was false is actually true. Digging is good! If you use sources that don't tell you the truth, it can come back to haunt you.

Who is a Journalist?

Often, journalists are viewed as nosey writers who are just trying to meet a deadline, and who have little concern for their subjects. Unfortunately, some journalists do embody this description. These types of writers let their own stress distort their perhaps better judgment. Ignoring this stereotype, journalists do cover significant occuring events in order to inform the public. Some topics are controversial, but a good journalist should in essence cover a topic if it will benefit the public. How do we know what will and will not benefit the public? That is difficult to say, and probably varies from person to person. Journalists also present information in order to keep the government in check.

Journalism is basically definted as reporting the news. This can be done in many forms, not just through the newspapers or major television stations. People (like me) can report news on websites with hardly any effort at all. In our day and age, anyone can be a part of journalism.