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.