"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted,
then used against you."
Journalists face many challenges, like in the joke above, because of their profession. Whether it is lack of trust from the community or an increasing rate of unemployed journalists, there are many challenges that they must face to be successful.
In the books "The Elements of Journalism" and "The Mind of a Journalist" there is a discussion about the various challenges that have arisen in recent years. One main challenge is the belief from citizens that journalism should entertain the readers, rather than inform them.
It is difficult for a journalist to to keep reader's attention because there are so many outlets and so many different kinds of readers. They each have their own interests and concerns in relation to the world.
Should a journalist write about the most important things like war, taxes, and economy, or should they write about entertaining things like celebrities, talking birds, and school plays? Is the role of journalism to inform or entertain?
Here is the solution. Do not choose to be either significant or engaging; choose to be both. Discuss important issues, but use storytelling techniques in writing to engage the reader. Use real experiences to create a sense of belonging, things like that.
Also, do not try to aim at one specific audience. By aiming to appeal to one audience hundreds of other people are left out. A journalists seriously limits the impact and importance of a piece by trying to entertain only one demographic. Write stories that effect an entire community and that impact all demographics. Journalists are much more likely to be successful by including everyone.
Another challenge facing journalists is the increased unemployment rate. Many companies, like newspapers, are firing many journalists because the need is no longer as high. People turn to other sources for news and as a result, journalists are not as prevalent as in the past.
Unfortunately there may not be a perfect solution to this problem. This is a result of a change in society. The best solution for a journalist is to make oneself valuable to a company. Write stories that impact people and effect an entire community. Prove the value of the job to the company. Another solution would be to turn to the internet. The need for journalists on the internet is growing because people turn to the internet for information more than newspapers. Be willing to transition to new technology for a greater chance of success.
The last challenge facing journalists that I would like to discuss is the pressure from editors, corporations, and marketing agencies to discuss what they believe is most important -- whether that is entertainment or advertising -- and to ignore the responsibility of being an information provider.
To the journalists experiencing this struggle there is a possible solution. Listen to your conscience and ethical beliefs. If something seems unethical, stand up for the truth and do not write the article. Leave the corporation if necessary. Oftentimes journalists are given more credit for standing up to what is unethical instead of writing the story.
The key is to do what seems correct based on the individuals own ethics.
April 24, 2012
April 2, 2012
Celebrating 400 Years
Today I was able to visit the Special Collections exhibit about the King James Bible at Brigham Young University. This year marks the 400th anniversary of the first printing of the King James Bible, and let me tell you -- it wasn't easy for the KJV to get here. But regardless of the difficulty, the KJV has impacted the religious and secular cultures of the English-speaking world forever.
The exhibit documents the life and creation of the King James Bible, as well as the history of the many various bibles before the KJV was created. I was able to see editions of the real Vulgate Bible, Wycliffite Bible, Tyndale's Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. The books were remarkably preserved and had beautiful detail. It was incredible to see the Latin, Old English, and Middle English language written so beautifully.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the exhibit is the history of translating the Bible from Latin in to the vernacular. Originally, the Bible was written only in the Latin language, in what is called the Vulgate Bible. Only the highly educated (priests) could read it because it was not in the vernacular, which was English. As a result of the teachings of John Wycliffe, there was a strong movement toward the Bible being printed in the vernacular. He believed it was important for the word of God to be in the homes of every person and to be a part of normal life and government.
Thanks to the sacrifice of reforms like Wycliffe, Tyndale, and many others, the Bible was eventually translated in to English and illegally distributed.
But many versions of the Bible were created, and controversy over which Bible to use lasted for centuries. Eventually, King James I decided to create a new translation from the original text. He wanted to most correct English words to be used in the translation. It took decades for the KJV to catch on because many people were attached to the Geneva and Bishop's Bibles.
Now, the KJV is one of the most popular Bibles in circulation. It is said to be "the most correct" of the many Bible translations and is used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It has become one of the most influential books in the world. The pamphlet from the exhibit says, "the King James Bible has influenced music, politics, literature, and the English language itself. . . it was at the forefront of religious worship, private devotion, and personal or classroom reading."
The King James Bible exhibit will be open through Spring 2012, and I highly recommend visiting. The history and beauty of the Bible is incredible, and those of all religions can benefit from visiting the exhibit and witnessing history.
March 27, 2012
The Advantages and Risks of Marketing
For years, journalists have been marketing their stories to certain audiences based on location, status, age, and many other factors. Although the idea of trying to sell to a particular audience seems good, research found in "The Elements of Journalism" by Bill Kovach and Rom Rosenstiel suggests otherwise, and it seems they are right; readership of newspapers and viewership of news broadcasting is dropping rapidly, seemingly as a result of this marketing technique.
So what are the advantages and risks of journalists actively working to "market" their content to audiences?
It appears that the risk highly outweigh the advantages. Research in "The Elements of Journalism" shows that since the 1880s we have been making the same mistakes. By targeting one specific audience, countless other audiences are left out. By leaving out other audiences you lose the business from countless individuals. For example, many newspapers focus their material on the highly education middle to upper-class. This marketing technique is costing them dearly because they have neglected to develop a new generation of readers -- the youth and young adults. There is no younger generation interested in news.
Another problem mentioned in the book is that certain news forms leave out whole groups of people in a community, leaving, if you will, whole sections of a map blank. In order to be truly successful one must cater to the needs and interests of the whole map. If stories do not cover the whole community it will leave people poorly informed and making poor decisions because to much information is left out.
But, there can be some advantages when using marketing. A company can create a name for themselves in a certain niche business, like teen magazines, celebrity stories, or educated newspapers. If a person is looking for a certain type of information, using specific marketing can be very effective. Journalists should remember that the best research is "research that helps journalists make judgments, not research that replaces judgment." If journalists can use the information wisely, they will be very successful.
So what are the advantages and risks of journalists actively working to "market" their content to audiences?
It appears that the risk highly outweigh the advantages. Research in "The Elements of Journalism" shows that since the 1880s we have been making the same mistakes. By targeting one specific audience, countless other audiences are left out. By leaving out other audiences you lose the business from countless individuals. For example, many newspapers focus their material on the highly education middle to upper-class. This marketing technique is costing them dearly because they have neglected to develop a new generation of readers -- the youth and young adults. There is no younger generation interested in news.
Another problem mentioned in the book is that certain news forms leave out whole groups of people in a community, leaving, if you will, whole sections of a map blank. In order to be truly successful one must cater to the needs and interests of the whole map. If stories do not cover the whole community it will leave people poorly informed and making poor decisions because to much information is left out.
But, there can be some advantages when using marketing. A company can create a name for themselves in a certain niche business, like teen magazines, celebrity stories, or educated newspapers. If a person is looking for a certain type of information, using specific marketing can be very effective. Journalists should remember that the best research is "research that helps journalists make judgments, not research that replaces judgment." If journalists can use the information wisely, they will be very successful.
March 13, 2012
Role of Journalism in Democracy
“Free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad.” - French Novelist
The most beautiful thing about the United States is the freedom the citizens enjoy, especially freedom of press. But the press is not just a luxury solely for enjoyment; the press is a connection between the citizens and the politicians.
Because direct democracy is no longer possible, we rely on the press to communicate between the politicians and the people. NowPublic.com said (here), "In the democratic equation, there are three types of identities: the politicians, the public, and the publication. The three elite ”P’s” of the democratic process which, through their correlation with each other, make modern democracy unique compared to other political philosophies." So democracy requires the communication between the politicians, the public, and the publication.
That being the case, the role of journalism in a democracy is to inform the people and make them aware of what is going on in politics so they can make informed decisions and votes. Without the press, the citizens would live in ignorance and democracy could not exist.
The press must be responsible with the power they hold to inform the people. If they lie or use misleading information the results can be catastrophic. So while it is their duty to inform the public, they must be responsible with this power.
The most beautiful thing about the United States is the freedom the citizens enjoy, especially freedom of press. But the press is not just a luxury solely for enjoyment; the press is a connection between the citizens and the politicians.
Because direct democracy is no longer possible, we rely on the press to communicate between the politicians and the people. NowPublic.com said (here), "In the democratic equation, there are three types of identities: the politicians, the public, and the publication. The three elite ”P’s” of the democratic process which, through their correlation with each other, make modern democracy unique compared to other political philosophies." So democracy requires the communication between the politicians, the public, and the publication.
That being the case, the role of journalism in a democracy is to inform the people and make them aware of what is going on in politics so they can make informed decisions and votes. Without the press, the citizens would live in ignorance and democracy could not exist.
The press must be responsible with the power they hold to inform the people. If they lie or use misleading information the results can be catastrophic. So while it is their duty to inform the public, they must be responsible with this power.
March 5, 2012
Religion and Journalism: Does it Mix?
"Journalists do not live by words alone, although sometimes they have to eat them." - Adlai E. Stevenson
Doesn't it seem that any time a journalist writes about religion (whether positively, negatively, or not at all) they end up eating their words after the story is printed? It is like you cannot win. You will either upset the atheists for discussing religion, upset the religious for not bringing enough attention to religion, or upset different religious sects for not being equal to all of them. The subject is just too touchy.
Perhaps this is why many journalists choose to ignore the religious aspects of many stories. It saves a lot of grief to ignore the situation in the first place. But is this right? Ignoring this aspect means potentially neglecting one of the most important values to Americans.
The problem is journalists learn to be objective and independent in their writing. It is the easiest way to inform the public without being biased. The public expects them to be honest and fair in their writing. That being said, religion is purely belief. There is no proof or fact involving religion. There are so many different facets and diversities involving religion that someone will always be upset. So with so many uncontrollable factors, a journalist has a tough time of being objective in religious stories.
So how can one reconcile personal religious beliefs with the independence, objectivity, and other expectations of professional journalism?
This is ultimately likely impossible. Each journalist has his or her own beliefs that affect his or her writing, whether intentional or not. But we have to try. A journalist can only do his or her best at trying to be objective. Here are a few ideas to try and incorporate religion and journalism.
1. Do complete research. Investigate what people really believe before you write a story about it. Giving or citing wrong information, or lack of information at all, will create anger and bitterness.
2. Cite sources from all sides. Learn about all sides' opinions.
3. Be professional. Handle all situations as a professional. Do the job the best way possible, and people will respond to the professionalism.
4. Do not be accusatory. If someone feels attacked, the accusations will come right back to the journalist.
5. Be honest. Simple as that.
While it is difficult to try and incorporation religion and journalism, it is something that must be done. To avoid difficult situations, a journalist must try to be as objective as possible. Do research, cite multiple sources, and handle the situation professionally.
What do you think? How can a journalist reconcile personal religious beliefs with the independence, objectivity, and other expectations of professional journalism?
Doesn't it seem that any time a journalist writes about religion (whether positively, negatively, or not at all) they end up eating their words after the story is printed? It is like you cannot win. You will either upset the atheists for discussing religion, upset the religious for not bringing enough attention to religion, or upset different religious sects for not being equal to all of them. The subject is just too touchy.
Perhaps this is why many journalists choose to ignore the religious aspects of many stories. It saves a lot of grief to ignore the situation in the first place. But is this right? Ignoring this aspect means potentially neglecting one of the most important values to Americans.
The problem is journalists learn to be objective and independent in their writing. It is the easiest way to inform the public without being biased. The public expects them to be honest and fair in their writing. That being said, religion is purely belief. There is no proof or fact involving religion. There are so many different facets and diversities involving religion that someone will always be upset. So with so many uncontrollable factors, a journalist has a tough time of being objective in religious stories.
So how can one reconcile personal religious beliefs with the independence, objectivity, and other expectations of professional journalism?
This is ultimately likely impossible. Each journalist has his or her own beliefs that affect his or her writing, whether intentional or not. But we have to try. A journalist can only do his or her best at trying to be objective. Here are a few ideas to try and incorporate religion and journalism.
1. Do complete research. Investigate what people really believe before you write a story about it. Giving or citing wrong information, or lack of information at all, will create anger and bitterness.
2. Cite sources from all sides. Learn about all sides' opinions.
3. Be professional. Handle all situations as a professional. Do the job the best way possible, and people will respond to the professionalism.
4. Do not be accusatory. If someone feels attacked, the accusations will come right back to the journalist.
5. Be honest. Simple as that.
While it is difficult to try and incorporation religion and journalism, it is something that must be done. To avoid difficult situations, a journalist must try to be as objective as possible. Do research, cite multiple sources, and handle the situation professionally.
What do you think? How can a journalist reconcile personal religious beliefs with the independence, objectivity, and other expectations of professional journalism?
February 13, 2012
Ethics of Journalism
"In journalism, there has always been a tension between getting it first and getting it right."
ELLEN GOODMAN, Boston Globe, 1993
There is undoubtedly a code of ethics in the field of journalism. While many people want to believe that journalists are dishonest people who just want to "stir the pot," most journalists try to do their job the best they can. To do their jobs well, each journalist or company has their own "code of ethics." This could include a variety of things, depending on the job. Because this is such an important part of journalism, I decided to write my own "Journalism Code of Ethics."
1. Seek Truth and Report It
2. Do not deceive
- Be honest
- Do not assume
- Do not twist the truth, or the false
- Be clear about intentions
3. Respect sources
- Do not mock or belittle a source
- Do not betray an anonymous source
- Do not discredit a source without cause
4. Protect those who cannot protect themselves
- Find the truth for those who cannot do it themselves
- Includes, children, elderly, sources, the common people, etc.
5. Be humble
- Be willing to be wrong
- Accept a story may change with new facts
- Be willing to apologize
January 30, 2012
Anonymous Sources
When someone in the media uses an anonymous source it is because it is a fake source -- right?
Wrong.
Anonymous sources often provide crucial information while keeping the source and the journalist safe. For example, if an employee gives confidential information to the media about the company he works for it is important that he or she keeps their anonymity to keep a job or save face. Likewise, for a journalist to keep objectivity in a story he or she must not know who their source is. Especially if the source is a well-known figure that would bias the story (although unintentionally.)
I will be the first to admit that I am skeptical of media and the use of anonymous sources. I have seen too many magazine articles about "Michael Jackson's newest plastic surgery" that obviously portray bogus information from fake sources. As a citizen it is frustrating to question if you can trust the source.
But the fact of the matter is anonymous sources are necessary. In order to write an accurate, unbiased story it is important to keep the journalist in the dark about certain sources. Likewise, it is important to keep sources safe when information may be revelatory about important people.
But it comes down to the reader. If something in an article seems off, it probably is. If there is overwhelming evidence to suggest the truth, it probably is.
Ultimately, the reader must decide for themselves what is truth.
Wrong.
Anonymous sources often provide crucial information while keeping the source and the journalist safe. For example, if an employee gives confidential information to the media about the company he works for it is important that he or she keeps their anonymity to keep a job or save face. Likewise, for a journalist to keep objectivity in a story he or she must not know who their source is. Especially if the source is a well-known figure that would bias the story (although unintentionally.)
I will be the first to admit that I am skeptical of media and the use of anonymous sources. I have seen too many magazine articles about "Michael Jackson's newest plastic surgery" that obviously portray bogus information from fake sources. As a citizen it is frustrating to question if you can trust the source.
But the fact of the matter is anonymous sources are necessary. In order to write an accurate, unbiased story it is important to keep the journalist in the dark about certain sources. Likewise, it is important to keep sources safe when information may be revelatory about important people.
But it comes down to the reader. If something in an article seems off, it probably is. If there is overwhelming evidence to suggest the truth, it probably is.
Ultimately, the reader must decide for themselves what is truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)