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. 

Does Truth in Journalism Exist?

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill 

Journalism's first obligation is to the truth; at least that's what I keep reading . . .

But what is truth?  And how well does modern American journalism tell the truth?   

 Defining truth is much easier said than done.  Wikipedia gives some good insight into truth (here) and says truth is "being in a state of accord with fact or reality."  The problem arises because each person lives their own reality.  So how can a journalist profess to speak truth when the journalist's reality is different than, say, a teacher's reality? Each person has the ability to interpret events through their own perspective, drawing on important details based on their own values.  These interpretations become truth in the mind of the person.

Thus, truth becomes subjective.

 So, are we basing the idea of truth from spiritual truth, moral truth, allegorical truth, or literal truth?  Each interpretation is subjective because there are so many possibilities.  So what are journalists supposed to do about sharing the truth?


The "Elements of Journalism" by Kovach and Rosenstiel says it best: 

"This is what journalism is after -- a practical or functional form of truth.  It is not truth in the absolute or philosophical sense.  It is not the truth of a chemical equation.  Journalism can -- and must -- pursue the truths by which we can operate on a day-to-day basis. . . 'We strive for coverage that aims as much as possible to present the reader with enough information to make up his or her own mind.  That's our fine ideal.'" 

So how well does modern American journalism tell the truth?  

They tell the truth as well as they can.  Most journalists seem to try and portray accurate facts and enlightening background knowledge to give the readers the opportunity to form their own opinions about the truth.  We need to give them the credit they deserve.

Finding the truth is process, not an event.

Is the cup half empty or half full? --the Extinction of Print Journalism

With the recent rise of the digital media (on the Internet, phone apps, etc.) many forms of print journalism are going extinct; newspapers being at the forefront.  There are varying opinions about whether this "dying-out" is good or bad for the business. I personally believe it is a mix of both.  It is good that news can be shared by countless methods using technology, but regrettable that the print portion of the media will be lost to new technology.

The answer lies in how you choose to view the situation: is the cup half empty, or half full? 

 Recently, the "Daily Universe" newspaper on BYU campus announced that they will be using a digital-first newsroom with one weekly print of the newspaper, instead of a five-days-weekly newspaper with an online component.  The goal is to eventually create phone apps and an internet site that will provide the "Daily Universe" to readers at any time of day all across the country.  This goal is good, but it comes at a cost.

In my observation, most consumption of the "Daily Universe" occurs by students waiting on benches or eating in the cafeteria as they wait for their next class.  It is something students read because they are bored, not necessarily because of the quality of the stories.

Do not get me wrong, this is not a slam on the writers at the "Daily Universe."  I find many stories intriguing and well-written.  There are just not a lot of exciting things happening on BYU campus to fill a newspaper every day.

So, I think this move to the internet is dangerous.  I do not know how many readers will continue to follow the newspaper when it moves online.  I do not feel it is as established as it should be to maintain readership without being printed.  In this situation I believe the cup is being half empty.

But the cup is also half full.  New digital media provides countless ways for the news to be shared with thousands of new people.  Stories can be accessed anywhere at anytime.  And while I question the online success of the "Daily Universe," it will still be made available to many more people, and the possibility of future success is greater because of the possibility of a greater audience.

So what do you think?  When it comes to the extinction of print journalism, is the cup half empty or half full?

Journalism - To Comfort the Afflicted and Afflict the Comfortable

 "You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you."

Sound familiar?

Journalism gets a tough rap from many people in main stream society.  Heated discussions about how well (or how terribly) journalism is fulfilling its roles frequently occur on talk shows, on the Internet, in newspapers, and in conversation.  Many complain that journalism is too negative, journalists are too dishonest, and media is too unreliable.

I disagree.

The problem is people do not understand what journalism is. It is not meant solely to broadcast the negative in the world.  They have a false notion of journalism based on a stereotype that a few "bad journalists" created for everyone many years ago.  


So, what is journalism? 

I am not satisfied with Wikipedia's definition of journalism (found here) that says journalism is "the practice of investigation and reporting of events, issues, and trends to a broad audience in a timely fashion."  This definition may be technically correct, but journalism goes much deeper than this. To me journalism is a source of empowerment; a way to join community and democracy. 

I like the description of journalism found in the textbook "Converging Media" by John Pavlik and Shawn McIntosh.  It says: "Journalisms purpose, according to some journalists, is to 'comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.'"  Based on this definition, journalism's role is noble rather than destructive.  The book also says the role and responsibility of journalism is

• as government watchdog
• as advocate of the common citizen
• as panderer to baser tastes among the public
• as big business
• as influencer of public opinion

Perhaps my favorite definition of journalism comes from "The Elements of Journalism" by Bill Kovach and Tim Rosenstiel.  They say: "The primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing."  It provides a sense of unity in the community and in the country.  Journalism identifies a community's goals, heroes and villains.  Without journalism there would be no connection between citizens and no accountability for the government. 

"The Elements of Journalism" provides a few other definitions that I feel are worth sharing.

• The central purpose of journalism is to tell the truth so that people will have the information that they need to be sovereign.
• The goal is to serve the general welfare by informing the people.
• To give voices to people who need the the voice. . . people who are powerless

It is obvious that journalism is defined in many ways -- from a "watchdog," to a "voice of the people" -- but the ultimate goal seems to be the same:  journalism is the voice of the people and provides citizens with information that allows them to form their own opinions, and this information allows people to be free and self-governing.  So journalism is not something to be feared or mocked, but a noble cause to bring freedom and unity to a community.

What do you think?  What is journalism to you?