I commend our discussion leaders this morning. I didn’t give Lindsay and Minyoung enough time. I’ll figure out how to make quizzes shorter. And not everyone liked being called on, but I measure a discussion’s success in part by how many voices were heard. By that measure, we had a good morning.
Finally, you see that I am physiologically incapable of shutting up. I try really, really hard. I’ll try harder. A big “thank you” to Lindsay and to Minyoung for being our pioneers, our trailblazers. The first discussion is the hardest one to lead.
So, to extend and expand our discussion here in the limitless online environment, I’d like to pose a few more brain ticklers to which time did not permit attention (our fearless leaders had three pages of questions).
First, I’d like to return us to Minyoung’s chart of how inter-related, interconnected Korea’s media and political networks are. We in the United States face a similar challenge, that of media consolidation. To Minyoung’s chart I’d like to add this one from Columbia Journalism Review (select a media company, like News Corp., and see the mind-numbing list of properties; it explains much in the area of product placement and cross-promotions).
My question: What in your opinion are the greatest threats to American journalism’s obligation to the truth and to fierce independence? What, in other words, are the corrosive influences upsetting or polluting our collective pursuit of truth, of meaning, of sense?
Another follow-up I’d like your thoughts on concerns how journalism sometimes fails in its attempt to report or provide the truth. This was an interesting question from this morning. What, in other words, are the more common ways a fuller account of the truth (or a truth, or some truths) is prevented? Some options here include bias in the news, a failure to provide a complete account (insufficiency), and allowing one voice or one side or perspective to color or even dominate the account (the first callback often shapes the rest of the story; it’s human nature). What do you think?
And the natural follow-up to the follow-up: What can we do as digital storytellers to avoid these sand traps and stay in the fairway?
Finally, our “list,” the centerpiece of our discussion. Kovach and Rosenstiel encourage us to:
- Never add anything that was not there.
- Never deceive the audience (or the people formerly known as the audience; as one blogger famously put it, speaking to journos: “We [bloggers] will fact-check your ass!).
- Be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives.
- Rely on your own original reporting.
- Exercise humility (this will protect us against assumption)
We added:
- Maximize truth and minimize harm.
- Act (fiercely) independently. (Briona)
- Do your own work. (Michael Oreskes, The New York Times)
What is missing from this very fine list?
DEADLINE: 6 p.m. Sunday (SuperBowl 43 kickoff!)
January 31, 2009 at 4:05 pm |
I think that money is the ultimate threat to good, truth-centered journalism. Money is the driving force of American culture. So it is natural to think about doing things that maximize profit rather than maximizing truth. The average reader takes a newspaper or television broadcast at face value, and don’t investigate to see who’s funding that news organization. So there is a temptation to skew the truth to please the contributors rather than the citizens. The Staples Center story is a prime example. The LA Times decided to sweep that under the rug to protect their advertisers rather than report the truth.
It is nearly impossible to eliminate this connection between advertisers and news organizations. Funding the newspaper and making money will always be an integral part of determining the news and how much to report. The only way to combat this is to continue educating future reporters about the importance of the truth. Once the majority of reporters acts on behalf of the citizens, journalism will be in far better hands.
February 1, 2009 at 9:54 am |
I agree that ad revenue is a huge factor here. It would be difficult to report on a story that may cost your news organization a big financial supporter. I hope I would have the guts to do what I know I should if I were ever in that situation, but, in all honesty, I would probably struggle with the decision.
I also think journalism sometimes falls short of the truth because of “biases” towards certain stories. In a chapter of a book I read a few years ago, the author wrote about how news, specifically television news, tended to focus more on negative stories. He wrote that the public tended to believe crime, for example, was on the rise even though crime rates were actually falling. He credited this to TV news organizations bias toward negative stories.
I understand that presenting an in depth account of the news on TV is generally a struggle because of time constraints and other factors. I think the Internet presents an opportunity to cover a wider variety of stories that may more accurately represent the goings-on in society.
February 1, 2009 at 11:47 am |
I do agree about that the money factor will be and is something that makes the truth harder to tell. But i also think that it is dangerous to ask of the reporter not to have her opinions, in the book, something that specially got my attention was the part about the importance of opinions, the book says:
“Having an opinion is not only allowable, not only natural but it is also valuable to the natural skepticism with which any good reporter approaches a story. But a journalist have to be smart enough to know that an opinion has to be based on more then personal beliefs if it is going to be for journalistic use.”
The story about the woman from the times who got reprimanded for participating in a demonstration really upset me. Even though you are unbiased as a reporter you can never be an unbiased person, it just doesn’t work that way, specially not when there is critical and in debt thinking involved. As long as the methods involved when doing journalism is as stated in the list above i don’t see why we should hold reporters to different standards then people with other occupations.
February 1, 2009 at 1:24 pm |
Something that I would identify, in addition to money, as a large hindrance to good journalism is corporate alliances. When big businesses are united in the goal of maximizing profitability and/or controlled by common leadership they are more inclined to refrain from disclosing any information to the media that may potentially harm their partners profit or relationship. A worse example of this is when a big business has ownership in a news provider, as we discussed in class how could such a news source not be bias? Such bias as this is one that would result in inaccurate telling of the facts. Even if the reporter is successful in gathering the fact, when he/she submits it to editing or whomever is next in line, this person has to take into consideration his accountability and weight the results of presenting such facts in an effort to minimize harm in all directions. Situations like this are why i’m not against citizen journalism or the bloggers who ‘fact check the asses’ of paid news providers. so on that note if i added to the list above maybe i’d say be as open to feedback as possible.
February 1, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
In my opinion, the greatest threat to American journalism’s obligation is that many media companies form a huge enterprise like the site, which Dr. Carroll added in the blog. It means that a lot of information in the media coverage are created by a few hands, which pursue the more profit. In addition, the contents in the media can be controlled or distorted by the external powers, which is connected with the media companies. These kinds of situation would prevent telling the truth and being independent. In order to explain how journalism sometimes fails in its attempt to report or provide the truth, let me introduce an example, which happened in Korea. From March through April in 2008, there was an big issue that Samsung, which is the biggest company in Korea, offered a bribe to the prosecutors. On April 12th, Joong-Ang Newspaper, which is owned by the law-in-brother of Samsung’s CEO, covered about sending Korean troops to Afghanistan, with the picture of pink flowers. However, Han-Gye-Rye, which has no connected with Samsung, covered about the Samsung’s Issue with the big picture of Samsung’s CEO. Like this, the media companies can cover in a totally different point of views, even in a small country. Also, if these kinds of situation can happen in America or any other countries, storytellers, who claim their opinions on Internet, can play an important role to give many stories written by different point of views against the huge media companies.
(I have the pictures of the newspapers covered about Samsung’s issue. If there is someone who want to see the pictures, just let me know freely.)
February 1, 2009 at 4:43 pm |
The greatest threat to reporting the truth as a journalist in my opinion is the conglomeration of media as a business entity and the need for media to generate enough profit to survive. Since everyone needs money to sustain a business, I feel that journalist’s priorities are clouded sometimes because they focus on getting the story to pay the bills instead of getting the truth to inform the citizen.
To add to the media industry acting as a business, maintaining a balanced, unbiased story is also very difficult in journalism. Everyone is connected to what they report on in some way, either substantially or unsubstantially; keeping one’s opinion separate from what’s reported is a challenge. As digital storytellers, I think we should try our best to report everything we can find out about both sides of a story, in an attempt to prevent bias. Although we may never find out everything about a story, our job is to report as much of the truth as we can, and update it constantly as we find more information. Although journalism is moving to an online format, I feel that the business atmosphere will continue to linger since people need money to fuel their business and pay for others’ efforts.
February 1, 2009 at 5:05 pm |
I definitely see corruption as a strong obstacle to the truth. Some politicians come into the game with strong morals and ethics and plans to induce change for the better, but many, sadly, are corrupted by money and power (everyone has a price, right?). It seems that journalism would work in much the same way. Young hopefuls get their college degree with dreams of being a true reporter for the people only to be corrupted by the harsh, competitive industry.
News fails to present the truth in many circumstances because of misrepresentation. By this I mean giving facts that are true but presenting them in such a way that creates a false perception among the audience (or the people formerly known as the audience). For instance, many individuals would say that homicide is more common than suicide when, in fact, suicide is more abundant. This misconception is greatly influenced by news sources reporting a greater percentage of homicides than suicides. This problem could be avoided if the news is put into perspective or more background information is given to decrease the number of assumptions the audience makes.
For the list, my thoughts related to motives. Reporters should start with a clean slate, doing their best to wipe away preconceived ideas, notions, and opinions on the issue. As Kovach and Rosenstiel noted, no one can be truly objective, but I believe we must still work to be as close to it as possible. Reporting is a job and, like many other professions, you must leave your personal opinions at the door and do your work. Those who must represent alleged criminals in court, for instance, must believe that that their client is innocent. What they believe when they go home at night does not matter.
Amber Merrell
February 1, 2009 at 6:02 pm |
Journalists are not computers. Computers can gather facts, organize the necessary details, edit and produce a final product. There’s no underlying attachment to sources, no emotional involvement, no faction to remain loyal to and, more importantly, no opinion. However, humans are not machines. We get involved; we develop attachment to organizations, causes and individuals. From our experiences and encounters we cultivate beliefs and values. It’s inevitable that the viewpoints an individual esteems will eventually generate his or her identity.
The threat to American journalism’s obligation to the truth lies in individuals (journalists) placing their allegiance in things (political parties, organizations, religion, etc.) that do not align themselves with truth. Yes, mistakes happen and the absence of truth within these establishments may only be temporary verses remaining a continual pattern. Nevertheless, when dedicated and invested in these institutions, it is tempting to feel obligated to look the other way or to take action in disguising the absolute truth.
The solution to this is not to sit on the fence and remain neutral in every cause, that’s impossible not to mention boring. The answer is found in the first principle named in “Elements:” remain obligated to the truth above anything else. I do not believe this transpires from an “open mind,” but instead, a focused mind. As a digital storyteller, I choose to focus on ethics scripted by Roy Clark, a senior scholar at the Poynter Institute: tell the truth; inform the public; reveal social ills; preserve human dignity; be brave.
February 1, 2009 at 6:58 pm |
Money, as most people have mentioned, is definitely a huge factor. Aside from this, however, I think the biggest threat to our pursuit of truth and the distorted view of fairness and balance that currently exists within journalism. With so many different ways of creating and presenting news, it seems that journalism has lost its focus. I really agree with the point made in Elements of Journalism that often we forget what it means to be fair and balanced and the truth gets lost in the midst.
Before I began studying journalism, I always assumed that all stories should have evenly represented points of view, and thought the more controversial, the better. However, I have come to realize the dangers of overbalancing a story, or giving a voice where there really isn’t one. I feel that with the addition of citizen journalism and the popularity of shows and columns that argue for one side of the other, it is important not to neglect possible sides of the story, but to make sure that we are presenting the sides accurately–there is rarely balance in the real world, so news should represent this as succintly as possible.
Because of the lack of clarity about fairness and balance, I believe that this is when journalism begins to have difficulty presenting the truth. If we try to hard to to balance it, truth is lost and reality is distorted.
February 1, 2009 at 8:48 pm |
Well, I’m late on this. I refused to check my email until now. Sometimes a break from the real world is necessary and healthy.
I accept that there are necessary evils in this world. Money, murder, deception, you name it, we need it. We need it for the good to stand out and be recognized. There comes a time in every person’s life where you or experience a moment where life is darkened and you see things and have realizations about the world we live in. It’s not always rainbows and puppies, for instance. Sometimes it rains. I think story-tellers should know this and see the millions upon millions of shades of grey in order to truly portay the truth. I’m not saying everything should be pessimistic. But how can you record or show or tell about a wonderful thing if you can’t appreciate its beauty? Or an epic moment in history if you can’t recognize its importance? But sometimes people distort the truth to manipulate it, and it’s wrong and unjust.
There is so much more to everything than what meets the eye. But sometimes, we only have our eyes to see. I thin we should show something to its fullest potential so that it will mean something to people and report the truth in every aspect.
February 1, 2009 at 11:16 pm |
I think to say that the ocncern with making money is the biggest threat to journalistic integrity is to oversimplify (or maybe, to overcomplicate) matters. Money is just a face of life: there has to be some way to exchange goods and services, some fuel behind all of the activities of an advanced society, and that fuel is money.
So, I think the problem isn’t money itself, but the advent of earning money over maintaining integrity. They are not one and the same. A businessman is not necessarily honest or dishonest. I’m not sure I’m explaining myself at all well. I’m trying to point out that the problem does not begin merely with money, but with the degradation of people’s sense of rational self-interest to the point that they think money is the highest achievable goal.
To a rational person, money without integrity is useless, and not only because your conscience eats at you. Money gotten without integrity can only be gotten so long as the dishonesty holds up. Money gotten in perfect honesty, however, has something to stand on that can’t be blackmailed, exposed, outed, or what-have-you.
How does this apply to journalism? It goes back to what was said in class about the balance between pleasing advertisers and remaining truthful to the audience. Covering up or ignoring injustices and illegality to please an advertiser is only advantageous so long as readers don’t know you’re doing it. If you lose that advertiser, you’ve lost money in the immediate sense, but if you lose your readers, you’ve just lost. Someone thinking, rationally and in the long-term, about the well-being of their newspaper or other news source, should realize this.
As to the inability of journalism to report the full depth and breadth of truth…well, it’s kind of like objectivity. Your methods can be objective, and they can be thorough and precise, but that doesn’t mean that the reported story will be. It will be closer to the complete, objective truth than it would be otherwise, but it will never be totally there. Lots of things get in the way, like lack of sources, lack of objectivity in sources (you can’t do much about whether people you interview are objective), time constraints, and even the attempt to remain “fair and balanced.” Someone you interview is going to get something wrong, or only a couple of the people you call are going to call back. You want to avoid accusations of libel, so you are careful not to call someone guilty who hasn’t been convicted, even if you saw them shoot someone in the face (like in the Cocoa Puff reading). The truth is a big, hairy thing, and the chances of ever getting it to the letter are slim to none.
And to conclude my novella, my contribution to the list is this: Be accountable. This means you should know what’s going on with your story, your sources, and your facts…cover your ass, basically. And if you do make a mistake, be accountable for it. Many of the others are geared toward preventing mistakes, but they will probably happen anyway, especially if someone works in journalism for a long time. If a mistake happens, it can’t be undone and covering it up will only make it worse. Owning up to it, retracting or correcting, and apologizing to your audience or other offended parties when necessary, is a journalist’s best chance of preserving their credibility, without which they are useless to their profession. So, “always be accountable for your mistakes as well as your successes” is one I think should be tacked onto the list.