Media Ride-Along Report

Scott Butler, assistant metro editor at The Florida Times Union (Jacksonville)

1. Diary of a shift:

8:00 a.m. – Arrive at work and edit stories posted overnight on the Just In blog on Jacksonville.com.

9:00 a.m. – Meet with Metro section reporters and discuss the day’s stories, meet with metro editor, go to general meeting with editors of all the sections of the paper to tentatively put together the next day’s paper

10:30 a.m. – Miscellaneous research about subjects of crime stories, court documents (looking on FDLE, Clerk of the Court, Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office Web sites)

11:30 a.m. – Meet with two job candidates, give short tour of the office, etc.

1 p.m. – Lunch, meet with several reporters to talk about progress of stories, give story assignments for later in the week

2:30 p.m. – Meeting with news editor to design the front page and designate stories to each section of the paper

3:30 p.m. – Start editing submitted stories

4:30 p.m. – Meet with Metro section designers and editor to designate which local stories will be given front page priority and which will be in the Metro section, and where

2. Hierarchy Chart:

Butler did not have a hierarchy chart of the Metro section of the paper, but: there is the metro editor who oversees two assistant metro editors (one of whom is Butler) and the editorial assistant editor. The assistant metro editors oversee the metro writers/reporters, and the editorial assistant editor oversees the metro columnists.

3. Profile of an Editor:

Scott Butler grew up in Detroit, Michigan and has been an editor for 20 years. He said he always knew he wanted to be a writer or journalist and began writing stories in elementary school. He was the editor of his high school newspaper and of the school paper at Eastern Michigan University, where he majored in journalism. His first editing job was at the Spinal Column News Weekly in Oakland County, Michigan. He then went to a paper in Anderson, South Carolina and finally to the Times Union in 2000.

Butler’s advice for young editors is to apply to as many publications as possible and to take whatever kind of work they can get at first, get good experience, and work their way up to getting the jobs they really want.

4. Ethical Policy:

Butler didn’t have a copy of the paper’s ethical policy and said a lot of publication issues are “subjective.”

5. Views of Ethical Policy: Butler thinks the TU adheres well to the established ethical policies and said they do a good job of keeping each other in-check.

6. Policies:

• Anonymous sources: The TU usually does not allow the use of anonymous sources. If an anonymous source is used, it must be signed off by two editors, the editors must know who the source is, and the paper has to explain to readers why an anonymous source is being used. The source’s information must also be corroborated by another source, and anonymity is usually reserved for witnesses to or victims of crimes.
• Identifying juveniles suspected of crimes: Must be a violent crime
• Victims of crime: Are not named if the assailant is still at large, and never name victims of sex crimes unless the victims agree to be identified or if they file a lawsuit against their attacker
• Fact-checking: If an editor is unsure about a particular fact cited in an article, they call the reporter to verify its accuracy or look it up themselves; if it is still unclear, they hold the story or remove that particular statement from the story

7. Outside Influence on News Content: Butler said the TU recently went through a shakedown that resulted in most of the senior editors being fired or forced into early retirement. The interim publisher, Jim Currow, is very concerned about increasing the paper’s revenue, and Butler said it’s at the expense of thorough reporting and providing readers with the stories they need to see. Currow told the staff to “go for the milk, not the cream” and put a life-size cow statue in the downstairs lobby of the office (see photo) as a reminder for the paper to prioritize ads over stories.

8. Training: Butler said the Times Union has recently had training sessions for reporters to adapt to new technological advances in journalism such as online blogging, as well as integrating audio/video into online news.

9. Editing Protocols: Butler said the main protocol he follows is to keep the reporter’s voice in the story. He will clean up AP Style mistakes and clarify misunderstandings in a story, but he will always tell a reporter before changing a lead (and if there is enough time, he asks the reporter to come up with a new lead). When he is on deadline, he will make changes, but generally tries to have reporters make the changes themselves if time allows. Butler said there are not written protocols but that all the editors have a basic agreement about what the protocols are.

10. Pay: Butler, as assistant metro editor, earns about $50,000 and is not a union member. He said the editor-in-chief makes more than $200,000.

11. Convergence: The aspect of online convergence most closely related to Butler’s job is the “Just In” blog on the Times Union Web site (www.jacksonville.com). Reporters post stories on the blog around the clock and Butler edits any stories posted overnight when he arrives at work in the morning. Readers can respond to the posted stories with comments. The blog provides all the latest local news at a much quicker pace than through the print medium, and it also allows the TU to provide readers with more stories than it could otherwise provide in the daily newspaper. Additionally, the print version of the paper features references to additional information online, as well as tips to video resources or blogs about particular stories. All reporters file their stories online and Butler edits the stories online. Butler also heads up the paper’s “Rapid Response Team,” and those reporters can send pictures to Butler via cell phone for him to post on the Just In blog to accompany breaking stories. Butler said he hasn’t seen a comparison of print-versus-online readership, but that the number of daily hits to the online version has increased dramatically in the last couple years. He said there is no editor for innovation or any such position but that the editors of all the segments of the paper are working together towards increasing online innovation.

12. Career Advice from News Editor Mike Marino: “Don’t listen to the blowhard with the blue pen – that’s me. And you can quote me on that.”

13. Resume advice from Scott Butler: When the Times Union hires new reporters, the editors are given copies of the candidates’ clips, resumes, and cover letters and make their top picks. Butler said although clips are an important part of a resume, he learns more about a job candidate from the quality of his cover letter. The clips have been edited, and the job candidate can choose his very best clips, but the cover letter is “raw copy” and shows whether the candidate has a good writing style and voice. He said typos in a cover letter or resume are very serious and can often disqualify a candidate before he is even interviewed. Butler also said he uses LexisNexis to look up all the work a candidate has done in the past month and reads those articles.

Week 10

I admit that reading Robert Niles’ “Margin of Error” was initially a challenge in and of itself, let alone coming away with a good understanding of how to correctly interpret polling data. I still have a hard time understanding the concept of a confidence interval, but after a second read-through, the general message of the article did not escape me – journalists need to understand how to incorporate the meaning of margin of error into stories involving statistics, rather than merely state what the margin of error is and then continue on to incorrectly state that a percentage has changed when, in reality, whatever change may have occurred is covered by the margin of error (as was the case in the example about polling data during the Clinton-Dole election).

Presidential election polling is a good example of how journalists, if they are not careful, can get themselves into trouble by pointing out change where there actually is none. Stating that a candidate has fallen out of favor or has increased in popularity can further affect public opinion of that candidate, and that is why understanding how to interpret statistics and margin of error is so important for journalists. In the article, Niles makes the obvious statement that to report a change in the polls where there is no change is misleading to readers – misrepresenting polling data is just as bad as all the other journalism no-no’s we are taught to avoid, such as implying that a crime suspect is guilty when he has not yet been tried.

The questions presented in the reading “20 Questions a Journalist Should Ask About Poll Results” offered a smooth continuation of the accuracy-in-poll-reporting theme presented in the first reading.  The list of questions and the explanations of why those questions should be asked was exhaustive, but as the author of the first reading pointed out, poll results are far too important to be reported with carelessness or without fully understanding how to interpret data.  The 20 questions were largely focused on the backgrounds of polls – who conducted the poll, who paid for the poll, how the survey respondents were chosen, and whether all respondents’ answers were included in the poll results.  Like the first reading, this list included questions about margin of error and who is actually in the lead in a political poll. There are also questions about Internet polls, push polls and exit polls.  The list covers every possible question I could have thought of and many more that would never have occurred to me. If all journalists reporting poll results asked all 20 of these questions, they would be in excellent shape to assure themselves and, more importantly, their readers, that the reported information is accurate and trustworthy.

I also read “The Impossible Measure of Dimness” by Rhonda Roland Shearer on Stinkyjournalism.org. The article is a response to Charlotte Allen’s “We Scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?” published in the Washington Post early this month. I had not read Allen’s article but I read it before reading Shearer’s rebuttal on Stinkyjournalism.org, and it is pretty outrageous. I understand the point that Allen was trying to make, but she did a poor job getting from point A to point B on how the differences between men and women mean that women will never have the same abilities or social or academic prestige that men do. The idea that a woman (or a man, for that matter) would actually take the time to sit down and think of ways in which women are naturally more stupid than men and then list those ways in an article is disturbing to me.

Shearer’s opinion was in line with my own, and she categorically rebutted almost every claim that Allen used to further her point that women are inherently dumber than men. Allen even resorted to the antiquated claim that because women have smaller brains than men they are less intelligent; Shearer responded in her own article by asking, “is the same argument for African-Americans’ inferiority far behind?” I wonder the same thing. Although I don’t know how many people read Allen’s article and then read Shearer’s (or any rebuttal), I am glad that Shearer took the time to write a response and that it was posted on Stinkyjournalism.org. Allen’s style of “journalism” in this particular article is unprofessional and seems to be lacking integrity, to say the least.

Week 9

Ryan Pitt’s article, “Readers: Anonymous Sources Affect Media Credibility,” was yet another example of readers voicing their concerns about the way news stories are being reported.  Journalists too often assume they know better than their readers, and those readers are increasingly disillusioned about the stories they read. Pitt’s article articulated this concern by focusing on a specific aspect of journalism that seems to disturb readers: anonymous sources.

In the article, readers from all over the country give their opinions about anonymous sources and how and when they should be used – if it all.  The consensus is that readers are inherently distrustful of anonymous sources and would rather wait for a story than get a story that is only substantiated by an anonymous source. Although journalists are, in theory, on the same page as their readers with regard to anonymous sources, the reality is that journalism is a job just like any other. Although journalists should always have integrity and prioritize honest and straightforward reporting, sometimes breaking that big story before anyone else gets in the way of journalistic integrity.  

Pitt says that readers think journalists often pursue scoops to the point that they sacrifice accuracy. “Seeking verification is the most important thing a reporter can do; the public says it’s willing to wait for a more trustworthy news report,” he says. Journalists rush to publish stories under the guise of getting information to readers, but as the information in the article illustrates, readers aren’t looking for scoops – they expect accurate information. Using anonymous sources, though sometimes necessary, could often be avoided by holding a story and either giving the source time to consider going on the record or finding sources who are willing to be named.

The American Journalism Review Web site has an article by Alicia Shepard called “Anonymous Sources.” Whereas the previous reading focused mostly on readers’ responses to anonymous sources, Shepard’s article shows that editors are just as uncomfortable with using anonymous sources as readers are with trusting them. The article says that in a 1979 survey of newspaper editors, 81 percent of them said that anonymous sources are “inherently less believable,” but that they felt forced to use anonymous sources because of competition with other newspapers.

Shouldn’t the justification of anonymous sources be that they help provide readers with crucial information that they would not have otherwise had? I understand that newspapers are businesses and have to operate as such, but when editors and readers alike are decrying anonymous sources as irresponsible and unbelievable, why do we keep seeing them used in high profile stories?

In the reading, Shepard cites the irresponsible use of anonymous sources in news coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial, but also points out Deep Throat’s legitimate and irreplaceable contributions to the Watergate investigation.  Shepard also discusses Janet Cooke’s fabrications in her child heroin addict story, which reminded me of our case study a few weeks ago; Cooke’s story was a perfect example of how, if her editors had only questioned her about the story and the sources she used, they would have saved themselves the embarrassment and tarnished reputation that resulted from the story’s publication.

Many editors quoted in Shepard’s article say that they would prefer if anonymous sources were banned completely. Bob Woodward, however, argues that important White House and other government stories often depend on anonymous sources, saying, “When you are reporting on inside the White House, the Supreme Court, the CIA or the Pentagon, you tell me how you’re going to get stuff on the record. Look at the good reporting out of any of those institutions – it’s not on the record.” Woodward is right that a lot of those stories include anonymous sources, but his justification of their use – that readers need to “find out what really happened” – doesn’t always hold salt with the readers themselves. Readers polled in the first reading said they would rather have journalists hold a story than read a story based on information from anonymous sources. Whether journalists like it or not, the reality is that ensuring credibility on the readers’ terms is essential to maintain readership.

The first two readings focused on readers’ responses to anonymous sources, with the bigger picture being that readers should not be ignored when deciding what to publish. Roy Peter Clark’s article “You Be the Editor” would be beneficial for anyone, not just a journalist, to read, because it outlines some of the ethical and logistical considerations that editors make when deciding what to publish. The article focused specifically on potentially disturbing photo coverage of Iraq, and the questions included whether or not photos of charred, unrecognizable bodies should be published. What about charred bodies with recognizable faces? Would it make a difference if the bodies were Iraqi or American? These are all tough issues, and there are also questions about cropping and editing photos, as well as questions about potential consequences of publication. One of the questions concerning consequences is “Would it concern you that publication of the image might turn public opinion for or against the war in Iraq?”

Week 7

In the first reading, “Before you publish a rape victim’s name,” the author, Kelly McBride, discusses the journalistic taboo surrounding the publication of rape victims’ names. McBride does an excellent job of really answering her own questions about why rape victims do not want to be named, even though she ultimately concludes that much of the blame should be placed on journalists themselves for prior poor treatment of the subject of rape and rape victims. 

She says that rape victims and their friends and family constitute a subculture and that, “Like many subcultures, people in this circle distrust the dominant institutions like law enforcement, the education system and the media.” She then explains that rape victims and people close to them distrust the media because when rape stories are published, they rarely reflect the reality of the crime. McBride explains that the most publicized rape stories that are published involve kidnapping and violence, when in reality, most rape victims are children who know their attackers. She suggests that the first step toward solving the problem of journalistic inaccuracy in reporting rape stories is to report them with “journalistic purpose,” which would require newsrooms to develop official policies for how to cover stories with both sensitivity and clarity. She suggests discussing the policy with a group of law enforcement officers, rape victims and rape counselors.

Ultimately, McBride’s article is all about responsibly reporting an issue that must be handled with the utmost respect and sensitivity. The article is insightful and clearly explains some of the issues behind anonymity in rape stories and how journalists can eventually overcome that obstacle through consistently responsible and sensitive reporting of stories. She identifies both why a problem exists and how it can be fixed by going to the source – the victims themselves. Journalists can’t always think in terms of just getting the story; doing that, especially in the case of rape victims, will never result in getting the whole story, or even any of the parts that actually matter toward increasing rape awareness. Sanitized age/sex/location details barely scratch the surface of the victims’ real stories, and McBride fully illuminates that in this article.

The author of second article I read discussed sexual assault from the opposite side of the fence – that of the offenders. “Sex offender photos prompt debate in a newsroom” is about a newspaper’s decision to publish the booking mugs of 63 area sex-offenders on the front page. In the article, Scott Underwood, the managing editor, said that the debate about whether or not to publish the photos began months before publication, but that the photos were ultimately published because many readers do not have access to the internet and therefore don’t have access to the online registry of sex offenders. Underwood said that readers’ right to know about the sex offenders took precedence over sensitivity to the sex offenders themselves. Although several of the sex offenders contact the newspaper and complained that their jobs and relationships had been jeopardized as a result of the story, Underwood said that the real issue was their failure to be honest with people before the story was ever published.

I admit up-front that I am completely disinclined to harbor any sensitivities whatsoever toward sex offenders; people like this are the reason why I want to become a prosecutor. That being said, I very much admire that the paper discussed the ethical considerations surrounding this story months before it was even published. The only concerns that really needed to be discussed were those of the sex offenders – most other people in the community could only benefit from this story. The only ones with anything to lose were “the bad guys,” and yet the paper brought all their potential concerns to the table before publishing the story, even though I’m sure none of them really sympathized very much with area sex offenders. Although the story was published, the process of ethical consideration (not just victims and potential victims) that the paper went through prior to publication serves as a good example to other newspapers. All parties involved in or affected by a story need to be taken into account, even if they are despicable.

Week 6

I read the three-part series “Questions Reporters Should Ask” by Todd Gitlin on the Neiman Watchdog: Questions the Press Should Ask Web site. Each of the three articles included eight questions that reporters should ask Huckabee, Romney and Obama, respectively. The first question on his list for Huckabee is in response to Huckabee saying, “If we see any part of our society and culture that’s decaying, what’s going to keep it from rotting? The Christians. God’s people.”

Gitlin asks, “Do you believe that people who are not Christians are not ‘God’s people’?” That’s a tough question and I can’t imagine how Huckabee would answer it, but if he is willing to make such a claim, he should be able to answer a question like Gitlin’s. Huckabee’s assertion that Christians are the only people who can save our culture from “decaying” is a clear attempt to endear himself to conservative Christians, but it is also a divisive comment considering the fact that there are many religious groups present in the U.S. today.

Gitlin’s questions for the other candidates are also largely follow-up questions based on things the candidates have said in the past, probably during campaign speeches to people who already supported them. Presidential candidates of both major political parties need to be able to substantiate and defend the assertions they make to everyone, not just to people who already agree with them.

Jennifer Ernst and Matthew Barge dissected claims of two senators concerning the consequences of Roe v.Wade in their article “Abortion Distortions” on FactCheck.org. Just as the previous article concerned the validity of assertions made by presidential candidates attempting to endear their electorates, this reading concerns the accuracy of statements made by elected officials attempting to further their own political causes. Predictably, Republican Senator Rick Santorum believes that Roe v. Wade has had a negative impact on society, and Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer asserts that it has had a positive effect. The issue, however, is not the viewpoint of either senator regarding Roe v. Wade but rather, the “facts” they use in support of their positions.

Boxer, the Democrat, claimed that if abortion was made illegal, 5,000 women would die per year – an assertion that is, as Ernst and Barge revealed, based on a 1936 study conducted before the introduction of penicillin or other advances in abortion techniques. The statistic is, by all accounts from abortion statistic experts, outdated. Santorum, the Conservative, claimed that the suicide rate among women has become “much worse” since Roe v. Wade, but according to the Center for Disease Control, the suicide rate among women had actually dropped two percentage points when the article was written.

Both senators’ claims seemed believable, and there are surely people who have heard or read those assertions that took the senators at their word. The easily conducted research done by the authors of the article shows, however, that both Boxer and Santorum knew that their “facts” were not completely correct and knowingly manipulated accurate information to further their own campaigns (for or against) abortion rights.

The other article I chose to read was listed as “FactCheck Subscribers Find Us Clear, Unbiased, Reliable and Useful,” on the class syllabus, but I couldn’t find the article on FactCheck.org, so I decided to read an article about Ron Paul, in keeping with the elected-officials theme I’ve created so far. “Wrong Paul” by Joe Miller was interesting to read because Ron Paul is, if nothing else, one of the most entertaining political candidates I’ve had the pleasure of watching and listening to during debates. Miller starts by examining some of Paul’s “more outlandish claims” including one theory that a “secret conspiracy composed of the Security and Prosperity Partnership and a cabal of foreign companies is behind plans to build a NAFTA Superhighway as the first step toward creating a North American Union”…huh? Miller shows that the Superhighway is actually a myth and that the organizations Paul cites in the above claim are “neither secret nor nefarious.” Paul has made many fanatical claims, particularly during the Republican debates, but to read some of the things he has said is enlightening because it seems like he simply fabricates conspiracy theories.

Most Republicans now claim to love Ronald Reagan, whether or not they actually loved him when he was in office. Apparently Ron Paul has jumped on the bandwagon too, trying to build an affinity with Republicans by establishing a connection between himself and Ronald Reagan in his television ads; Miller points out, however, that Paul attempted “to totally disassociate” himself from Reagan in 1988. Paul, an extreme conservative even by most Republicans’ estimation, is not above trying to gain more votes from moderate Republicans, and he probably thinks that associating himself with the beloved Ronald Reagan is a way to do that. As Miller shows, however, Paul’s connection with Reagan is questionable at best.

Week 5

In his article “A Billion People Can Be Wrong,” Steve Rushin makes a great point: journalists should always be suspicious of high numerical figures reported by organizations whose best interests are vested in, well, high numerical figures. In light of the recent frenzy surrounding the Giants’ history-making win over the Patriots, the Super Bowl seems, more than ever, to be a sporting event beloved by all. It is so beloved, in fact, that a staggering one billion people watched it this year. Or did they? The NFL reports that the Super Bowl is broadcast to a potential one billion viewers in 225 countries (potentially, of course). Having the potential to do something, however, is no guarantee that it will actually be done.

 

Initiative, a media research firm, estimated in a study that only 93 million people watched the Super Bowl last year, with North Americans accounting for 98 percent of those viewers. This figure is grossly divergent from the one reported by several newspapers and other media outlets, because journalists allowed themselves to be spoon-fed misleading statistics by the NFL. Although, thanks to the clever use of the word “potential,” the NFL did not technically lie in its approximation of the Super Bowl audience, journalists should hone their “built-in, shock-proof b.s. detectors,” which Rushin claims most American sports fans already have, in order to avoid being hoodwinked in the future. After reading the article, I wondered how American journalists could actually believe that so many people in other countries would actually watch the Super Bowl. Part of the problem is Americans’ tendency to think solely in terms of American culture, even when referencing other countries. Why would the average Frenchman honestly be interested in watching football, a sport that is really only played in America? I don’t think many Americans tune in to watch the Cricket World Cup.

 

Scott R. Maier’s article “Journalists + math = anxiety, self-doubt” made me wonder why journalism schools don’t require students to take basic math classes, even before Maier raised the point. Although the level of math proficiency required for an average article containing numbers is only that of a junior high school student, journalists are still insecure about executing basic math problems. At the risk of over-simplifying the issue, I think this is because journalists, like so many other professionals in various fields of work, convince themselves that they are only good at one thing. I know engineering students who are math-dynamos, yet have convinced themselves that they can’t write the most basic papers or briefs of projects, just as so many journalism students claim the only thing they know how to do is write.

 

Maier is right that providing journalists with basic-math education is the first and best way to remedy the rampant fear of numbers prevalent in journalism today; however, I also think that this problem largely stems from insecurity among journalists who can’t seem to fully embrace the The-Little-Engine-That-Could mindset. Although I enjoy the “No one in this class can add or subtract because we’re a bunch of journalism majors” joke as much as the next person, it is really more embarrassing than anything else, because everyone seems to believe that it’s true. The reality is that if we all sat there for just a few moments and thought about how to solve the math problems in front of us, rather than about new jokes to crack about how bad at math we all are, we would probably be successful. No one is going to come in and, calculator in hand, whip up percentages for us, no matter how long we stall for time.

 

Journalists also need to know how to do math so that they can protect readers from suspicious assertions such as the one-billion-Super-Bowl-viewers claim made by the NFL. If a journalist can’t make a percentage difference out of two numbers, he probably doesn’t think critically about numbers at all – to the point that he might not be wary of the claim that one billion people worldwide watch a purely-American sporting event. As Rushin pointed out in his article, several newspapers claimed the Super Bowl would be watched by one billion people, even though the population of America is less than a third of that figure.

 

“Frank Fee’s Tips for Accuracy” reinforced ideas presented in both of the above articles. Although he covers many aspects of ensuring accuracy in writing, such as taking all questions into consideration, checking maps and re-checking facts with sources, Fee makes three basic assertions about math in journalism which relate to the previous readings.

 

The first point, “Don’t rely on another person’s figures,” is made clearly in Rushin’s column about the NFL’s Super Bowl viewing assertions. Media outlets trusted the NFL’s one-billion-viewers-worldwide claim without questioning. If they had just thought about the enormity of one billion people, and then thought about the impossibility of so many international fans for a sport that is really only played in the U.S., the rest would have followed.

 

Fee’s second point, “Remember that ‘officials’ and ‘experts’ may be just as bad at math as journalists,” is addressed in Rushin’s article as well, because NFL representatives purposefully used misleading wording to push a claim that was actually all but impossible; although this was less an issue of officials being bad at math than it was a marketing ploy, it would have served journalists well to have thought critically about the claim rather than allow the NFL to distort reality through their newspapers.  

 

Scott Maier’s article addresses Fee’s third point: “Don’t be too proud or busy to consult a math text or math guide–and have one available.” Maier is an advocate of mathematical instruction for journalism students and journalists. If every journalist had a math book to reference for help with percentages or ratios, articles would probably be better written and more accurate.

 

The case study article we read in class had an important message about crime rates in Gainesville, but I’m not sure what it was. It was riddled not only with numerical inaccuracies but, simply, with a plethora of numbers that, in some cases, were unnecessary. It was an eye-opener about the dangers of not breaking down numerical data for readers. That is not to say that readers are stupid or can’t comprehend numbers, because they aren’t, and they can – but it is obvious when reading an article such as the one we read in class that the journalist himself doesn’t even understand what he’s written. Not only were the percentages cited in the article incorrect (as could be determined by calculating the percentages off of the table of information), but there were simply too many numbers in each sentence. There is just something about having more than one or two numbers in a sentence that makes my head hurt, and I don’t think I’m alone in feeling that way.

 

Writing an article chock-full of statistics doesn’t show a comprehensive study or deep understanding of an issue – it shows the exact opposite. A journalist’s inability to break-down complicated information shows nothing more than his own ineptitude and/or laziness, and results in readers giving up on the article before they’ve reached the third sentence. The article is a concrete example of the problem with numbers that so many journalists admit to having, and it reinforces Scott Maier’s assertion that all journalists should be well-trained in practical mathematics so that they can better (and more accurately) relay messages to readers.

Week 4

“Taboo topics in journalism today” discusses the wide array of issues that the media tend to shy away from, including the harmful effects of abortion, the violent nature of Islam, and the ineffectiveness of foreign aid.  The media have the power to “set the national agenda,” and, as the author, Cliff Kincaid, suggests, because most journalists are liberal, readers and viewers are provided with a perspective that is consistently liberal. 

Maybe it is because I am, as the author of the article suggests, so influenced by the biases present in the news today that I am unable to see current events objectively, but it does seem that the writer of this article is potentially as guilty of harboring biases as the “liberal” journalists that he is so quick to criticize.  Although Kincaid’s basic point is that media consistently ignores some aspects of certain issues – I don’t see many articles focused on the harmful effects of abortions or the link between abortions and breast cancer – much of his article seems to be just as much about the absence of Kincaid’s personal opinion in the news as it is about the importance of unbiased reporting.  In his list of taboo topics in journalism, he asserts, for example, that Islam is a violent religion as though it is a statement of fact. Although his assertion is apparently based on excerpts from the Koran, how can he make such a claim when there are millions of Muslims in America alone who have never performed violent actions against non-Muslims? Additionally, I would be curious as to whether Kincaid has actually read the Koran and its contents within the appropriate context of the entire work, or whether he has just read specific parts which help him prove his and many other conservatives’ point that Islam is a violent religion. It can easily be paralleled to taking parts of the Bible out of context and using them to prove a positive or negative point about Christianity; doing this is unfair and definitely shows a clear bias.

He claims that the media are shaping the way Americans think about current events and popular issues, but it’s difficult to draw the line between media influencing public opinion and media reflecting public opinion. Kincaid is a journalist too, and he has just as much responsibility to be objective as the “liberal” media that he criticizes. His article would have been more effective and I would have taken it more seriously if he did not display what I considered to be an obviously conservative bias. Journalists have a responsibility to be “fair, balanced and accurate” as the Accuracy in Media Web site suggests, but the best way to combat liberal bias is to report with as little bias as possible, not to retort with an opposite bias. Readers deserve that much.

Although “Help Wanted on the Religion Beat” concerns the lack of coverage of religion and religious issues in the news, it is a continuation of the idea of media bias discussed in the previous reading. The author, Julia Duin, claims that various news outlets – radio, TV, newspapers – are becoming increasingly less likely to hire religious reporting specialists, and in some cases, don’t even cover religion as a regular beat. Duin’s main concern with this issue is that although religion continues to play a serious role in decision-making for many people during election time, coverage of religion in the news continues to decrease. Duin asserts that a large part of the reason why religion is given little news coverage is that the people who make hiring decisions have a “fear and loathing of religion” and therefore do not want to devote resources to its coverage. At some papers that actually have religion reporters, seasoned religion reporters are leaving only to be replaced with new reporters fresh out of school. Duin claims that religion should not only be covered thoroughly, but by someone who has experience with the subject and is knowledgeable about religion. “A lot of TV and magazine political writers around the country spent a lot of time wading into a beat they didn’t understand, coming up with clueless observations about candidates and their faith,” Duin says about coverage of presidential candidates.

I agree with Duin that coverage of religion is not extensive enough, and it extends beyond just the religious beliefs of political candidates. What about Muslims? Americans would undeniably benefit from more balanced coverage of Islam, and such coverage could go a long way towards dispelling irrational fears people might have of Muslims or Islam, a religion which many Americans do not seem to understand at all. Religion is at the core of many of our country’s biggest issues: abortion, same-sex marriages, what should or shouldn’t be taught in public schools, and even U.S. involvement in the tensions between Israel and Palestine. Just as reporters give perspectives of people on both sides of gun-control or tax cut debates, they should also help shed light on why and how religion influences people’s decisions. “Why” is a question that journalists recognize as one of the most important in writing a fully fleshed-out article; “religion” is often the “why,” and it should be identified and explained as such.

In the article “Can media fairness be mandated?” Dante Chinni considers the pros and cons of the Fairness Doctrine, a set of rules meant to ensure presentation of various viewpoints by broadcasters. The Fairness Doctrine, though laid to rest almost 20 years ago, is being discussed by liberals once again as a potential means for curbing what they view as overwhelmingly conservative talk radio. Even some conservatives have criticized conservative talk radio because of many hosts’ negative attitudes toward immigration reform, which critics fear is negatively influencing public opinion about the issue. According to the article, Republican and Democratic senators alike, bonding together over the issue of immigration reform, have criticized talk radio hosts for being unabashedly biased and presenting issues in a one-sided manner.

Ultimately Chinni seems to think that reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine is a pipe dream, and I hope he is right. Although I understand the original motivation behind the Fairness Doctrine, which only had jurisdiction over public airwaves, its presence today would be outdated; as Chinni points out, the lines between public airwaves and “other forms of news are blurring as telecasts become webcasts.” Beyond the legality of the issue (the Fairness Doctrine’s potential to infringe on broadcasters’ First Amendment rights), audiences need to learn to listen with discernment. Although some liberals argue that liberal talk radio shows are overpowered by their conservative counterparts, this is not necessarily a reason for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine and essentially forcing equal airtime for conservative and liberal viewpoints. If liberals don’t want to listen to conservative radio, they don’t have to, just as conservatives don’t have to read The New Republic or listen to National Public Radio. Although the argument for the Fairness Doctrine is rooted in the belief that people who listen to conservative talk radio will have their opinions unduly influenced by what they hear, the reality is that most people who listen to conservative talk radio probably do so to further bolster conservative opinions that they already have.

The concept behind the selection of “20 Under 40” is inspiring for anyone who wants to work in newspapers or who currently works in newspapers, because all the people selected seem to have so much faith in the future of an industry that so many others are claiming will soon fall by the wayside with the ever-growing popularity online news. An excerpt from the survey that the candidates filled out that I particularly liked was this: “We’ll have to become truly platform-independent and recognize that we should funnel the appropriate content to the appropriate platform.” I interpreted this statement to mean that the online and print versions of papers should become independent of each other so that they both have unique and relevant information to offer to readers. Online news sites, especially online off-shoots of local papers, are so often regurgitations of their print counterparts. If the online and print versions of newspapers become independent of each other, they will become more effective as independent news sources and newspapers will stay relevant, even in the midst of this online revolution.

The “Jimmy’s World” case study we discussed in class left me wondering, like everyone else, how the story ever made it to print in a paper as esteemed as The Washington Post. Of the many warning signs in the article, the one that struck me was the point in the story in which Cooke described watching Ron give Jimmy an injection of heroin. I’m sure every reader of the story wondered what kind of reporter would watch an 8-year-old child be shot-up by an adult, so why didn’t Cooke’s editor wonder the same thing? Additionally, I know Jimmy is supposedly street-wise, but I have never heard a child his age speak the way he does in Cooke’s article; he talks more like an 18-year-old than an 8-year-old. There is a slew of other (in retrospect) obvious problems with the story, including the sensationalized tone of the story, the question of how Cooke located an 8-year-old heroin addict and convinced him to talk to her, and several instances of years and basic facts simply not matching up.

Reading “Jimmy’s World” with the knowledge that it is a fabricated story was excellent practice in thinking critically about what kinds of problems are presented in fictitious stories. It’s easy to point out problems in retrospect when other people already revealed the story to be fake, but that’s why reading such stories is helpful. Reading enough stories like “Jimmy’s World” can help develop a more discerning, critical eye. If editors read stories that came to them the way a person with background knowledge of “Jimmy’s World” would read it – just waiting to pounce on every suspicious aspect of the story – they would probably catch a lot more falsities in articles presented to them.

Week 3

“Meet the new face of hyperlocal journalism” was an interesting continuation of the topic of the recent introduction of blogs as news sources in last week’s “Revamping the story flow for journalists.” Just as last week’s article discussed the increasing level of reader involvement in the news through comments and criticisms on news blogs and suggestions for story ideas, this week’s article focuses specifically on the blog “Baristanet,” which serves as a news source for a small N.J. town. Debbie Galant, the creator of Baristanet, discusses how the blog has evolved from a little-known, one-woman show into a profitable news source and legitimate competitor to local newspapers. Galant talks about her struggle to develop Baristanet into a reputable news blog and about the measures she has taken to provide information on the blog that would perhaps be unavailable from other news sources, including live chats with local politicians and an editorial spin that, while described by Galant as “fair,” is also a departure from traditional, balanced pro-con news stories. Galant says that while readers may not appreciate the stance taken in every Baristanet post, they are free to leave comments. The more controversial posts have around 100 reader comments. I like the concept behind Baristanet; after skimming through some of the posts and reader comments, it struck me as an honest and informative community blog which encourages open lines of communication among its writers and readers. I’m currently taking the class World Communication Systems, and we recently discussed the increasingly popular opinion that the media have a responsibility to actively facilitate debate about and resolution of community issues, rather than just report the facts (a theory known as civic journalism). Although some may view Baristanet as a less reputable news source than some of its more objective counterparts, I think the style of the blog and the ease with which users can post reactions – not only to the events that are covered in the stories but also the way in which they are reported on – is a vast improvement on traditional newspaper and online reporting. The news is written for the readers, it stands to reason that they should feel compelled to react to it and that their opinions should be valued and taken into account by reporters and editors.

“Skeptical editing” is about the growing problem of unchallenged information in journalism and the inevitable knocks to all journalists’ credibility after big scandals such as the one faced by The New Republic after Stephen Glass’ slew of fabricated articles. The author of “Skeptical editing” argues that the main problem is not dishonest journalists, but editors who fail to question the information in stories.  Editors should not be advocates of stories, but rather, adversaries. It doesn’t serve anyone well to be (or have) an easy editor who is not brutally critical of the content of stories. Not only would readers not have been cheated by being provided with fabricated stories if The New Republic editor Charles Lane had been a little more critical, but author Stephen Glass could potentially have been saved from himself if he had been stopped early on and the publication could have saved itself the trouble and infamy that resulted from the scandal.

The Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970 authorized joint operating agreements among newspapers within the same market as a way to allow multiple papers to stay in business in spite of declining circulation. The act was designed to exempt papers from antitrust laws so that multiple papers could survive in the same market, especially in light of the fact that in most markets, the alternative to a joint operating agreement was for one of more of the area’s papers to go out of business. In a typical joint operating agreement, publications share facilities and printing presses but maintain independent editorial and newsgathering operations. The inspiration behind joint operation agreements is sound; in theory, such agreements allow communities to continue to be supplied with different news sources while those news sources are able to greatly decrease costs and stay in business, technically as “competitors.” This is not, however, the likely reality in most joint operation agreements, because the papers cannot possibly stay completely separate from each other while simultaneously being completely dependent on each other. As Robbie Steel deftly points out in his Pennsylvania Law Review article “Joint Operating Agreements in the Newspaper Industry: A Threat to First Amendment Freedoms,” publishers’ influence extends beyond editorial boards and into the “scope, focus and concentration” of news coverage. While I do see the theoretical benefits of joint operating agreements, I ultimately agree with Steel that joint operating agreements threaten fair and accurate reporting when there is a constant conflict of interest through supposedly competing news sources that are actually sharing revenue. In addition, while the purpose of joint operating agreements is to maintain a competitive atmosphere among a market’s papers, they could encourage laziness in the participating papers’ reporting due to an inevitable slackening of competition. A joint operating agreement could also discourage more papers from entering the market because the papers that are already in existence have an even stronger group-monopoly.

“’Potemkin Village’ Redux” is a survey of a variety of community news blogs which were “pioneering in grassroots journalism.” The author had previously written an article about grassroots journalism online and wrote the “Redux” article as a follow-up to track the blogs’ progress. The article was written in 2006, and most of the blogs that are featured in the article seem to have been created a couple years prior to when the article was written. The author casts a critical eye on each of the blogs and censures some more than others. He takes note of the blogs’ writing style, noting that one of the blogs reads like a press release, as well as the amount of influence readers are able to have on the blogs through the comment function. He points out that some of the blogs have formats which make it difficult for readers to post continuous and coherent comments that build on each other. This article lends another perspective to the argument for civic journalism, as one of the author’s main focuses in his review of the blogs is their ease of use and access for readers. Reading the news isn’t enough – readers need to be able to react to the news and in turn, to have other readers react to their posts and develop threads of debate. Some of the blogs reviewed in the article also feature blogging communities, in which readers can share links to their own blogs. This allows readers not only to stay abreast of community events, but also to connect with each other and share opinions. Knowledge and news aren’t purely relegated to factual information. Through facilitating debate among community members, these blogs have the potential to increase readers’ willingness to think critically about issues rather than just read and absorb cut-and-dry news.

“Common sense journalism” deals with the growth of civic journalism (or citizen journalism, also known as “cit-j”) which I talked about in some of the other readings. There is overlap in this article with two of the previous readings and some of the same blogs are featured. The article focuses on the blog created by the University of South Carolina journalism school and the Hartsville Messenger, and serves as a basic tutorial for anyone interested in starting a blog. The author discusses the intricacies of the different ways in which a blog can be set-up based on what its goals are. He does point out, however, that the point of blogging is to increase accessibility and ease-of-use to readers, and that when making a blog, one should think like a user, not a publisher. The article points out the many difficulties that can arise when creating a blog and trying to increase its functionality for readers while also compelling users to not only read the blog, but to also make it their own by posting comments and contributing other material. Because blogging is a relatively new type of news outlet, it is important for bloggers to remember that maintaining credibility and accessibility while keeping the site interesting are all crucial aspects for a successful blog. We have talked in class about the benefits of gaining blogging experience in school in preparation for the increasing number of publications that are featuring blogs in addition to the daily publication, whether online or in print, and the USC students who worked on the HartsvilleToday.com blog gained invaluable experience in blogging and learning about ways to engage readers as active participants in the news.

We raised some interesting points in class regarding the case study about “Eagle snatches dog while owner watches.” The story raises several ethical concerns, including, perhaps most importantly, the fact that it is a one-source story. Why is Dennis Fleming so credible that he should be trusted to have all the facts of the story right, or to even tell the truth at all? The owners of the dog were also not named in the story. The dog was described as “Chihuahua-like,” but the meaning of that statement is unclear. Additionally, the story arguably takes on a tone that is callous and mocking towards the woman, an insensitive attitude given her clear anguish over losing her dog.

Week 2

Gregg McLachlan’s “50 places to shop for story ideas” provides an extensive and varied list of potential places to find story ideas. Although the list is, as the title of the article suggests, limited to 50 spots for story-idea-seeking, McLachlan’s point is that there is potential for a story everywhere, if you’re looking with a discerning and critical eye.

After going through the list, I took a look in the mirror with regards to my own motivation (or as is often the case, lack thereof) to come up with creative ideas. I am living proof of the author’s claim that it requires “a little effort” to get in the habit of constantly searching for stories; I admit that I have never even seen the bulletin board at Publix, and although I admit to being curious about the lives of people interred at the cemetery, I’ve never thought to pursue a story about any of them. McLachlan is right that in order to become a story hunter, you have to actively hunt for stories, which through practice can become an almost subconscious activity. Anything can be interesting if you find the right angle.

McLachlan’s assertion that story hunters are not only better reporters than assignment receivers but are also happier with their jobs is probably true. Why wouldn’t a person be happier when he is in control of what and who he is writing about? Being a story hunter provides independence and the option to think creatively, and ultimately, to write about things that interest you as an individual, an interest which will better ensure an informative and thorough story that appeals to readers.

In the same vein as the story idea article, “Revamping the Story Flow for Journalists” is another article in which the author emphasizes the importance of including the community in reporting. In this article, the author delineates the differences among reporting as it was, as it currently is, and as it will be in the future. The Internet, according to Glaser, will continue to play an increasing role in reporting. In the future, Glaser predicts an increased amount of research done online, as well as the increased influence of personal blogs and reporter blogs requesting story ideas from community members, who can also respond to stories via their personal blogs. I like the idea that readers will play bigger parts in helping actively shape stories.

Glaser’s predictions for the future of journalism are exciting; with new blogs about every topic imaginable popping up every day, reporting is bound to evolve into even more of a Web-based venture. People who may never meet face-to-face are becoming increasingly connected to each other via blogging, and the possibilities are endless regarding Glaser’s predictions about reporter-reader relations and connections through blogs. Not only can blogs be used as sources of factual information, but they are also great venues for sharing opinions and giving others feedback on their own posts (or in the case of reporters, articles).

Glaser also suggests that there will be an increase in supplemental video, transcript and audio material to accompany stories online, as well as the potential for expert sources to link information in reporters’ stories to their own Web pages. As reporting becomes increasingly Web-based, stories will inevitably become more interesting and informative with the availability of the endless resources that Internet has to offer as people become increasingly connected with each other.