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.