Relevance in Public Journalism

This last post goes with my previous post, Journalism: Comprehensive and Proportional. What should be included in reporting and what should be left out? Sometimes it is a battle--engaging versus relevant. What the authors of Elements of Journalism found is people want both. People read the sports pages and the business pages. They will read a book review, but also the cartoons. I believe engaging and relevant need not be mutually exclusive. I feel that storytelling is a great example of how to bridge the gap between engaging and relevant. I believe storytelling allows the information to come to life for the reader. For instance, reporting information about how a well-known local teenager is coping with losing his arm may classify as important information. The news may tug at the heart strings by itself. However, the reader may not fully understand and be engaged until the journalist describes the teenager's difficulty getting dressed in the morning. A task that once took 5 minutes now takes 25 minutes or more. News shared in this way helps journalism take on a new meaning. Journalism can become storytelling with a purpose. "That purpose is to provide people with information they need to understand the world."

Journalism: Comprehensive and Proportional

The book Elements of Journalism states that comprehensiveness and proportion are keys to accuracy. There is a wealth of information from which journalists can report. They cannot cover everything. Journalists essentially decide what is important and what is not. They need to be careful not to be swayed by what will sell. A journalist that devotes too much time and space to topics of little importance will eventually lose credibility. News should include diversity in theory. Journalists should not simply write stories that appeal to the demographic of those purchasing their newspaper. The book says, to do so would be like drawing a map and not including the small countries. However, not focusing news reporting on affluent readers has a high cost. Newspapers are sold at a loss. In the past, these costs were made up through advertising. However, if advertisers are not willing to pay for space in newspapers that will not be read, the news organizations will lose money. In business we learn specialization, specialization, specialization. This is the key to effectiveness. Journalism is in a quandary. News organizations can focus on being diverse in reporting, but how long will they stay in business? Each news organization must decide for itself.

Journalism and Faith

Before group 10 presented on journalism and faith, I would have never put those two words together in the same sentence. Journalism is the collection and distribution of news and its effects. Faith is confidence or trust in a person/thing or a religious belief. Group 10 specifically addressed religion's role in journalism. I did not think it played much of a role until I began to think about objectivity. I believe almost everything we discuss about journalism can point back to objectivity. Generally, people are raised with certain beliefs or develop beliefs as they become adults. Often, we are taught by our parents what they believe and are encouraged to follow their beliefs, at least until we form our own. Having this background definitely affects our perceptions on how we view the world. The absence of beliefs or religion would also affect one's perceptions. It is unavoidable. That being said, in my opinion, transparency is key. If a journalist's readers know what his or her background and beliefs are, they can understand why the journalist reported on the story in the way he or she did. Some journalists may argue that this is a personal issue and none of anyone's business. However, I believe readers have a right to know if a journalist's reported stories might be skewed for whatever reason. Granted, news organizations need to be careful not to discriminate against religion when hiring journalists.

Journalism as Ideologue (Watchdog Journalism)

Watchdog journalism falls under the element of journalism that states, "journalism must serve as an independent monitor of power." News media is considered the 4th estate for its duty as a watchdog on the other branches of government. Investigative reporting epitomizes what watchdog journalism is about- "deeply investigating a single topic of interest, often involving crime, political wrongdoing, or corruption."

Undoubtedly, the most well-known investigative reporting was the Watergate story which led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. The Republican party orchestrated a wiretap of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington D.C. When word leaked about the story by The Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the Nixon administration tried to coverup what they had done. Only because of investigative reporting, the facts were published.

The watchdog role of journalism has weakened over time as conglomerates have gained more and more power. Despite having news programs dedicated to being "watch dogs," most of these programs do not monitor the powerful elite. The news programmers do not want to jeopardize their jobs. For example, the Walt Disney Corporation (Disney) owns and operates the ABC broadcast television network, as well as, cable television networks like Disney Channel, ESPN and ABC Family. It would be tough for a reporter from ABC NEWS to cover a story lead involving a scandal at Disney.

Independence in Journalism

Journalists must maintain an independence from those they cover. This directly relates to objectivity. Journalists cannot fulfill their role unless they have independence. Sure you can get the full story if you are experiencing what you are writing about. However, if you are not independent then you have a biased view when reporting. This is general knowledge in the news world. We can find evidence of this in the news this past week. NPR host, Michele Norris, stepped down as her husband joined Obama campaign. Her husband, Broderick Johnson the new senior advisor. Norris says, "she will rescue herself from all election coverage but will continue reporting for NPR on other subjects. She steps down as host at the end of next week" according to Fox News. People should admire Michele Norris for not concealing the role of her husband in Obama's campaign. Others have not taken the higher road in the past. Many journalists have written speeches for political figures and then praised them afterwards. One such example is William Kristol who commented on a speech given by John McCain when he in fact wrote the speech. Why can't people just be more transparent? Independence is one of the elements of journalism. Practice what you preach!

Verification

No one can argue against the importance of verification in journalism. Verification is how stories are corroborated. Verification is how we find the truth. Oftentimes sources have their own agenda. With verification, journalists can weed out the misinformation. Bill Kovach & Tom Rosenstiel state in their book Elements of Journalism that verification is the "beating heart of credible journalism in the public interest." There are several threats to verification in the journalism industry. Two of which are the pressure to publish news immediately (while it's still news) and the pressure to publish news that is already "out there." Both of these threats go directly against verification. One example of a verification dilemma could be when journalists encounter news of a story from a source that wants to be kept anonymous. This story may be hot news of a scandal in the White House. The source says you cannot use his name with the story. However, there are no other people that can corroborate what he is saying. What do you do? Granted, journalists are encouraged to verify all of their sources before publishing. This may mean that you can't run the story. Doesn't the public have a right to know what is going on? Should you simply run the story without any source? Journalists need to cover their bases. What if the source has a separate agenda other than the truth? What if he is trying to sabotage a government official and you help him do it? Journalism can be a sticky situation when it comes down to verification. My conclusion is better safe than sorry.

The Profession

The profession or the priesthood of journalists? In the Mind of a Journalist, Jim Willis writes "Journalists see journalism as a kind of professional priesthood in which they, much like the clergy or even police officers, surrender to the higher calling of serving others." I think the term priesthood is far too spiritual of a term to use for journalists. Priesthood denotes serving others in behalf of God. It denotes authority. Journalists are not inextricably linked to holiness where they are called on by a higher source to serve others. Journalism is a career. It is a job. Journalists have a duty to report news, to be the fourth estate providing checks and balances, to serve their audience. They do not act in behalf of God. Journalists' duty is not a sacred duty, it is simply an important duty. I can understand how people want to distinguish their careers as something they are not. Perhaps it provides them with something to talk about at the bar. Instead of speaking of journalists' priesthood duty, let's focus on their professional duty. Willis states further, "The media provides counterbalances and checks on the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of American government." Journalists allow us to stay close to what each of the branches are doing. Spreading news prevents any branch from becoming too powerful. Through the news, citizens can unite together easier. People can know what is going on and incite change where needed. Journalists' duty to report the news should not be taken likely. However, to say there is a priesthood of journalists would be overreaching.