Recently in class we discussed Watchdog Journalism. The main point that Elements of Journalism tried to make about it was that
JOURNALISM MUST SERVE AS AN INDEPENDENT MONITOR OF POWER
I felt like putting that in all caps to make it more epic.
But, in all seriousness, it is true. As journalists we need to be a voice for those who don't have one and make sure that those with power do not abuse it. This also means we do not allow our power to do that to be abused.
Investigative Journalism is a tool to bring to light facts that help the public to be free and self-governing. It is something reporters use to uncover such facts that would otherwise be withheld from the public--like the pentagon papers and the Watergate scandal.
These cases have made investigative journalism seem romantic, dashing, and glamorous--which I'm sure it can be in some cases :). However, this glorification has had the unfortunate side effect of creating a counterfeit investigative journalism which many publications use as a gimmick to hook an audience on an unimportant story. I hate to point fingers but celebrity-gossip-centered publications are the WORST about this.
To be fair, interesting headlines are important. Still, there is a line: don't make something out to be hugely, vastly more important than it is.
I've found some ridiculous headlines from the publications I must impugn for this practice:
http://www.usmagazine.com/moviestvmusic/news/dwts-bristol-plain-haters-are-trying-to-destroy-me-20101811
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20443052,00.html
http://www.starmagazine.com/news/17588
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Mormon Women Writers on the Web? Suh-weet!!
I really did not want to stay on campus all day until Principles of Journalism. All I could think as I started up my computer in Honors Writing was:
"So...drained..."
"Can't...learn...ga..."
So I got on my e-mail and learned that class was cancelled; we were to attend the symposium about Mormons and Media. I wanted to go anyway, but had thought I would have neither the time nor the energy. However, as I looked the schedule I realized that I could attend a session, go home, and nap!!
And the session I was most interested in, a panel dealing with the identity of Mormon Women portrayed on the internet, fit perfectly with that plan.
It was a panel that included the editor of Segullah--which I have actually thought of submitting to--and the editor/creator of feministmormonhousewives.org, which I now KNOW I want to submit to/write for someday.
They talked about how there was this enormous gap in the writings of church women, how pretty much all you could get was regurgitation of relief society lessons; they wanted something where they could write openly and not have to conform to the cookie-cutter image of perfection so many women feel they have to project. That pressure needed to be taken away, there needed to be an opportunity for women to talk about what was bopthering them in a way that would be most beneficial to themselves and other women. That was why fmh was created.
Segullah was created to fill a similar need. I actually was able to get a free copy of the new edition and it is filled with personal works about the issues LDS women face, from the hearts and voices of real women. It wasn't just a painted-over version of doctrine; as nice as the doctrine is, sometimes we need to hear what other women think and feel.
This was so heartening for me. It was nice to see that not everyone is the cookie cutter, and it was nice to see just one more venue I could write for.
"So...drained..."
"Can't...learn...ga..."
So I got on my e-mail and learned that class was cancelled; we were to attend the symposium about Mormons and Media. I wanted to go anyway, but had thought I would have neither the time nor the energy. However, as I looked the schedule I realized that I could attend a session, go home, and nap!!
And the session I was most interested in, a panel dealing with the identity of Mormon Women portrayed on the internet, fit perfectly with that plan.
It was a panel that included the editor of Segullah--which I have actually thought of submitting to--and the editor/creator of feministmormonhousewives.org, which I now KNOW I want to submit to/write for someday.
They talked about how there was this enormous gap in the writings of church women, how pretty much all you could get was regurgitation of relief society lessons; they wanted something where they could write openly and not have to conform to the cookie-cutter image of perfection so many women feel they have to project. That pressure needed to be taken away, there needed to be an opportunity for women to talk about what was bopthering them in a way that would be most beneficial to themselves and other women. That was why fmh was created.
Segullah was created to fill a similar need. I actually was able to get a free copy of the new edition and it is filled with personal works about the issues LDS women face, from the hearts and voices of real women. It wasn't just a painted-over version of doctrine; as nice as the doctrine is, sometimes we need to hear what other women think and feel.
This was so heartening for me. It was nice to see that not everyone is the cookie cutter, and it was nice to see just one more venue I could write for.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Independence!!
Recently in class, we had our presentation on Independence and Journalism. I liked both the presentation and the chapter in the book. I feel very strongly about the importance of a journalist remaining independent from factions in their report of the facts.
William Safire intrigued me very much. He never went to journalism school, he was a political insider, but he came to be a respected, Pulitzer-Winning columnist for the New York Times. He was regarded as an outsider, a pariah, and he suddenly became one of them after (1) he saved a co-worker's kid at a picnic, and (2) he was wiretapped by Nixon. A man like William Safire, who came in an outsider and, because of his commitment to the truth as a journalist and his writing skills, succeeded. His FBI file was recently released (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/13/william-safires-fbi-file-_n_536038.html) and is fairly interesting. Safire said something in the text that really stuck with me, something I really agree with:
"Where does loyalty lie--with your old personal friends and colleagues, with your political ideology or party, with your news medium, with the cold facts--or with The Truth?
In real life, it's a fluctuating combination of all these. You don't burn a good long-term source to get a pretty-good story. You don't let your ideology turn you away from a good story. (You don't let a copy editor change "story" to "article" without a fight.) You don't let a series of hard facts lead you to a softly untruthful or misleading conclusion. You don't become a hero by joining a pack savaging your ideological soulmates. You don't quote this paragraph selectively, reporting accurately but corrupting its whole meaning."
I liked the way he describes it--in a way that can be easily understood as well as practically implemented. Safire showed--at least this is how I think of it--that being independent is being truthful and respecting others while still maintaining one's original commitment to the citizens. I cna be respectful of someone in office that I know, but I don't let my respect for them muddle my judgement or get in the way of getting the truth.
Independence means that, as a journalist, I don't get paid to cover something by anyone outside my paper and then just ignore that fact as I'm writing about it in my paper.
Maggie Gallagher's story shocked and disapointed me. In the first place, any journalist accepting government money is slightly sketchy. But that would have been ok if, in her column, Gallagher had said that she was writing these promotional marriage brochures for the government. She would be being transparent and honest with her viewers. What really bothers me about that is that she never thought to write a column about it. At the Tx (the Ogden Standard-Examiner's Teen Section), that was the kind of thing Becky (our wonderful editor) would have jumped on--our unique experiences. How many people get to say "The President of the United States wants me to write something"? Gallagher missed out on a golden opportunity to build reader trust--actually lost it--and to tell an interesting story. Gallagher is now the President of the National Organization for Marriage and has is very outspoken against the legalization of Gay Marriage. Some of the things she says--but mostly her timing--give off and insensitive vibe. Either way, Ms. Gallagher is perhaps the epitome of what not to be as a journalist. One should be transparent with one's audience, and try to avoid accepting money from anyone besides your editor-in-cheif.
I would like to say one thing about taste: Yes, it is our duty to speak the truth and give freely the information needed by citizens to be free. However, there is a fine line between baring the truth and losing all sense of taste, especially when reporting delicate matters. This is my opinion, it should be noted, not text or lesson or doctrine or anything like that, but it is what I believe. Don't kick people when they're down unless the public REALLY needs to hear you kick them.
So, while being tasteful, remember one's duty as a journalist, and be independent.
William Safire intrigued me very much. He never went to journalism school, he was a political insider, but he came to be a respected, Pulitzer-Winning columnist for the New York Times. He was regarded as an outsider, a pariah, and he suddenly became one of them after (1) he saved a co-worker's kid at a picnic, and (2) he was wiretapped by Nixon. A man like William Safire, who came in an outsider and, because of his commitment to the truth as a journalist and his writing skills, succeeded. His FBI file was recently released (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/13/william-safires-fbi-file-_n_536038.html) and is fairly interesting. Safire said something in the text that really stuck with me, something I really agree with:
"Where does loyalty lie--with your old personal friends and colleagues, with your political ideology or party, with your news medium, with the cold facts--or with The Truth?
In real life, it's a fluctuating combination of all these. You don't burn a good long-term source to get a pretty-good story. You don't let your ideology turn you away from a good story. (You don't let a copy editor change "story" to "article" without a fight.) You don't let a series of hard facts lead you to a softly untruthful or misleading conclusion. You don't become a hero by joining a pack savaging your ideological soulmates. You don't quote this paragraph selectively, reporting accurately but corrupting its whole meaning."
I liked the way he describes it--in a way that can be easily understood as well as practically implemented. Safire showed--at least this is how I think of it--that being independent is being truthful and respecting others while still maintaining one's original commitment to the citizens. I cna be respectful of someone in office that I know, but I don't let my respect for them muddle my judgement or get in the way of getting the truth.
Independence means that, as a journalist, I don't get paid to cover something by anyone outside my paper and then just ignore that fact as I'm writing about it in my paper.
Maggie Gallagher's story shocked and disapointed me. In the first place, any journalist accepting government money is slightly sketchy. But that would have been ok if, in her column, Gallagher had said that she was writing these promotional marriage brochures for the government. She would be being transparent and honest with her viewers. What really bothers me about that is that she never thought to write a column about it. At the Tx (the Ogden Standard-Examiner's Teen Section), that was the kind of thing Becky (our wonderful editor) would have jumped on--our unique experiences. How many people get to say "The President of the United States wants me to write something"? Gallagher missed out on a golden opportunity to build reader trust--actually lost it--and to tell an interesting story. Gallagher is now the President of the National Organization for Marriage and has is very outspoken against the legalization of Gay Marriage. Some of the things she says--but mostly her timing--give off and insensitive vibe. Either way, Ms. Gallagher is perhaps the epitome of what not to be as a journalist. One should be transparent with one's audience, and try to avoid accepting money from anyone besides your editor-in-cheif.
I would like to say one thing about taste: Yes, it is our duty to speak the truth and give freely the information needed by citizens to be free. However, there is a fine line between baring the truth and losing all sense of taste, especially when reporting delicate matters. This is my opinion, it should be noted, not text or lesson or doctrine or anything like that, but it is what I believe. Don't kick people when they're down unless the public REALLY needs to hear you kick them.
So, while being tasteful, remember one's duty as a journalist, and be independent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)