The Most Dangerous Man In America

We were supposed to turn in a hard copy of a study guide of The Most Dangerous Man in America but a few things happened which prevented me from doing that:

• My printer freaks out every time I use it now because, apparently what little I've printed has already run through the black ink.
• The Wyview printer was broken for a profuse amount of time
• I was scatterbrained and forgot my flash drive, plus I have no idea where the on-campus printing stations are because, again, scatterbrains!
• I was scatterbrained because I learned that the reason my father wouldn't call me all day yesterday was because he is in the hospital being tested. Hospitals terrify me. It's probably blood pressure, but that has only been determined this morning. Needless to say, I was unusually worried.

So, I thought about my options, and realized that this was the perfect solution. I needed to answer the study guide, and I loved the movie so much, why not blog about it?

As a brief overview, for those of you who have not seen it, The Most Dangerous Man in America is a documentary about Daniel Ellsberg narrated by the man himself. Ellsberg worked as a startegist at The Pentagon during the Vietnam War years. During part of it, he actiually served in Vietnam and witnessed the war firsthand, as few at the Pentagon or its RAND Corporation, for whom Ellsberg worked by assignment.

Eventually, Ellsberg began to doubt what the US government was doing. So, he read and eventually Xeroxed a top-secret government study, now called the Pentagon Papers, which revealed truths about America's involvement in Vietnam that the public at large had no idea of. Ellsberg leaked the study to the New York Times, which was slapped with the government by a prior restraint lawsuit, as was The Washington Post after Ellsberg leaked the study to them. Eventually Ellsberg himself was sued for breaking his security clearance.

The legacy left by the government's actions in regard to the pentagon papers is complex. The legacy the government leaves behind for itself is one of fear--the same overwhelming fear of communism and its spread that had motivated McCarthy's witch-hunts in the senate twenty years earlier. The Pentagon Papers, combined with Watergate, led to a mistrust of government by both the media and the public at large. It probably shook the public's faith in the democratic system--these sort of things weren't supposed to happen when the constitution was followed, yet here they were happening.

The lesson which may be learned from the Pentagon Papers is that the American people cannot be complacent with government. My Dad always used to tell me "Trust, but verify," and that is what Americans must do. Even though the President has been elected by the voice of the people, we must be ever on alert to ensure he does not betray the trust we have put in him--and that actually goes for any government official but the President especially. That is why journalists are so important. We feed the information to the people so they know if something is wrong (I almost put if something Bad is happening, but I've done far too many obscure Wicked references in already, so no).

The Media brought great publicity to Ellsberg and what he was trying to accomplish even though it took awhile. The government could possibly have downplayed what had happened with Ellsberg's leak if the media had not jumped on the story as they did. Ellsberg was interviewed before trial, surrounded by reporters every time he left the courthouse; the media ate it up, bringing enormous attention to Ellsberg and his cause. The way in which it was covered--the leak of major US intelligence documents during major US military action--is reminding me very much of the current WikiLeaks controversy. I still need to read more about that controversy to get the minute details, but the idea is similar; some guy leaked secret government documents and is facing prosecution. The Pentagon Papers have made the media more aggressively suspicious of the government. The Media grew from near-lapdogs to Watchdogs as a result of this and other scandals of the Nixon Administration.

Journalists, in my opinion, should reveal classified information under the both (not merely either) of the following circumstances:

• When the American people have been lied to in a way that negatively affects their life/liberty/pursuit of happiness by the government they have voted into office and trusted as the "guards [of] their future security" (that's from the Declaration of Independence).
• When doing so will not endanger American operatives or citizens

Only when the second condition is not met, and publishing classified information will truly endanger Amercian citizens, particularly our soldiers and operatives who are trying to protect our freedoms, would the government have the right to censor through prior restraint were a newspaper foolish enough to publish something which would do that.

If the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the Nixon Administration, or if an Espionage Act suit had been undertaken, we would not have a true free press. The press would be scared to go against the government even when necessary for the public good. I think that may have been part of the motivation behind the court's decision.

I believe that, were major media outlets handed documents like the Pentagon Papers, they would make them public. In the first, just today the New York Times published internal US memos about Russia. In the second place, hello, sales and ratings!!! Classified documents that fulfill journalism's watchdog role are a win-win situation for media companies.

It's an amazing movie that I recommend everyone watch, especially if you're interested in media or history.

Journalism and Faith

I wasn't exceptionally worried about my faith interfering with my career when I thought about becoming a journalist--it never did at the Standard-Examiner. But eventually it began to creep into the back of my mind and just sit there, making itself known only only occasionally.

"Hey...what if something happens which encroaches upon your faith...? Just a thought..."

It began to worry me a little more each--I'll say week or so--and then we learned about faith and journalism.

The Presentation was great, FYI.

However, I'm glad to learn that there are many journalists who hold deep religious beliefs and that there are religious organizations for Christian journalists.  I liked that there is an association that trains religious newswriters, because some religious news needs to be handled delicately, and all religious news should be handled in a tasteful, informed way. That's why I was pleasantly surprised when Newsweek asked the LDS girl working for them to handle the feature on Joseph Smith's Birthday--it is good for publications to recognize that members of a particular religion are the ones who will understand the most about that religion and be able to report with taste and context.

A good reporter should not, of course, let their beliefs taint the facts of a story; a Catholic should not smudge facts on a story about child abuse by a priest. But a person of a certain religion will know more about their own religion than someone of another faith.

I'm also glad to see that secularism in secular newsrooms isn't as hostile towards individual reporters with deep beliefs as some portray it. I'm glad to see that ethical considerations can and should be voiced.

And while the book said religion and journalism isn't necessarily most about the religion beat, I like the idea of reporters from one religion being able to "check [their] beliefs at the door" and report honestly and openly about another religion. I'd like to be able to think that we as journalists could focus in that coverage, as the book indicates, on what impact that religion has in teh lives of its members. I think the faith beats could be used to promote greater understanding, stamping out the ignorance that leads to acts motivated by intolerance. This site, http://www.religionwriters.com/tools-resources/reporting-on-religion-a-primer-on-journalisms-best-beat, shown in class, seems like a great resource. I especially like the calendar showing the holidays of multiple faiths on the same calendar. I like the idea that we all have holidays that occur on the same days as other faiths and we can all experience our own Holidays on the same days other faiths have theirs and everyone is ok with it. It is that respect of other faiths that defines freedom of religion in America, and I believe that same respect should define the way journalists deal with faith. There's a owrd for it, we say it at the end of yoga:

"Namaste"

"The Divine light in me honors the Divine light in you."

Watchdog Journalism

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

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.

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.

The Mind of A Journalist

Last week in class, we got to listen to Don Meyers of the Salt Lake Tribune talk about the Mind of a Journalist. We learned more about the coal mine collapse in South Central Utah a few years and the fun of a press conference with the now-AWOL Bob Murray.

I never would have guessed that there were still mining towns where the mine owners still ran things and the miners and families were under their thumb. But the town Mr. Meyers described sounded like the town out of October Sky (I'm sure many of you have seen the Jake Gyllenhaal movie) or The Price Of Coal (a terribly sad play Box Elder High wrote for their one-act at State 4A Drama competition my junior year which did little more than depress its audience, fill the room with the smell of Kerosene, and provide inside joke fodder for my friends and I). I didn't think what Mr. Meyers described "could really happen here" (as Elphaba sings in "Bad" from Wicked).

The journalists down there, including Don Meyers, eventually found out that Bob Murray, the mine owner, basically ran the town, had in fact been lying to the press at what is possibly the most bizarre press conference ever, as they suspected, and had basically threatened the families of the trapped miners with a pension cut or erasure if they talked to the press.

That's not cool. That is just plain not cool.

People died in search of miners who were probably already dead because of Mr. Murray. He has disappeared from the media since.

In a way, this doesn't surprise me, because, hey, would YOU stick around after something like that? But, on the other hand, how has the media NOT found Bob Murray? This guy should have been found by now and been subjected to a crucifixion of his reputation--it has been done to men for lesser offences than his. Ok, that actually didn't come out like I wanted it to--when I say "should have" I mean in other such cases, at this relative point in time, it would already have happened. But then, maybe it's a good thing for Utah's mining industry that "Crazy Uncle Bob" has disappeared. They were calling for criminal action because he lied to federal authorities, saying that an earthquake caused the collapse rather than the company's own less-than-safe mining practices http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/us/09mine.html?_r=1&ref=robert_e_murray.

But I honestly never expected that this sort of thing--a massive coverup/PR disaster--could happen here. Maybe it's because I'm on the younger side and fairly optimistic. But the thing about journalism is that we're supposed to have an internal bullcrap detector because we are paid to call bullcrap on people when it needs to be called. This is a problem because I am naturally inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I'll gain more experience as time goes by. Part of the issue is the fact that I worked for the feature section all of my time at the Standard-Examiner, so writing hard news is, well, new and hard.

But it helps that I absolutely believe in calling bullcrap when it should be called. There was a situation when the Standard didn't call bullcrap on Roy City police and prosecution after no evidence was found to justify the hasty arrest and subsequent trial of my high school drama teacher. I was so mad--half of Roy doesn't know the truth!! He was innocent!

I don't want that to happen to people if I can help it; for them to be innocent with nobody knowing, because a newspaper that should have said something said nothing.

Another Brick in The Wall

Another Brick in The Wall

I like the fact that, as a journalist, my first loyalty is to the citizen. I intend to write with this principle always before me and see myself as a seeker of truth.

Call me an idealist, but I like the idea of a "wall" between the journalists and the guys in marketing.

Back at the Standard-Examiner, we were on separate floors. At first, I thought "Why do that when so many people like the idea of one-levelers these days?" Now I realize that this separation is as it should be. We never had any problems with advertisers at the Standard-Examiner, so I never thought of all the problems that could arise, the possible conflicts between business interests and journalists' ethics.

Now, to go over the requirements discussed in class:

1. The owner must be committed to the citizen first. I would hope I could work for someone like this, that my boss was an ethical sort of person who's not just in it for the money--such people really scare me. Besides, if you put your audience first, your product will be better quality and sell well, so you needn't rely as much on advertising revenue.

2. Hire business managers who also put citizens first. This seems tricky, but it can be done. My father did it when he ran his radio station. He organized the news and weather casts, the sportscasting and commentary, the program of what oldies songs KSOS would play. He also ran the financial side, negotiating with advertisers, writing and recording the radio commercials, and handling the accounting and other financial procedures. He did so ethically, never putting his own interests above those of listeners. It is therefore possible to find good, ethical business managers.

3.Set and communicate clear standards with the company. This goes for the journalists having set clear standards for the business manager to follow, but it can also be applied to the company you sell advertising to. Let them know up front that they have no influence on your integrity. If you explain to them that their product will sell better if they buy advertising in a paper the public knows to be credible, they will understand. If they pull funding because you caught them doing something bad, then the public will still buy your newspaper because they'll want to read about it!

4.Journalists have final say over the news. Yes! This is a newspaper (or newscast), not a business paper (or cast)! Journalists, the people who write the news, should have a final say over its content, and the businesspeople need to realize that we won't make money anyway if the product sucks or the public knows they can't trust us.

5.Communicate clear standards to the public. It's nice to know what you can expect from people, especially in these uncertain, and as a citizen who reads newspapers I would like to know what I may reasonably expect. I liked how, in Citizen Kane, which I watched as a part of this class and fell completely in love with, Kane writes a declaration of Principles, which can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oav-tDznRq0

So those are my thoughts on the balance between business and journalism--also I would like to point out that this same post is on Michelle Paulsen's blog because she is my roomie and I somehow posted it to hers first--Weird sauce!