Independence & Journalism

"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?"

- William Safire

In 2003, George F. Will wrote a column for the Washington Post about invading Iraq. He criticized George W. Bush's tactics for a couple of paragraphs and then spent the remainder of his article praising Conrad Black's ideas for America's foreign policy. The problem? Will was being paid substantially by Black--a fact he conveniently failed to mention in his column. When he was asked if he should have revealed this, he replied, "My business is my business. Got it?"

But if our country's news sources are being influenced by outside forces, isn't it our business?

Being a journalist means being independent. This includes being independent from sponsors, factions, class, race, ethnicity, religion and gender. The public should be able to read or watch the news without wondering if the story is the result of a bribe or prejudice.

It isn't easy, but sometimes you have to give things up as journalist. People won't always like you for what you report. That's just part of the job. They will like you a whole lot less if they realize you've been cheating them because you felt obligated to someone. Don't be bullied by or indebted to any person or organization. To maintain integrity in the newsroom, it is essential to maintain independence.

Professor Bob Steele said, "Journalistic independence is a guiding principle, at the heart of our role as truth seekers and truth tellers. The guiding principle serves as a moral compass to tell us where 'true north' is, where to find the polar star. The guiding principle of journalistic independence also serves as a moral gyroscope to tell us where the equilibrium is found, where we find some balance, a level point in an environment where we are constantly buffeted by the winds of competition, the pressures of deadlines, the forces of business decisions, the countervailing influences of our own self interest and of peer pressure."

So, Mr. Will was wrong. A journalist's business is not really his or her business. Once it is published, a journalist's work belongs to the public and it should be written with only the public's best interests in mind.

Got it?


More information on the George F. Will story.

Faith & Journalism

Last April, an atheist professor named Richard Dawkins tweeted the following: 

Mehdi Hasan is a British journalist and author who is currently working as the political editor of the UK version of The Huffington Post. He is also a Shia Muslim. 

While Dawkins' tweet has generated plenty of criticism, it also raises the question: Can a religious believer also be a "serious journalist?"

Many would argue that religion and journalism do not mix because they are fundamentally different. Religion relies upon faith while journalism demands hard evidence. I, on the other hand, firmly believe that a journalist can be religious. At their cores, journalism and religion are very similar. They both involve searching for the truth. 

In our country's Bill of Rights, under the very same amendment protecting the freedom of the press, it reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." 

So, the answer is a resounding yes --A religious believer can be a serious journalist. As long as no harm is being done, people should not be discriminated against for what they believe. 

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this is a subject that is near and dear to my heart. Relations between the media and my church have often been a little tense. However, "Mormons" have found themselves under the spotlight recently after the 2002 Olympics, the presidential campaigns for Mitt Romney and even the Broadway musical The Book of Mormon. With increased publicity, there has been an increased understanding and I'm hopeful for the future. 

Also, this post has been a little lacking in the cheer department, so here's a link to one of my all-time favorite Stephen Colbert videos. It's on the subject of Mormons in the media and it's fabulous. 

Media & The Civil Rights Movement

This week, our class discussed Civil Rights and the important role that media has played in it, for better or for worse. We discussed events such as the March on Washington, the Brown v. Board of Education case, the Emmett Till murder and the Montgomery bus boycott.

The press certainly had its less-than-stellar moments during the Civil Rights movement. For example, when covering the March on Washington in 1963, the papers all failed to even mention Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous "I Have a Dream" speech. However, the media was important to spreading the word for Civil Rights. Television, in particular, gave people around the nation a visual of the situation in the southern states. This helped bring people to action. And it helped make our country better.

Yet, racism certainly still exists here and the problem was brought back to the front page after Trayvon Martin's death. Now, I'm not going to go into the moral issues concerning this case. I only want to focus on the way the media covered it. In my opinion, the media made a bad situation even worse with the way they handled Trayvon Martin's shooting at the hands of George Zimmerman.

Skepticism is an important characteristic for journalists to have and there was a distinct lack of it with Zimmerman and Martin. I understand that everybody wants a straightforward story, with clear-cut heroes and villains. But sometimes, stories are more complicated and when they are, the media should acknowledge it.

Both Martin and Zimmerman were treated unfairly because reporters let emotions eclipse the truth. Even when delicate issues like race come into play, journalists need to provide honest facts, not just the juiciest story.

For more info:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/14/zimmerman-trayvon-martin-nbc-news-column-rieder/2516251/ 

The Future of News

This week in class, we discussed the future of media. To be honest, this is a pretty scary subject for me because everything is up in the air right now. All we can really do is guess. The New York Times recently cited a Cisco Systems study that predicts the media industry's revenue could do anything from shrink slightly to completely double by 2017.

Thanks for narrowing that down Cisco.

Sometimes things are changing so quickly that I feel a little bit like Marty McFly in Back to the Future: Part II...except I don't have a hover board.

Image retrieved from http://www.doblu.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/bt2tf1158.jpg

Also, Jaws 19 has not been released yet.

What we do know is that the old news world is gone. The digital revolution is not slowing down any time soon. Up until now, I think many organizations have been desperately trailing behind it. But to survive in the future, news organizations need to do more than chase the advancing technological changes in society. They need to start keeping pace with them. 

The best way to do this is to simply be adaptable. News organizations need to be more than willing to change. They need to completely embrace change. Yes, the future of media is riddled with problems. But the new age also offers many opportunities. Any media organization, not just the big ones, can aspire to a global audience now. The digital era is an empowering one. It's time to stop complaining and take advantage of it.

Journalism Ethics

In class, we watched a clip from The Daily Show where Jon Stewart mocked CNN's approach to journalism. Stewart particularly highlighted the fact that reporters today, in their rush to be the first to get news out, often get things wrong.

There are countless examples of this, but one of my favorites is KTVU's huge on-air blunder this summer. While reporting on the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crash, they announced what they believed to be the names of the four pilots on the plane. Unfortunately, the news station had not checked their sources. When read phonetically, these names became offensive, racial puns. It was an obvious prank--one that the news team would have detected if they had been less concerned with being the first station to come out with a piece of "big news" on the developing story.

Although hilarious, it was a huge blow on the station's credibility. Luckily, KTVU issued a sincere apology and handled the situation extremely well. But in journalism, it's always better to be preventive than penitent.

Retrieved from https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG-k8dB__09qUD0N5IG1EIv3fx3gwbFnacUzSbHNRftcNc893M-gEY9FwSnUmsOQ8pIvzmcATt38KyagMeludP1FdL2ZTJOnJfCsLEIsfKC1uqBKuMGzIJwgHxJCfN23oLVgu_LvL6hAq-/s320/What-is-the-cause-of-media-bias-2.jpg

It is essential for journalists to be accurate. But even more than that, it's essential to report with integrity. In their book "The Elements of Journalism," authors Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel write:

"Every journalist, from the newsroom to the boardroom, must have a personal sense of ethics and responsibility--a moral compass."

Amen to that, boys.

*This week, I commented on Liesl's blog!

The Government's Deep Dark Secrets Revealed

Are people that leak government secrets heroes or traitors? That may be one of the most controversial issues of our time--second only to the great Team Edward v. Team Jacob debate. (On that note, I'm Team Dude Who Hit Bella With His Car).

Last week in class, we discussed the Pentagon Papers. In 1971, a man named Daniel Ellsberg gave information to The New York Times containing details on the United States' role in Indochina and thousands of pages of sensitive government documents. If you'd like to take a peak, a portion of the original Pentagon Papers can be found here. 

Ellsberg is certainly not the only person to blow the whistle. Other well-known examples include Bradley Manning and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks fame (Check out this trailer for the new WikiLeaks movie The Fifth Estate....Benedict Cumberbatch for the win) and more recently, Edward Snowden. A former CIA and NSA employee, Snowden released classified information on government surveillance programs. As a result, he's fled the country and has been both condemned as a traitor and hailed as a hero. So, what should we think of people like Ellsberg, Manning, Assange and Snowden? 

Image retrieved from http://robrogers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/061313_Traitor_or_Patriot.jpg

This question stumped me for a bit. Then I came across a Forbes article  which I found very interesting. It said that we need to stop focusing on if these people are "good guys" or "bad guys." Instead, a good word for them is pioneers. 

"Snowden and Manning -- whether traitors or heroes or neither -- should rightly be regarded as the first arrivals of the wave still to come." 

Digital security is fighting a losing battle and these leaks are only the tip of the iceberg. That's the important issue at hand. 

*For extra credit this week, I commented on Alex Clark's blog post.

Who Journalists Work For

Journalism's first loyalty is to citizens.

In class last week, we discussed the question, "Who do journalists work for?" Frankly, that's a bit of a loaded question. Journalists face a great deal of strain from outside forces. They are under pressure from their sources, media owners, advertising agencies, their families and the government, to name a few. They often face bribes and threats. Yet, there is a certain sense of independence that is unique to journalism. At the end of the day, journalists do not work for their employers. They report for those who are watching their programs and reading their articles. Ultimately, they work for the public.

Image retrieved from http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Manuals%20Volume%203/volume3_58.htm

Eugene Meyer purchased The Washington Post in 1933. Although he was inexperienced with mass media, he had a strong set of principles which he used to run the newspaper. 

Meyer expressed these principles, saying, "The newspaper's duty is to its readers and to the public at large, and not to the private interests of its owners. In the pursuit of truth, the newspaper shall be prepared to make sacrifices of its material fortunes, if such course be necessary for the public good."

Many in the business consider this view to be old-fashioned and idealistic. And that's exactly why the news has suffered such distrust from the public in the last few decades. Journalists need to start believing in the "public service" aspect of their job again.

Yes, it's scary to think about who will be paying for journalism in the future. But if journalists do their job and remain loyal to the public, I think they'll find that that loyalty will be returned to them. 

*For extra credit this week, I commented on Cara Wade's blog :)