The Journalist Worldview & News Gathering

"Journalists are people with opinions. You can't hide that." Freelance writer Gareth Harding said this to our class last week. Frankly, I have to agree with him. Yes, objectivity is something every reporter strives for, but it is impossible to be completely neutral because all journalists have different backgrounds, cultures and perspectives.

As we discussed in class, the Four Gospels in the New Testament all tell essentially the same story of Christ's ministry. But, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all had different backgrounds, experiences and perceptions and they each added their own insights. 

It's the same today with reporters. We all bring something different to the table. That being said, it is very important for journalists to stay clear of bias or prejudice. In the 2006 Duke lacrosse case, an African-American exotic dancer accused three white Duke students on the lacrosse team of raping her. Because of the way the story was covered, most of the world took her side and it became a racial issue. Despite their claims that they were innocent, the students were painted in a bad light by the media when they should have been given the benefit of the doubt. (Innocent until proven guilty, remember?) A year later, the woman's claims were ruled to be completely false.

In general, American broadcasting is considered to be biased. Former Democratic candidate for president, Howard Dean, called Fox News a "very expensive, incredible well-funded, right-wing propaganda organization." On the other side, New York Times writer Alessandra Stanley dubbed MSNBC as "Fox's liberal evil twin." 

Image retrieved from http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/media-bias-1.jpg

A worldview is a good thing in reporting. It brings passion and humanity to the news. It means that journalists care. The important thing is to always produce news ethically and honestly, no matter what our worldviews are.

* For this week's extra credit, I posted a comment on Elizabeth Merrill's journalism blog. 

Professional Speaker Assignment: Sarah Coyne (EXTRA CREDIT)

A BYU Associate Professor spoke of the potential dangers, as well as a few possible benefits, that Disney princesses pose on the female attitude.

Dr. Sarah Coyne of the School of Family Life told her audience that “Disney princess movies are highly gender stereotyped” during her lecture last Thursday in Provo, Utah.

           

She and her team conducted a three-year study of 307 child participants to examine the effects that these Disney princesses have on young girls. They found that avid Disney princess fans showed a much higher level of gender stereotyping. Coyne said, “Disney is very much contributing to this whole girly-girl, pretty-pretty-princess culture” that is seen in the world today. 

The results also showed that girls who loved Disney princesses actually had better body image than others.  They also displayed more pro-social behavior, such as sharing and kind actions. However, the high level of pro-social behavior and positive body image did not last to the end of the three years.

Coyne was also curious about adults. She conducted a study of 90 women in college. Of that number, one-third identified themselves as “princesses.” The participants were given a set of challenges.  Coyne discovered that adults who consider themselves “princesses” had more gender stereotyped attitudes. They were also quicker to give up in their tasks.

“Should we want our kids to emulate Disney princesses?” Coyne asked. The professor was hesitant to condemn them. She said that these characters can be good role models. Coyne recommended that parents highlight characteristics such as kindness, courage and honesty in princesses for their children. 

Professional Speaker Assignment: Brian Stelter

A New York Times journalist said social media is empowering people in today’s world to interact with the government in ways never seen before.

Brian Stelter, 28, told BYU students that sites such as Facebook and Twitter are allowing the public to be involved in politics more than in the past during his lecture Wednesday in Provo, Utah. He said social media makes a “round-the-clock press conference” possible.  Leaders can easily deliver messages to the public and vice versa. “Governments are supposed to represent us,” Stelter said. “By responding to us through social media, elected officials have a much stronger connection to their audience.”

A leader can now relate to the public by means of a simple YouTube video. An example of this is President Barack Obama’s clip released in August to introduce the nation to his family’s new puppy.  Stelter called this a “powerful” method used by the president to connect with his constituents. And this connection goes two ways. Stelter said social media is raw material for politicians to keep informed on public opinion and what is happening on a global scale.

Stelter also voiced his concerns about social media.  In his opinion, it could be “narrowing people’s views” because they only see what certain individuals are posting. By relying on the opinions of friends with similar interests, a person may end up getting only one side of a story.

Despite these reservations, Stelter remained optimistic about the future of social media and communications. He emphasized that social media is a “compliment” for reporting. It certainly has been useful for Stelter, who admitted to meeting his girlfriend on Twitter.

JFK Assassination

Anyone who was alive on November 11, 1963 can remember where they were when they heard that President Kennedy had been shot. It was a tragedy that altered the nation in many ways. Some of the most important of these changes occurred in the field of broadcast journalism.

The JFK assassination raised concerns, for the first time, about what is appropriate content for TV news. The most complete recording of the incident was filmed by Abraham Zapruder with a home-movie camera. And it is not for the squeamish. The video clearly shows President Kennedy being shot in the head. The big question every news station had to ask was: How much do we show to the public?  The issue still continues today with crises like 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings.

Another big change in the wake of the assassination was that the news became more humanized. The event shook the entire country, including reporters.  And for the first time, the public saw that. An example of this is CBS's Walter Cronkite, who fought back tears as he announced the confirmation of the president's death.

Above all, the JFK assassination caused Americans to truly consider that news seen on television has the same credibility and importance as news found on print. People realized, while watching the details of the story unfold for the next four days, that live television gave them updated information faster than ever in the past. As late as 1950, only 10% of households in America had TV sets.  By 1965, just two years after the assassination of the president, that number had risen to 94%.

Image retrieved from http://i.lv3.hbo.com/assets/images/documentaries/jfk-in-his-own-words/jfk-in-his-own-words-1024.jpg

November 11, 1963 has been called "the day that changed America." I don't necessarily agree with that; however, I would call it "the day that changed television."

The Home of the Brave

14 September 2013

Most people in the world today are skeptical about journalism.  And why should they not be?  After all, journalists have a bad reputation for shoving their way into places they aren't wanted, asking too many questions, and releasing secrets to public scrutiny.  What's more, a recent survey shows that journalists have dropped the most in public esteem in the last four years.

To me, that's a shame because journalism takes a lot of guts.

Image retrieved from http://conservbyte.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Crazy-Journalism.jpg

In my Principles of Journalism course, we talked about the "Six C's" of what journalism should be -- Constitutional, Constructive, Community-oriented, Credible, Conscience-guided, & Courageous.  It's the last of these that I'd like to focus on.

Is journalism courageous?  I think it often is.  I look at examples like Chauncey Bailey, who was gunned down in broad daylight while investigating a bakery's finances and Bill Biggart, killed when the North Tower collapsed as he photographed the rescue efforts of September 11th.  These journalists displayed incredible courage and made the ultimate sacrifice for the story they were trying to tell.

There are many other stories that portray fearless journalism and of course, bravery in this profession comes in many different forms.  In my opinion, the crowning characteristic of courageous journalism is honesty.  That's what truly separates a brave reporter from the rest.  And as skeptical as the world may be about the press today, any journalist who has enough character to tell the truth, has earned the title of hero.