Dear journalism: stay away from the light!

So we were in Nanjing for a considerable amount of time, which allowed us to do quite a bit. Nanjing is known for its shopping! Which is great because I needed lots of souvenirs and gifts.

Fuzi Mao, or Confucius Temple, was pretty legit. It was this huge temple area, but all around it were back alley shops with hours worth of shopping. I am not the biggest shopper…after awhile my eyes sort of glaze over and I’m ready to curl into the fetal position. However, Fuzi Mao was different! Bargaining became some exciting game. There was anything and everything in the world for extremely cheap prices. I bought a The North Face fanny pack for pretty cheap. It’s way cool looking. 

I also purchased this sweet-looking mask. I showed it to my parents on Skype and they looked pretty scared!

Our hostel in Nanjing had people from across the world! It was crazy to meet people from all these European countries. We also had lots of time to play (somewhat heated) board games. Our group is competitive. It’s not me though, I promise. I don’t care at all about competition…

When we were shopping, there was kind of an incident. Hailey purchased a Chanel wallet (which is apparently a nice American designer brand?) from this lady. They bargained, but agreed on a price. She took the money, packaged the wallet, and called it good. We walked away when suddenly, this guy comes out of no where and is like, “I have to say sorry to you now.”

Jiggy what?

He said he was the boss and the lady sold it for waaaaaay to low. He said he needed either more money from Hailey or he needed the wallet back. It was kinda ridiculous, and the guy was creating quite the scene. We didn’t really understand why he could go back on a transaction (in America, when you buy something, it’s done). However, when he pulled out his phone to call the police… we were persuaded to give the wallet back. It was…exciting.

Now our group’s inside joke is…”I have to say sorry to you.”

What is journalism?
Alysa Hoskin

At the beginning of the semester I wrote a somewhat witty paper attempting to answer that question. I was pretty honest in saying that I had no idea what journalism really was in this changing world. So technically I didn’t really answer the question. Now, however, after a semester of studying The New York Times, discussing many facets of news telling, and reading both The Mind of a Journalist and The Elements of Journalism, I have come to a conclusion as to what journalism specifically is.

First, let me start out by telling you what journalism is not. Warning: this sentence may offend some [many] traditional reporters, editors. Journalism is not just newspapers. Journalism is not broadcast news. Journalism is not magazines, or radio.

True, these things make up journalism. However, the industry is changing dramatically. I wouldn’t even say the combination of the above listed items is journalism.

Because journalism is so much more now. Like, what I did right there. Italics…bolding… increasing font size.

(Not to mention starting with “because”).

Journalism transformed from a classic model (leave the newsroom, gather information and sources, report the story, call it a day) to a completely innovative system. NewsTilt is a new website where journalists can pocket 80% of the profits. New websites such as these are crucial to the future of journalism. Creativity and freedom are more prevalent than ever, and a journalist’s day never really ends; they keep tweeting and updating news websites constantly.

Infographics are journalism. Apps are journalism. Videologs, hyperlocal websites, photography slideshows, Twitter, and any newspapers and TV stations which can actually keep up are journalism.

New Media has no bounds. That’s why I would argue that traditional newspapers and TV stations are less journalistic than Huffington Post and Drudge Report. Journalism should always change with the current times and technology. That’s not to say “old fashioned” techniques are going anywhere. Superior writing will always be utilized. Photography and video skills are all necessary to tell the story. The difference is that this will now be through online mediums.

One thing has not changed, and that is journalism’s responsibilities to society. Journalists provide the “information [to citizens] they need to be free and self-governing” (Kovach, 12). They also serve as gatekeepers, watchdogs, and truth bearers. Their influence is visible during presidential election campaigns, when governmental corruption is leaked, when natural disasters strike, and whenever events occur that are within the public’s basic need-to-know. Journalists still need to follow basic codes of conduct and avoid dishonest practices. Ethics in journalism are more crucial than ever.

These basic ideals are also, arguably, more attainable than ever. Publishing stories on the internet increased audience size tremendously. The ability to get away with plagiarism or perpetuating bad journalistic techniques is much less viable in a sort of checks and balances system which online journalism more easily provides. This means good journalism practices are occurring more in the world.

Some question what a true “journalist” even is. Anyone who projects the news in an unbiased manner is a journalist. It is really as pure as that. It may incite pain in journalism students or professionals, but that is simply the current market.

Several have figured out how to finally make revenue off of the new journalism model. While major newspapers like The New York Times squirm to make money online, others prove themselves capable like The Huffington Post. New ideas for making money in this new business will emerge by future Al Neuharths who are willing to push the envelope and incite their own great idea.

Journalists have to adapt. They need to learn to write code and become well rounded, and they need to get creative in how they tell the story. Journalism today is creativity.

And I am so ecstatic.

Can a celebrity be a journalist? Many people initially react with a resounding, “No way!” as they imagine Paris Hilton or Brittney Spears reporting on foreign affairs. However, there are already some journalists who made their way because of their celebrity status. Two of these examples are Katie Couric and Anderson Cooper. Take a look at their careers a few years prior to the present:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbShnOxZbdk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsuRCXiYGO4

Can someone transfer from talking to the Paper Bag Lady, or yelling at and interrupting Mary Landrieu to being a reliable reporter? Well, that’s precisely what Couric and Cooper accomplished. Many consider them two of the most reliable and respected journalists in America. How did they reach that status, especially after being giggly talk show hosts and bitterly chewing out politicians?

Both journalists had defining moments which gave themselves real validation against all those who doubted them. Couric’s occurred when she questioned Sarah Palin in numerous interviews, revealing a lot of information about her.

Celebrity journalists will likely be going no where. They have been around for many years (William Randolph Hearst as one of many examples) and they will likely gain more prevalence in American culture.

Other sources:
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=247

Akin to a huge journalism ice cream shop where no one can come to any sort of conclusion as to which flavor to choose, there are many different types of journalism for varying audiences. Citizens can browse from one type to another (just like how ice cream consumers taste test rocky road and cake batter and every other flavor without having to commit to much). However, eventually the ice cream consumer gives in to one especially delectable flavor, one which their friends and loved ones might question, but simply hits the spot for them personally. After committing to that flavor and enjoying every bite, it is likely that they will continually order that ice cream flavor because they know they will not be disappointed. 

That metaphor might have been really lame. But it sort of works at the same time. Instead of utilizing every extreme of journalism, most citizens use one type repeatedly, causing close-mindedness. This repetition is definitely caused by target journalism.

Most news corporations use target journalism to reach a certain audience, i.e. the Business section in the New York Times, or the Life section of the USA TODAY. This article in Poynter discusses hard target journalism, as one example. However, one extremely valid point is that “stations that cover a wider range of topics were more likely to be building or holding onto their audience than those that did not” (Project for Excellence in Journalism).

The Project for Excellence in Journalism also researched topics discussed in 2009, as found on this website: http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/broad_topics.

If you really consider broad topics, it makes sense. Most people want to learn about a wide variety of topics, even if they only stick to one news source. Additionally, if they are disinterested in what is being discussed, they can always turn the page. Variety will increase a chance that readers will find something interesting. There are many papers and broadcasts which attempt to accomplish this. It seems more ethical and well-rounded, as opposed to the one-sidedness created by target journalism.

More sources:

http://www.journalism.org/node/5717

A taboo in many locations, journalists typically shy away from reporting on journalism at all. Faith and religion is an extremely personal decision. I think journalists, in their quest to be unbiased, stay away from this topic for that exact reason.

However, religion is an enormous part of society. Beyond the scandals and the horrific things, religion or lack thereof is a fundamental aspect of everyone’s life. It is a decision everyone is forced to make: do you want to be Catholic? Hindi? Southern Baptist? Buddhist? Or even…Mormon? (gasp) Everyone on the planet has to come to some beliefs system about God, even if that beliefs system is that there is no God. Look at this interesting statistic of religion in America:

Due to its relevance in America, religion definitely needs media attention. This is provided in a variety of ways. There are some news outlets that are openly Christian, like “CBN, Christian Today, and Christian Century” (Willis, 100). These have value, as many Christians trust these news sources far more than they trust other news sources.

However, maybe public news sources should come out of their comfort zone a little bit. Instead of cowering in the corner when religious topics are brought up in the newsroom, journalists should leap at the excitement of learning about another’s religion. It is possible to look at the facts and beliefs provided by other religions and not have it negatively affect your own. Don’t get me wrong, it takes an active effort by the journalists. They have to research and read and reread everything they write in these articles. However, it is definitely possible. “A reporter should try to let the adherents of a faith define their beliefs. that is always a hazard in reporting…ethnocentrism…permeates many news stories” (Willis, 101).

So…let’s  be brave! Go out there, be careful, but actually report on something out of your comfort zone. Anyone can write about the greatness of The Jimmer, but only a select few have the skills and the guts to unbiasedly write about…the Ground Zero mosque, or corruption in Catholic priests. 

Other sources:

• http://www.religionwriters.com/tools-resources/reporting-on-religion-a-primer-on-journalisms-best-beat
• http://www.journalismethics.ca/feature_articles/reporting_on_religion.html

I thought the lecture, “The Rise of Mass-Media Puffery” and the “Death” of Literature in Georgian Britain” was very interesting. Dr. Nicholas Mason of the BYU English Department used the word, “puffery” to communicate, “advertising in disguise, masquerading as a news or review.” I had never considered anything like this to be “puffery,” but it seemed the perfect word for the discussion. Additionally, he used Georgian Britian because it was the most economically advanced, and hence had many examples of puffery.

One memorable example occurred during the birth of advertising. Bear’s grease was rumored to help with hair growth. In various advertising, it was propagated that if you did not wear gloves when applying this concoction, your hands would become extremely furry. Though humorous, it seems like our advertising is occasionally equally ridiculous.

An example from our modern society, The New York Times published information about the online bookstore Amazon on their front page, in the middle of President Clinton’s impeachment and other huge events. Online, there are many accounts of people “reviewing” their own artwork to make it look impressive. Dr. Mason used the example of one high school student who commented that his book was the 5th best ever in one self-review. Of course, this was under an alias to make it look like another person actually felt that way. In the end, he gave advice about the national puffery crisis, saying to be extremely careful with reviews.

After the invention of the internet, basically the entire news industry was obliterated. One way this occurred was through the public forum offered. Most people thing of blogs and other places to rant online.

However, one really important forum exists on online news sources.  At the end of many articles, there is a place to comment. Here, people can argue and scream at each other. However, they can also perpetuate lie.

Another example of this was when Chris Matthews outright accused Shearer of attacking a girl. On television, there are many shows focusing on arguments. It has people of opposing opinions screaming at each other (cough cough, FOX NEWS). This part of the media perpetuates a society that can never compromise. Instead, there are Democrats and Republicans, and nothing in the middle.

The public forum can also be beneficial. The people can check journalists through the public forum.  It can decrease the corruption and one-sidedness in journalism. This can furtherly give a voice to the voiceless.

This new facet of journalism needs to be used wisely. Screaming at each other on TV doesn’t accomplish anything. Instead, educated discussion should occur. 

Other sources:
http://www.savethenews.org/blog/09/09/15/public-forum-journalism-denver
http://themindofajournalistkb.blogspot.com/2010/03/journalism-as-public-forum.html

It has recently been announced that even in this day and time period, it is very possible for journalists to still be ethical.

^^I think if that was published in a newspaper or reported on TV news, some viewers would probably be genuinely surprised at the possibility behind it. However, ethics are crucial to journalism. Though the public hears stories of fabrication and slowly loses its trust in the press, if the next generation of journalists all practice good ethics, it can assist in increasing public trust of the news.

Because of the way power in the newsroom works, it is difficult for those who are not in total control to exercise good ethics when situations arise to suggest otherwise.

Another important point in ethical journalism is the fact that “the nature of a newspaper…is heavily influenced by the values of ownership” (Kovach, 243). If those at the top do not care about morals and doing the right thing, that mood will undoubtedly penetrate into the rest of the newsroom.

There are a few things journalists can do to actively keep ethics in what they do. These include, but are not limited to:

1)      Not lying. It sounds stupid, but really. In recent years, journalists have had more of a temptation than ever to plagiarize and fabricate stories. Just last week, Sari Horwitz plagiarized many of her stories from The Arizona Republic, copying substantial portions of their stories and publishing them in the Post. She had previously won two Pulitzer prizes. Wow.

2)      Checking sources. Another painfully obvious one, yet frequently overlooked.

3)      Creating an open newsroom, where

4)      Relying on the citizens to check the media.

These and other steps will help to make journalists slightly less evil.

Other sources:

http://www.spj.org/ethics.asp
http://www.journalism.org/resources/ethics_codes
http://www.journalismfoundation.org/default.asp

Creepy title, I know. But it’s true. Journalists watch to monitor public figures and those who wield power over citizens. In many ways, journalism protects democracy. In order to successfully serve as guards against evil wrongdoings, investigative reporting must be utilized.

Many examples are probably coming into your mind right now. Before you rattle them off, focus on what I have to say. Some of what people identify as “investigative reporting” is actually a pointless waste of everyone’s time. Let that sink in for a second.

…

Okay. Anyways, local news focuses on trivial matters. Instead of looking into governmental corruption (cough cough, HB-477 in Utah) these reporters become consumer reporters, arguing about which washing machine is the best and why (Kovach, 151). I can definitely see the concern in the watchdog role of journalism being weakend, especially because their “obligation is not deliever the news.. [it] is to do good programming” (Kovach, 151). Without intense reporters who make sure the ugly, painful, sometimes unbearable news is heard, power can be abused more than ever before. Celebrity gossip is, in fact, a total joke. Who cares about Britney’s new haircut (or…head shave?) ? I definitely do not.

However, there is value in accusing those who have power. I think the story reported several years ago about Michael Phelps’ partying was valuable. Many Americans idolized him for his athleticism. As an Olympian, he was not really a celebrity, but more someone who explicitly represent the very best of the United States.

In Boise, Idaho, KTVB reported on Corey Barton homes, which had few toilets and had construction workers using the houses they were building as a makeshift toilet. Thus, many citizens were smelling strange scents and finding yellow bottles around their homes. Some would claim this is not of value; however, I find it to be crucial to American lifestyle. There were many families uninformed about the situation, and KTVB definitely used valuable investigative reporting to decipher what was happening.

Other resources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalism
http://www.ire.org/
http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/