don't shoot the messenger

Should journalists write about stories people don't like to hear? Today I was reading about Kevin Carter, the photojournalist who committed suicide months after his photo of a starving girl won a Pulitzer Prize.

The picture is of a starving girl in Africa being watched by a vulture, waiting patiently for his next meal. With the photograph's publicity come criticism from the public - most said it was wrong of him to take the picture, and that he could have saved her life instead. This website about the image has comments protesting that Carter himself is a vulture, that he watched her die. But some say that he was trying to let the world know about the situation to create even more of an impact.

I agree that as a journalist we can do more by sharing the story than we could do alone. But sometimes it seems the stories are a little to sensationalist. Some images and details can be disturbing to readers, and hurt the families of those involved.

Did Carter deserve to feel bad about shooting the photo? What would stop you from giving a story to the public?

hometown paper vs. national news

This week a story about America's best state was featured in both the Star Tribune and the New York Times.

In the Minnesota Senate race Norm Coleman beat Al Franken by only seven-thousandths of a percent, which requires a recount by hand. Also, Al Franken wants the state to reconsider 461 rejected absentee ballots. (This hits even closer to home for me, because I've been worried the last couple weeks that I filled my absentee ballot out incorrectly.)

The New York Times article started the story with plenty of background information, for readers who didn't know about how close the race was, or which candidate was the incumbent. It referenced national figures like Sean Hannity, as well as a Minnesota reporter for the Star Tribune. The bottom of the page had links to other articles on the issue, but the most recent one was from February.

I thought the Star Tribune had a much more interesting presentation. Because the readers already know the issue, they started their article off with "The latest twist..." and skipped the background information. There were 237 reader comments, some graphics (see picture below) and links to nine other articles on the story, written in the last week.

While the New York times has a better design and readability, I'm glad I read the Star Tribune because of the extra information and reader comments. I think they have resources to actually do a better job reporting than the national news, when it's a story that happened in Minnesota.

How do stories in your hometown paper and the national news compare? What differences have you noticed in coverage of the same news, and which is usually more interesting?























image from StarTribune.com website

anxious, elated, hopeful, disgusted - the press wants to know how you're feeling

In other news, the New York Times home page today has a link to a feature where readers can answer the question "what one word describes your state of mind?" and check who they voted for. All of the answers roll across the screen - it's very cool.

de l'autre côté

I thought the American media couldn't be any more enthusiastic about the election until I saw today's home page on lemonde.fr, a popular french newspaper.



















Does the United States ever have this much coverage of another country's presidential race? There's even a section for French readers to post photos and comments about the American election. I think this election is an exciting time for the media, no matter what country you're from.

"I go to Fox if I want to get enraged"

An article in the New York Times yesterday interviewed liberals - who watch liberal news or conservative news, depending on their mood.

"Many liberal Democrats watch MSNBC, but some say it sounds too much like comfort food. CNN serves its election coverage with a stiff little chaser of doubt for Democrats, and many liberals say CNN and NPR are their regular evening companions. If they really want to rub the sore tooth of worry, they dial over to the 'Obama’s radical friend Bill Ayers' channel, otherwise known as Fox News.

"'Mostly I flip between CNN and MSNBC, but I go to Fox if I want to get enraged,' Mr. Downs [the liberal being interviewed] said."

I wonder if I might be guilty of doing the same thing - it's always easy to spot the bias in news that doesn't align with your own opinion. Do you usually look for news that aligns with your beliefs, but occasionally seek out the opposing side, just to see how wrong they are? Or do you try and read equal amounts of both sides, to get a balanced opinion?

How can an individual who is biases try and broaden their view, if the other side just makes them "enraged"? How can journalists monitor their bias, to make sure they are not catering to one side, or making one side angry - is it possible?