Final thoughts on journalism

1. What defines objectivity and why is it an element of journalism? What is the place of opinion in journalism? As a journalist can you have you own opinions on the issues of the day, yet continue to practice objective journalism? Why or why not? How do you plan to handle objectivity?

I consider it impossible to have opinions on an issue and still be completely objective. A journalist who is passionate about an issue will convey their interest. Throughout the semester we have debated bias in journalism; while a truly unbiased journalist is completely objective, a journalist who has an opinion on the story is more invested and more interesting. A passionate journalist tells a more detailed and invested story.

However, it is crucial to be honest, and still show both sides. Readers should rely on a variety of news sources to paint a balanced picture of the issues. As a writer in the media, I plan to always be honest and fair.


2. How do we define or identify excellence in journalism? Why are such aspects as independence and public vigilance essential? What evidence was present in your semester-long examination of a newspaper?

Journalistic excellence is the ability to stand out among all the other voices in journalism. It is characterized by consistency and accuracy. The definition of excellence in journalism Jeffrey Scheuer provides in The Big Picture sheds light on the definition of a journalist. “… All journalism cannot be excellent... If everything were excellent the term would lose its meaning; mediocrity (or something worse) must anchor the opposite end of the evaluative scale.” (Scheuer, 40) If journalists believe this statement, the prevalence of news bloggers is not reason to fear, but reason to celebrate. More news outlets gives excellent journalists a way to shine. The key is to discover how they fit into the new world of journalism.

In my semester-long review of the Star Tribune website, I noted their passion for local news. They provided local information not only when there was an election or a crime, but every single day. A newspaper that a community can rely on is a perfect example of journalistic excellence.


3. What is “journalistic truth” and how does it differ from reality or absolute truth? How does it contribute to civic knowledge?

While absolute truth relates to grand ethical questions, journalism is based on Jeffrey Scheuer defines journalist truth as key facts believed to be true by the public (63). Although it is not absolute truth, it is just as complicated. Journalistic truth involves spheres of opinion, in different social groups. It may change in different circumstances. But above all it never deceives it's audience or hides the truth.

Honest journalists gain the public's respect, and their audience is more likely to listen. This kind of journalism can lead a community, building civic knowledge.


4. Why are newspapers failing and television new operations downsizing? What implications might these conditions have for our country and for your career? What type of journalistic job would you have in 5 years from now? 10 years? 20 years?

Today the internet allows for discussion of news and events through blogs and Twitter. These new mediums are fast, free, and allow for more two-was discussion. As we discussed in class, anyone can be a journalist. Because millions of these “journalists” are suddenly providing content free to the public, traditional news outlets are failing.

While most of the population seems to believe journalism is dying, it is in fact only changing. Five years from now journalism will differ in two ways, it will be instant and it will be specialized. Journalists will use tools such as Twitter, video blogs, texting, and other new media to deliver information quickly, and will target specific audiences with detailed news. A journalist in 2019 might report stories only on salmonella, designer shoes, or dog shows, but they will offer almost constant news. I also assume that a larger organization like Google will be responsible for all of these micro-news networks. Journalism will be personalized and fast.


5. What personal code of conduct do you plan to live by as a journalist?

Although I do not plan to study journalism, the news is still a major part of my life. As a reader I expect journalists to have as a personal code of conduct: honest, passion, and writing skills. This code is inspired by Joseph Pulitzer, who instructed journalists to "Put it before them briefly so they will read it, clearly so they will appreciate it, picturesquely so they will remember it and, above all, accurately so they will be guided by its light."

The most important thing to remember in journalism is honesty. As a servant to the public, a fair and balanced story. While maintaining their honest integrity, journalists should also have a passion for news, and be interested in the stories they cover. Also, journalists should develop strong writing skills, so that they can get the public interested in whatever subject they are honest and passionate about.

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?

dangerous tweets

When I heard about Twitter my first thought was "why do we need it?" This semester we've found dozens of answers to that question - Twitter is used by journalists, friends, bloggers, scavenger hunters, state governments, and newspapers. This week the New York Times presented another possible use.

The United States army is investigating the possibility that terrorists could use Twitter to plan attacks, and communicate strategies and information. They realized the website's potential after political activists used it to plan their protest at the Republican convention in St Paul (world's best city). The range of possible uses from a website that seems so ridiculously simple is unbelievable.

What new possibilities do you think twittering might have for journalists that we haven't seen yet?

Read the article here.