On ethics:
Jones says (citing Kovach and Rosenstiel's The Elements of Journalism) that the most important beliefs journalists share are: 1) Journalism's first obligation is to the truth; 2) Its first loyalty is to citizens; and 3) its essence is a discipline of verification (106). In light of those three tenets, how should reporters cover the government at a time like today? Are they doing a good job as far as you can tell? Are any journalistic outlets you know of behaving unethically?
On the development of news in America:
In "The Curious Story of News" you get a short history of news coverage from the beginnings of the United States through the 20th century. It becomes an industry in our lifetimes that changes before our eyes. Has it changed for the better--or for the worse? (I have no agenda here. Is this an arguable question?)
I think that reporters should continue to report the best truth they can find. Like Jones, I want to read dogged reporters' pieces. I understand that Washington is a difficult town to report in, but I would hope that the press secretary is not as far as reporters go to pursue a story. Outside of Washington I have been quite pleased to read JSOnline during this election season since it has instituted its "Politifact" department/series which gives fair coverage and investigation to hot issues, uncovering the facts, not just going with "what most people think" is true.
ReplyDeleteOn the second chapter, the pace with which the news industry is changing is the scary part. The other "Epochs" of news happened over much longer periods of time, which I typically think is a good thing. When things move too quickly it often leads to missteps and having to attempt to "scale it back" or "reel it in" after having let out too much. I fear that once free news was out there it would take an enormous effort to rein it in and it will be fascinating to see what develops next. I admit, I love the speed with which I can know the answer to something and I like "instant news". Perhaps I contribute to the problem!
I think these tenets hold true for our current times in covering the government. They seem to be obvious but yet need to be stated. If I felt journalists were following these tenets well I don't think I'd have as much doubt as i do about what I read. But I still feel a certain authority in what reporters say. I still feel some journalistic outlets are out for their own agenda but think they are loyal to citizens.
ReplyDeleteI hate to say it but I think the changes are good and bad. The world gets more information faster, and easier but with that comes more bad information too. You have to take the good and the bad and always work toward making it better and beneficial for all.
I think what Rosenstiel and Kovach list is true in journalism today. I think journalists do a good job of following these three things. Like Maureen said, the "Politifact" section that JSOnline is using for this election season is a good idea. I think it's showing us the facts/truths without biased and/or unfair coverage of the candidates and the issues they support/don't support.
ReplyDeleteI think news has changed for the good and for the bad. In the past when news has changed, it took much longer to make the changes. Today, changes are nearly constant. Like Maureen said, it can be a scary thing, but I believe that much of it is just journalists/journalism attempting to catch up to what people want in news (which seems to be celebrity gossip...sigh). By making changes, we're getting news in ways that we never had before, such as through social media clients like Twitter and Facebook. There are even YouTube videos (for things like elections).
I think that when it comes to the government, reporters should share everything they know about things and be as accurate as possible. Ultimately, that's how they can show loyalty to their readers. I feel as though most reporters are doing a good job of reporting government matters, but I still think that they might keep mum on certain things that the government might not want revealed. Then again, I'm sure any reporter that stood a good chance of being a whistleblower would happily jump on the chance even at the risk of losing their job.
ReplyDeleteI think that the news industry has gotten worse throughout the years because of the lack of legitimate, important news that is being reported. Like Kerri pointed out, celebrity gossip is prevalent in news now. Granted, there weren't really celebrities when news coverage began, but in a perfect world, we wouldn't be hearing about Lindsay Lohan's latest trip to jail and rehab in our newspapers. There are more important issues to cover, and it's a sad comment on society that our news sources devote time to subjects that aren't news related at all. It's important to note, though, that it isn't entirely their fault. Consumers want to read about the latest Hollywood nonsense, and reporters are just giving them what they want.
There have always been Lindsay Lohans, and if people could find out, the nonsense got reported. Today, it is very, very much easier to find out and publish it, that's all. There are definitely more important issues to cover, and you're absolutely right that the news sources (sometimes they only call themselves news sources, but may have a strictly profit agenda,which disqualifies them from being news sources) "devote time to subjects that aren't news related at all." Celebrity gossip isn't news. Do we want to hear it? Sure; most people like gossip. "The Week" has a column called "Boring but Important." We could say that about a lot of news. But if people don't want to hear it, chances are they won't pay for it. One of my students in a fiction class told me today that she hated a short story because it was about a school shooting. She said, "I don't like to think about things like that." Multiply that by a few million.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReporters should verify information coming from sources and dispel the confusion that surrounds the off term election. Most just report what a politician says or does on a political campaign rally, but not what they have done prior during their time in office or past accomplishments. All coverage of the election centers around slander that each official running for office slings at their opponent; worse than political ads on TV. I just want to know the facts pared down to the bone to the important issues and politicians’ track record of goals accomplished and those not. For goals not achieved, one should know what obstacles stood in their way. In order to have an informed opinion of each opponent, I have to play reporter and detective. How much easier if more reporters that cover politics did their job. Some take their jobs serious, but it feels that many embrace sensational over the “iron core” news. But much stands in the way in the reportage of news. Jones states the fact in Losing the News,
ReplyDelete“a frenzied, competitive environment makes a first loyalty to citizens something that is eroding before our eyes as the first loyalty increasingly becomes one devoted to anything that will bring readers or viewers or hits on the Web site” (107).
A segment of reporters cow to the demands of the great American dollar. One cannot blame them for most have a family to support. Some rise above modern conventions of sensational news, and aspire to enter the top echelons of journalism esteem of Pulitzer legacy such as those achieved by Bob Woodword. The Fox 6 News Organizations behaves unethically and reports on issues from one side of a sixteen-foot brick wall; the reports don’t bother to get a twenty foot ladder so they can at least get a glimpse of the other side.
Has news changed for the better or worse? I can state in an honest and assertive tone, “I don’t know”. During my life, news has remained in flux between good and bad reportage. The truth and lies mix into a stew of hearsay that even if strained can never get at the meat and potatoes of the story or event covered. I will venture to say that money has mucked up the waters of veracity in the reportage of news. Everyone has the eye on the green, and if it starts to turn red all the bells and whistles sound. The reaction, “More sensations, more burning building, more child abuse, more robberies, more gun fire, more war, more terrorism, more suicides, more unemployment, more bedbugs, and more celebrity gossip. All information found in one click of a mouse, but to find information on local, state, and foreign policies, it requires a lot of clicks and misinformation that could drown the entire continent along with Mars and the moon. I do not what to know that so and so got breast implants, I just want to know relevant information that may have a severe impact on society.
ReplyDeleteIn one of last week’s reading it was stated that beat reporters accepted whatever information the government put forth as factually accurate and reported it as such. Since journalism’s first obligation is to the truth, reporters who cover the government operating under this premise, may want to spend some time verifying the accuracy of what is being fed to them as news. The government will spin the truth—the Pat Tillman story comes to mind. As we learned last week news and truth are not synonymous.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of whether or not journalists are doing a good job, I just don’t watch news or read the newspapers enough to give an informed opinion. Speaking in general I’m sure some journalists are doing a good job and others are not. As Jones points out, there will always be conmen like Jayson Blair; however, I would hope there are still a fair amount of journalists of the Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein caliber as well.
Again, for the same reasons I don’t have an informed opinion about individual journalists, I don’t have one about journalistic outlets either. However I have heard that Fox News expresses a strong conservative slant. If so, this could pose a problem with all three tenets.
I think it has changed for the better and is changing for the worse. In general the journalistic profession has evolved to a true profession with integrity and morals; though, I recognize not always practiced by every journalist. That is a good change because it enables the public to trust journalists as they, theoretically, should be able to. The mandate to report events objectively is another good change.
ReplyDeleteThe industrialization of news, however, is not a good change because, among other things, I think it affects the quality of the news. Just this morning I logged into tds.net to check my email. On the home page, there was an article and a picture of the fired NPR reporter, Don Williams. His name is Juan. I couldn’t believe the mistake had been made and it was being broadcast on the Internet. Also with the industrialization of the news you have a few major corporations owning many television and radio stations. These corporations are backed by huge amounts of advertising dollars which could affect objectivity in what viewers see and hear.