The New York Times has a slogan on the front page of every newspaper that reads, "All the news that's fit to print." It takes much longer than 30 minutes to read every article in a New York Times newspaper, so the Times can print much more news than a network can broadcast in a 30 minute newscast.
One of the challenges of broadcast news (and print news too) is determining what to cover and what not to cover. Another challenge is determining how much time to allocate to a certain story, but I am only addressing the challenge of determining what to cover.
One critique of local and network news is the disproportional coverage of the world. Naturally, and appropriately, the majority of the news covered is local to the United States. Beyond that, most of the coverage is of the Middle East, primarily Iraq and Afghanistan.
I decided to look at ksl.com to see how proportional, or disproportional, their world news was. The home page contains local news, so I clicked on the 'world' tab. The 15 stories on Monday night, April 5, break down as such:
Thailand
China
South Korea
Afghanistan
Mexico
Cuba
Pakistan
Great Britain
Haiti
Vatican
Iraq
Mexico
Nigeria
Chile
Haiti
Only Mexico and Haiti had multiple stories (2). 6 of the stories were significant U.S stories as well, which added merit to the coverage. Overall, of the top 15 world stories on ksl.com, 13 different countries were represented, including 9 that had little or no American involvement in the story.
For a local Utah news website, that is pretty diverse.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Journalist and Faith
Why isn't religion talked about in the news? I think the answer comes in two parts:
1. Readers/viewers don't want to read/watch news about religion.
2. Journalists don't want to cover religion.
Readers and viewers don't want to read or watch news about religion. Religion is very personal; worship is very personal. Most people of faith in the United States are not publicly religious. We may be quick to question whether they are at all religious in the first place. Part of the presentation stated that 81% of Americans say prayer is important in their lives. When I think about where I grew up in Indiana, everyone on our street knew that we were LDS. I knew our neighbors across the street were Catholic, but I did not know the religious affiliation of anyone else. But, I would guess 81% of the people on our street considered prayer an important aspect of their lives. Many people who consider themselves religious and who pray, do so in private, and their neighbors may not even know their religious affiliation.
News, on the other hand, makes everything public. We can read or watch the news privately, but it is in a public forum and we are really joining thousands of others who are reading and watching the same thing we are. I think many people are uncomfortable with religion in this public forum because they prefer to keep it in their own private setting.
The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states that journalists should Seek the Truth and Report It. Journalists know they should find the facts. They should report the facts, and leave the opinion to their sources. It is difficult to reconcile religion with this standard. Often times, a journalist will write or say that a person or group of people "claim" or "believe" something, which then casts doubt on their belief. While this may seem derogatory towards that religion and its faith, it is a journalist doing his or her job. A journalist can not prove a claim of faith. In truth, that religion claims or believes something. A journalist can not state the claim as fact, even if it is in line with his or her own religious conviction. This inability to prove a faith as a fact makes it difficult for a journalist to cover religion.
1. Readers/viewers don't want to read/watch news about religion.
2. Journalists don't want to cover religion.
Readers and viewers don't want to read or watch news about religion. Religion is very personal; worship is very personal. Most people of faith in the United States are not publicly religious. We may be quick to question whether they are at all religious in the first place. Part of the presentation stated that 81% of Americans say prayer is important in their lives. When I think about where I grew up in Indiana, everyone on our street knew that we were LDS. I knew our neighbors across the street were Catholic, but I did not know the religious affiliation of anyone else. But, I would guess 81% of the people on our street considered prayer an important aspect of their lives. Many people who consider themselves religious and who pray, do so in private, and their neighbors may not even know their religious affiliation.
News, on the other hand, makes everything public. We can read or watch the news privately, but it is in a public forum and we are really joining thousands of others who are reading and watching the same thing we are. I think many people are uncomfortable with religion in this public forum because they prefer to keep it in their own private setting.
The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states that journalists should Seek the Truth and Report It. Journalists know they should find the facts. They should report the facts, and leave the opinion to their sources. It is difficult to reconcile religion with this standard. Often times, a journalist will write or say that a person or group of people "claim" or "believe" something, which then casts doubt on their belief. While this may seem derogatory towards that religion and its faith, it is a journalist doing his or her job. A journalist can not prove a claim of faith. In truth, that religion claims or believes something. A journalist can not state the claim as fact, even if it is in line with his or her own religious conviction. This inability to prove a faith as a fact makes it difficult for a journalist to cover religion.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Journalists as Ideologues
I have thought a lot about Anderson Cooper and his role as a journalist and as a human being. In this bio he says about covering the Rwandan Genocide: "On the side of the road [Cooper] came across five bodies that had been in the sun for several days. The skin of a woman's hand was peeling off like a glove. Revealing macabre fascination, Cooper whipped out his disposable camera and took a closeup photograph for his personal album. As he did, someone took a photo of him. Later that person showed Cooper the photo, saying, "You need to take a look at what you were doing." "And that's when I realized I've got to stop, [...] I've got to report on some state fairs or a beauty pageant or something, to just, like, remind myself of some perspective." I think this experience explains why Anderson Cooper is the type of journalist he is. This video of Cooper in Haiti has over 300,000 views on YouTube. I don't see a problem with journalists appearing human. You must stay objective and removed from your story and sources to some degree, but I don't think being a journalist should ever trump being human. In his case, I think he was able to be both a journalist and a human being.
Because of his experience in Rwanda, Cooper put down his camera and helped this Haitian boy. I have no doubt that his intentions were pure; he didn't care whether or not a camera was rolling on him. At that moment, he took off his journalist hat and put on his human hat and did what anyone should have, and hopefully would have, done. This didn't affect his credibility as a journalist, nor did it make him a less objective reporter. If anything, it helped him understand the post-earthquake Haiti better than if he would have stood by and filmed it.
Because of his experience in Rwanda, Cooper put down his camera and helped this Haitian boy. I have no doubt that his intentions were pure; he didn't care whether or not a camera was rolling on him. At that moment, he took off his journalist hat and put on his human hat and did what anyone should have, and hopefully would have, done. This didn't affect his credibility as a journalist, nor did it make him a less objective reporter. If anything, it helped him understand the post-earthquake Haiti better than if he would have stood by and filmed it.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Profession
1. Would you rather get the story right or get the story first?
The consequences of getting the story first and wrong far outweigh the benefits of getting it right and first. I don't remember who gets a story first, but I do remember who gets a story wrong. I will learn about a story from whoever breaks it first, but I will follow and really know the story from whoever I normally go to for news. For example, ABC News was the first to get these never-before-seen aerial photos from September 11th, but I looked at them on CNN. I won't remember who got a story first, but I will remember that CBS got this George W. Bush story wrong, and other instances like this.
2. Would you ever badger an unwilling informant to get a good story?
As a sports reporter, I can't imagine any sports story being so important that I would go through the trouble of trying to pry information out of someone. There are plenty of good stories to tell in sports, and I would likely move on to the next one. For news reporters, there are important stories, and their answers might be different than those of sports reporters.
3. Would you ever use confidential documents without permission for a good story?
No. Even if it is a hassle, I always make sure I get permission to use and information or images that I do. Especially if they are confidential, I get permission.
4. Do you think journalists are necessary watchdogs when it comes to the government?
Absolutely. Since a lot of Americans don't even watch the news or read a newspaper, they absolutely don't watch C-SPAN or read Congressional Quarterly. Americans do not learn about the government first-hand. They learn about it through news organizations. Without them, the government could easily divulge what they want to divulge and cover up what they want to cover up.
5. What is most important to you:
a. having a large (reader) following
b. earning high profits
c. producing quality journalism
I'm going to say 'a', and here's why. A journalist can produce quality journalism and not have a large following. But, I think journalists' large followings reflect their quality journalism. Viewers/readers know quality journalism. They're not stupid. I think 'a' includes 'c' most of the time, but not necessarily the other way around.
The consequences of getting the story first and wrong far outweigh the benefits of getting it right and first. I don't remember who gets a story first, but I do remember who gets a story wrong. I will learn about a story from whoever breaks it first, but I will follow and really know the story from whoever I normally go to for news. For example, ABC News was the first to get these never-before-seen aerial photos from September 11th, but I looked at them on CNN. I won't remember who got a story first, but I will remember that CBS got this George W. Bush story wrong, and other instances like this.
2. Would you ever badger an unwilling informant to get a good story?
As a sports reporter, I can't imagine any sports story being so important that I would go through the trouble of trying to pry information out of someone. There are plenty of good stories to tell in sports, and I would likely move on to the next one. For news reporters, there are important stories, and their answers might be different than those of sports reporters.
3. Would you ever use confidential documents without permission for a good story?
No. Even if it is a hassle, I always make sure I get permission to use and information or images that I do. Especially if they are confidential, I get permission.
4. Do you think journalists are necessary watchdogs when it comes to the government?
Absolutely. Since a lot of Americans don't even watch the news or read a newspaper, they absolutely don't watch C-SPAN or read Congressional Quarterly. Americans do not learn about the government first-hand. They learn about it through news organizations. Without them, the government could easily divulge what they want to divulge and cover up what they want to cover up.
5. What is most important to you:
a. having a large (reader) following
b. earning high profits
c. producing quality journalism
I'm going to say 'a', and here's why. A journalist can produce quality journalism and not have a large following. But, I think journalists' large followings reflect their quality journalism. Viewers/readers know quality journalism. They're not stupid. I think 'a' includes 'c' most of the time, but not necessarily the other way around.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Media Bias
The group that presented in class highlighted 7 types of media bias. As a broadcast journalism major, I am focusing on the television media, and as a (former) political science minor, I am focusing on political bias.
- Political
It is no secret that Fox News is conservative and MSNBC is liberal. I don't think it is such a bad thing. Still, both sides are being represented. What is disturbing is when people refuse to recognize those biases. Fox News still claims to be "Fair and Balanced" and this advisor of President Obama was hesitant to say that MSNBC is biased. The New York Times seems to get it though.
I think very highly of Tom Brokaw as well as of his successor Brian Williams. I do not detect political bias in their reporting. That, and the fact that John Williams composed the theme for "NBC Nightly News" is why I like watching NBC News.
Both MSNBC and Fox News provide meaningful political coverage on their cable networks. I do not feel they are deceptive in their bias, and for that reason do not mind it. But as Campbell Brown said at the end of her broadcast, "When you just target one side, you reveal your own bias -- that you are only critical of those who are critical of you". Thus, government, private institutions, and individuals must not pretend that the bias does not exist.
- Political
It is no secret that Fox News is conservative and MSNBC is liberal. I don't think it is such a bad thing. Still, both sides are being represented. What is disturbing is when people refuse to recognize those biases. Fox News still claims to be "Fair and Balanced" and this advisor of President Obama was hesitant to say that MSNBC is biased. The New York Times seems to get it though.
I think very highly of Tom Brokaw as well as of his successor Brian Williams. I do not detect political bias in their reporting. That, and the fact that John Williams composed the theme for "NBC Nightly News" is why I like watching NBC News.
Both MSNBC and Fox News provide meaningful political coverage on their cable networks. I do not feel they are deceptive in their bias, and for that reason do not mind it. But as Campbell Brown said at the end of her broadcast, "When you just target one side, you reveal your own bias -- that you are only critical of those who are critical of you". Thus, government, private institutions, and individuals must not pretend that the bias does not exist.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
What is journalism?
Journalism is comprised of two main parts -- the gathering of information, and the presentation and publication of that information to a mass audience. Many people gather information. A professor conducting research, a student writing a thesis, or a consultant collecting data for a client all gather information. But what they do is not journalism. An instructor teaching a class, a local elementary school student selling items for a fundraiser, or a blogger commenting on current events and issues all present information. But what they do is not journalism.
Journalists gather information through research, interviews, and first-hand knowledge and present and publish it to mass audiences through the medium of written word (newspapers, magazines) or the medium of spoken word (radio, television).
I do not agree with the notion of a "citizen journalist". The internet has made it possible for virtually anyone to comment on virtually anything and reveal it to the world through written word (blogging) or spoken word (video blogging). These individuals are no different, however, than their ancestors who did the same thing in taverns and other public meeting places well before the days of the internet. The medium has allowed for their comments to reach more people, but the nature of the individual has not changed.
Journalism entails both the medium and the individual. The individual must be a journalist who not only gathers, not only presents, not only publishes information, but does all of this.
Journalists gather information through research, interviews, and first-hand knowledge and present and publish it to mass audiences through the medium of written word (newspapers, magazines) or the medium of spoken word (radio, television).
I do not agree with the notion of a "citizen journalist". The internet has made it possible for virtually anyone to comment on virtually anything and reveal it to the world through written word (blogging) or spoken word (video blogging). These individuals are no different, however, than their ancestors who did the same thing in taverns and other public meeting places well before the days of the internet. The medium has allowed for their comments to reach more people, but the nature of the individual has not changed.
Journalism entails both the medium and the individual. The individual must be a journalist who not only gathers, not only presents, not only publishes information, but does all of this.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)