The Future of Journalism

Who doesn't remember the tragic and disturbing story Josef Fritzl keeping his daughter in his basement dungeon for over 20 years? As journalism evolves reporters are digging deeper and deeper into personal lives. We are investigating and hoping to find out as much as possible. We want to show and educate the world on what we know, but sometimes journalists forget the emotions that come with a story like that.

As a journalist I am to be objective, but does that mean that I should lack compassion? It seems as though some journalists will do anything in order to get a story. And there are some stories that will wreck lives and relationships.

Thing of Tiger Woods. Journalists just kept digging deeper and deeper to find out what happened. His personal life has been exposed, and is that fair? Would we do this to someone we knew personally? Would we have shown this of the normal guy off the street? Would we do that if Tiger Woods had been a family member, or a close friend? What if we were that person?

I am guilty of being stoic and determined at times. I'm not saying that getting an interview and story causes me to overlook the feelings of others, but when there's a hot topic story that I have good interviews for, or a strong stance on, I may neglect the feelings of the audience while reading the story. Knowing that certain audience members may feel uncomfortable at times, but as long as I am being objective and accurate I feel like I am doing fine.

I can never be emotion-less with someone I am interviewing. I wear my heart on my sleeve and always have a smile. My voice and happy nature is so bubbly that in order to be taken seriously I am sticking with print. But reading it in print is not always going to convey the message in the way one would hope.

Are journalists becoming less caring of others? Are we giving into sensationalism? Was it necessary for everyone to know about Tiger Woods or David Letterman? Just because they are public figures does that mean that we deserve to know every lie they tell? Does their fame automatically give a journalist the right to publish stories on their personal life? Would we do this with any average person?

The reason I even started on this topic is an article I just saw on Fark.com.

"Single mum had sex 191 times with boy, 12"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/02/27/single-mum-had-sex-191-times-with-boy-12-115875-22072646/

The article seems like it required investigation and a lot of legal work. Does this woman, who is now seen as a criminal and a pedophile deserve to have her photo there? And did anyone think of the reprecussions that this may have on that boy? Even if the boy isn't mentioned; it won't be hard to find out who the boy was.

I was reading an article in the local newspaper about 5 teenage girls that got into a car crash. It said that the driver was driving her father's truck, and then downward in the article it said the name of the person whom the car was registered to. That completely destroyed the anonymity of the girl. If that isn't the name of her father (which, if it's her father's truck I am sure it is), then it's someone who is close to her, and that will make it easier to identify the girl as well as the other teenagers in the crash.

I'm not saying I wouldn't cover these stories, and I am not saying they shouldn't be covered. But I think the format, media, and way that the stories are presented, as well as who the reporter decides to interview and how much time he or she decides to take in order to make the article accurate vs. being the first one to get the story out.

Cheers.

"Objective journalism and an opinion column are about as similar as the Bible and Playboy magazine." -- Walter Cronkite

First of all let me say that I was pleased to see a comment from a user other than one of my classmates left on my previous post. It makes me smile knowing that I am reaching others, and it makes me want to work even harder.

I am taking a Radio Writing & Reporting Class.
My school, NESCom, has an amazing radio station, 89.3 WHSN.
It's an alternative station, and I love alternative music.

But, where does radio stand in terms of news?
NPR (National Public Radio) is still going strong, but what is to come in the future?

Edward R. Murrow was an amazing journalist, and he made being a broadcast journalist for radio and television a complete hit. A lot has changed since Murrow, and is radio still a place for credible news?

I will leave that question in your head and expect a follow up blog entry on this subject.

When discussing the future of journalism I have neglected to mention the impact of editorial Cartoons. I strongly believe that editorial cartoons will be around no matter how the future of journalism twists and turns. Editorial Cartoons are usually political, and the cartoon is able to say just as much as an article (when done correctly). Sometimes editorial cartoons are able to invoke as much emotion and start as much of an impact as an article.

That was corny, I realize.
I want more people, future journalists in particular, to go on Poynter Online more often.
That is one of my favorite websites when it comes to journalism and regarding the future of journalism.

http://www.poynter.org/

The website includes news, and follows all forms of journalism from broadcast to print to web. This website can really help future journalists, and I just wanted to put that out there.

Cheers.


"I think journalism is a great way to do public service, to have an impact on your community. " - Bob Schieffer

This is a quick blog entry to give a quick exerpt from my brain.
I was thinking a lot about newspapers (while reading a New York Times), and I understand that I love the physical newspaper as do many other people. I began to worry about newspapers only being available online, and that was upsetting to me. I know that many people, like myself, can only stare at a screen for so long without getting a head ache.

I like to highlight things, I like to circle, I like to cut out and paste things places, I like to put things on my wall. I love newspapers, magazines, books, etc.

And then I decided to think of other people.
I realized that the future of Journalism via web can still reach out to others through print, but I realized that online magazines (such as Slate.com) are saving the environment.

I recycle bottles, but I am a hoarder when it comes to the newspaper. I never throw my papers out, or my magazines, or anything else. But I realize that there are people out there who read a newspaper, and then go and throw it in the trash.

It just makes me look on the bright side that thanks to online news sources and the use of the internet maybe in the future it will help out the environment even if only marginally so. And maybe the newspapers, magazines that are currently being printed could revert to being printed on recycled paper.

Just a brief thought on the bright side.

p.s. I read an article previously that goes along with this topic. The article is called "The Only Thing Newspapers Are Good For is Killing Trees." Although I disagree with that statement, and according to AP Style headlines are only supposed to capitalize the first letter of the statement and then any proper nouns/names in the title, I decided to post the link for you to read anyway. It's not a great article, but it put some thoughts into my head. And even when you don't agree with a piece you read, it is worth reading if it really makes you think:

"Real journalism is done out of passion..."
http://www.socialtimes.com/2009/01/newspapers-kill-trees/



Cheers.

"I think almost every newspaper in the United States has lost circulation due to the Internet. I also think the Internet will lead to a lot of plagiarism in journalism." -- Will McDonough

Shield laws are on my mind. The future of the shield law is definitely going to contribute in a large way to the future of journalism.

For anyone reading this blog that may not understand "shield laws" I can explain. A shield law is legislation that is designed to provide news reporters/journalists the right to keep a source secret. The right to stand up in a court of law and refuse to testify the source in which the information/quotes were gathered from.

Many journalists have actually gone to jail due to the decision to NOT reveal the sources.

Without going back in history and recalling every case, I want to think to the future.
I know that each state has its own specific shield law or form of this law, but when it gets to the federal level how will it all be decided?

A fairly recent news article I found addressing this topic is from September 30, 2009 (scroll down to the bottom to my links to read more. I have included a more recent one that links to an article from late December 2009). An online article via nytimes.com says:

"The Obama administration has told lawmakers that it opposes legislation that could protect reporters from being imprisoned if they refuse to disclose confidential sources who leak material about national security, according to several people involved with the negotiations.
The administration this week sent to Congress sweeping revisions to a 'media shield' bill that would significantly weaken its protections against forcing reporters to testify. -Charlie Savage"
http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/obama_administration_opposing.php

Further reading explains that the rights may only extend to journalists that are hired for specific companies. That means that this right would not extend to freelance journalists, bloggers, college students working for college papers.. in other words anyone that isn't employed to a specific news organization.


I can see from the administration's point of view, but I think that it is my right as a journalist to be able to obtain this information -- and by interviewing other sources that will go on record and argue for / against the information provided , be able to expose this information. Anonymous sources can cause the credibility of the story to decrease, but in investigative cases it is necessary. I don't think it should happen quite often, and I think most of the time it happens once in a while when a BIG story is being leaked. Journalists know not to randomly allow confidentiality to a source unless it would truly damage the source's reputation, job, safety, etc. We need to keep our sources safe.

Journalists aren't working against the government (at least not me), and we are not working FOR the government. We are working alongside them, and everyone else, in order to accomplish our goal, to educate the public on things that truly matter. To provide information that the public deserves to have.

This could all be subjective, and I know most of it is, but I wonder what deep dark secret the government could be hiding if it is that important that cases of national security are not kept confidential.

I apologize if I don't make sense. I am rather sick and have been bedridden for over 24 hours. Shield laws have been one of the most prominent things within my mind, and I thought I would share this with you all.

Other articles regarding the shield laws:
USNEWS
HUFFINGTONPOST
POLITICALTICKER

Cheers.

I apologize for not getting to this sooner.