The Future of Journalism

Star Magazine is the "trashy tabloid" that was first analyzed. Life & Style and in Touch Weekly were purchased at the same time (by a very brave man named Dennis Rose) in order to assist in the Trashy Tabloid Analysis that was previously explained.

It is very hard to get through a single tabloid from cover to cover due to the amount of analysis that needs to be done. There are many things than can be focused on, but from pages 1-39 (out of the 84 pages) the biggest thing noticed within this specific tabloid (this may be true of the others, but the analysis is going to be of each single tabloid and then at the end there can be comparisons)is that there are no sources to the stories.

The pages that have been analyzed thoroughly and read are pages 1-39, so this analysis is only for Star Magazine December 27, 2010 issue pages 1-39 with a focus on credibility of sources.

The magazine claims to have so many "Exclusive Interviews," but the only interview that falls under that category is the interview with Kristen StephensonPino. She tells the magazine all about how Johnny Depp is into her and all sorts of things. Of course, the only other sources credited within that article (titled "Johnny Hits On Teen Model") are anonymous sources. Unfortunately, the magazine mentions that she is a "full natural C-cup" before informing readers that Kristen is 19-years-old. So, the fact that she is a full natural C-cup is clearly more important than how old this "teen model" is. Maybe pages 39-84 will be more impressive.

The other articles all had quotes from "insiders" or "pals." How about going out and finding someone who will go on record so that the article can be credible. That's not journalism - that's laziness. Why should anyone trust what is being said by someone who won't even reveal the name publicly. For all we know the "inside source" is some random person on the street that the "reporter" found.

Then there's the cover story about Ashton Kutcher being involved in a "MURDER SCANDAL."
All right - his ex-girlfriend from many years ago had been murdered, and he will apparently be making statements in court regarding what he knew about her and the alleged killer. Also, the magazine calls the alleged killer a "cold-blooded serial killer" without ever saying "allegedly" or anything that could save face.

The entire article has not even a single interview with Ashton Kutcher. So, it's an article about Ashton Kutcher "being involved in a murder scandal," but the only interviews are a Detective and a "friend."

At least attempt to get an interview from someone credible and then put "*CREDIBLE PERSON* was unable to be reached for comment" or "*CREDIBLE PERSON* refused to comment." Something that shows that the reporter isn't just a lazy person who sits around listening to gossip and interviewing random people on the street. Seriously, I feel bad that Dennis had to pay money for this publication. I am glad that the analysis will be thorough, but honestly. This isn't journalism.

The quote from the friend is: "Ashton's worried sick about taking the witness stand."
That is according to "a friend."
Really? Why don't you go ask Ashton himself.
Why doesn't the friend have a name?

This drove me crazy throughout the entire analysis process - which is why I stopped on page 39. I haven't even gotten to the big Tom Cruise - Katie Holmes cover story yet. Fingers are crossed that there is an actual interview done with Tom or Katie and included within the article. Seriously.

If the only "sources" that your publication has are "friends," "pals," "insiders" and "guests" then either your reporters are lazy or no one wants to go on record - if no one wants to go on record and have their name associated with a quote then GO FIND SOMEONE WHO WILL. Go find someone who is willing to have their name printed in the magazine in attribution to the quote. It's understandable to have maybe one anonymous source every so often, but if the ONLY source in your article is an ANONYMOUS source - then you don't have an article. The blogs on the internet have more research and credible sources than that publication which has a paid staff and has a nice readership.

It would be nice to see demographics and statistics of the readership of Star. There is also an article within the first 39 pages regarding one of the stars of MTV's Teen Mom - something to do with her being pregnant again and not knowing who the father is - that didn't have any sources either...

Nikky Raney reading Star Magazine

That's all for pages 1-39.
This magazine was the most expensive of the three. This one was $3.99 and the other two were $2.99, but don't worry there's no sales tax in New Hampshire.

Is this publication trying to be a respected news source or is it content with being filled with gossip and unreliable information? It's sad that magazines like Newsweek are faced with tough times in publication - but magazines like Star are selling no problem. There's something wrong with this picture -- and the Future of Journalism needs to fix it.

When writing a hard news piece (for print or web) it seems as though quite a few news outlets are publishing and producing stories with few sources.

Hard news is timely and usually also involves proximity. Some examples include fires, murders, business, politics, international affairs, etc.

With hard news the inverted pyramid structure (more about that here) is very useful.

Hard news generally will involve the reporter going out and obtaining interviews first hand. Although the news is timely and up-to-date that does not excuse laziness with sources. More and more there are news outlets serving stories that could easily be confused as blog posts - meaning the sources used are usually aggregated from other news sources. With blogging that is fine - bloggers are not held to the same standards as journalists.

With a hard news story there should always be a first hand interview included with someone directly involved with the story.

For example: If the reporter was assigned to cover and report about a local drug bust a source that is essential to the story would be a police officer or any other authority involved (it will later be discussed how to deal with those type of stories in terms of semantics). Another person who would be ideal to interview would be neighbors or friends that would be willing to go on record. If there is a family member that would be willing to contribute to the story that would be great.

Interviewing the police officer is essential, because that is where the information that will be in the lead is obtained. Finding out the who, what, where and when can all be done by an interview with the authority who was at the scene.

In some scenarios secondary sources are also good to add to go along with the first hand sources. Secondary sources would include information gathered via another news source or outlet that the reporter did not go out and directly get first hand (like citing another news source or web site).

The next blog posts will go into detail for the sources essential to features, columns, reviews, editorials, etc.

For the record, blog posts will most likely include side commentary and opinions from the blogger as well as news obtained from secondary sources (other web sites), and in some cases (like this entry) the information provided comes directly from the blogger.

After viewing the video of Journalism 101: Interview DOs and DON'Ts there may be some who are looking for further explanation. This is the blog post where the dos and don'ts are better explained. Please understand these are all relating to interviews for a print or web story. Interviews for broadcast are similar, but there are more restrictions.

I am sorry for delaying this blog entry. With my birthday just passing, and some other very personal/upsetting situations arising it has been hard for me to keep my head on straight. I have been somewhat of an emotional train wreck, but I am going to attempt to at least begin this blog entry and see what comes of it.

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.