I sincerely hope I never have to write headlines again after I graduate.
But anyway, I found the commentary on the bad headlines we read really funny.
Some favorites: Iraqi head seeks arms. Someone HAD to have been chuckling at that in the newsroom. SOMEONE noticed the double meaning, I know they did.
Prostitutes appeal to pope. Eye drops off shelf.
But some of these seem really avoidable - they are just bad headlines in general. Kids make nutritious snacks. War dims hope for peace.
I think the article we read, "Astronaut soars across headlines," was interesting and definitely valid. The fact that this twisted love triangle became such a media spectacle was really ridiculous. From the Post and the Daily News, you sort of expect those sensational headlines, but for the CBS Evening News to take the story so seriously is just a joke itself.
It's interesting how different all of the financial bailout headlines were at papers across the country. My least favorite, by far, was 'No love for bailout.' Beside the fact that it's sort of making light of a serious situation, it doesn't really say anything! What does that mean?
I liked 'Markets convulse as House rejects bailout,' by the Wichita Eagle. It's concise, it's accurate and informative. Also, it emphasizes the effect the rejection will have on Main Street, which is what most readers care about.
First of all, I didn't know there were so many newspapers in Illinois. As for their coverage of the Blagojevich scandal - it was interesting to see how varied it was. I think the Daily Chronicle did the best job. The front page looks very appropriate. They haven't lessened the seriousness of the crime but haven't sensationalized it either. The photo is appropriate (in some photos on these fronts, it looks like Blagojevich might actually be about to crack a smile) and I like the quote in the headline - I think it really draws readers in.
Some of the other fronts were interesting as well. I actually really liked the Chicago-Sun Tribune. It was just nice to see someone try something different. I'm sure plenty of people picked that up to see how they were approaching the story with a front like that.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
April 1 reading
I'm glad I got this section of The Times' ethics guidelines because I found it really interesting. I think it was very smart of the Times to regulate freelance work and other copyright sort of issues. It's something I wouldn't have thought of if I was creating my own publication but now something I'll definitely keep in mind.
What I found particularly interesting was that the Times asks reporters who maintain personal Web sites to adhere to the same ethics guidelines there that they do when they are publishing for The Times. It really shows the amount of attention the Times pays to its reputation. The company believes that any one associated with it should be of a certain ethical standard, even in their personal space. This same idea applies to the fact that Times employees are not supposed to accept freelance work at publications that are not of the same moral code as The Times.
In my own publication, I would also definitely encourage employees to pitch any outside freelance work to our own publication before looking elsewhere. (This was the general gist of pages 28-33) I think it creates a sense of community among employees that you are interested in their work and ideas and flexible in what you can offer them. On top of that, if an employee is good enough to work for the publication in some capacity, why wouldn't you want to look at other work they've done? It would seem silly to let someone else have it.
What I found particularly interesting was that the Times asks reporters who maintain personal Web sites to adhere to the same ethics guidelines there that they do when they are publishing for The Times. It really shows the amount of attention the Times pays to its reputation. The company believes that any one associated with it should be of a certain ethical standard, even in their personal space. This same idea applies to the fact that Times employees are not supposed to accept freelance work at publications that are not of the same moral code as The Times.
In my own publication, I would also definitely encourage employees to pitch any outside freelance work to our own publication before looking elsewhere. (This was the general gist of pages 28-33) I think it creates a sense of community among employees that you are interested in their work and ideas and flexible in what you can offer them. On top of that, if an employee is good enough to work for the publication in some capacity, why wouldn't you want to look at other work they've done? It would seem silly to let someone else have it.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
March 25 reading
It seems silly to me that any code of ethics would have to be specified for electronic journalists when we are constantly saying that they should be held to the same standards as any other journalist. Just by saying that these are the ethics guidelines for electronic journalists - aren't we implying that there is some difference between them and other journalists? That doesn't make sense to me. And it's not as if anything on that list of ethics practices really differs from any other code of ethics I've seen, but I just don't see why the association would even create that loophole for the future. What might have made more sense, in my opinion, is to find examples of how situations from a journalists code of ethics might apply differently to electronic journalists than to print journalists. I think we are all still responsible for the same moral code, but I can see situations in which an electronic journalists might be confused about how to approach things on the Web - especially since the Web is so conducive to visuals and free-flowing information and, as Robert Steele wrote, getting it all out "as quickly as possible."
The thing is, I think that posts like Robert Steeles and the conversations that Poynter had with online journalists are blowing the issue out of proportion. Everyone should just say: do things online exactly how you've learned to do them in print. Then you have specific conversations when things arise that make those old rules unclear. But to have these big conferences about the ethics of online journalism just gives journalists the idea that the ethics are different which is where all these questions come from. I mean really, look at that list of questions that journalists have asked about ethics - is there ANY reason that ANY practicing journalist should have to pose a concern like, "speed of posting versus confirmation"? That's pretty much Into to Journalism. Not online journalism. Just journalism.
Honestly, because of the view I just shared - I didn't read the post on the ethics of online journalism. It's just too much.
The guide to audio and video editing does make sense though and I actually found it very useful. One thing I found really interesting was the idea that viewers are quicker to place blame on a subject viewed in slow motion than in standard speed. I doubt that I would ever find reason to put slow motion into a video I was producing, but that's really intersting!
I think the ethics of digital photography are a little vague. In reading the sections "What you can do' and 'what you can't do,' I find that there is a big gap that is not covered there. It's possible this is because the guide was written in 2002 and since then there are a lot more capabilities in digital photography, but I don't think it tells the whole story. For example, the guide says that it's within reasons to make adjustments in focus or glare - but the author of this post had an issue with an over-sharpened photo in a professional publication. So where's the explanation there? How do you know what's too much?
In that same vein, I really appreciated the depth to which the Sarasota Herald-Tribune explained their photo policy and broke it down into what warrants what level of discussion. It is obvious that the paper provides an open, discussion-based environment that is willing to judge things on a case by case basis instead of instituting hardfast rules. In times when the technology is constantly changing, this seems like the smartest strategy. It was also interesting to see what other papers considered acceptable or unacceptable in terms of photo content and manipulation. Especially interesting is the restriction of photos that feature bodies or victims (which I found appropriately sensitive of the papers) and photos of politicians signing documents or looking at checks near a campaign season. You can tell that these staffs have really thought long and hard about how these images are perceived by their readers.
The thing is, I think that posts like Robert Steeles and the conversations that Poynter had with online journalists are blowing the issue out of proportion. Everyone should just say: do things online exactly how you've learned to do them in print. Then you have specific conversations when things arise that make those old rules unclear. But to have these big conferences about the ethics of online journalism just gives journalists the idea that the ethics are different which is where all these questions come from. I mean really, look at that list of questions that journalists have asked about ethics - is there ANY reason that ANY practicing journalist should have to pose a concern like, "speed of posting versus confirmation"? That's pretty much Into to Journalism. Not online journalism. Just journalism.
Honestly, because of the view I just shared - I didn't read the post on the ethics of online journalism. It's just too much.
The guide to audio and video editing does make sense though and I actually found it very useful. One thing I found really interesting was the idea that viewers are quicker to place blame on a subject viewed in slow motion than in standard speed. I doubt that I would ever find reason to put slow motion into a video I was producing, but that's really intersting!
I think the ethics of digital photography are a little vague. In reading the sections "What you can do' and 'what you can't do,' I find that there is a big gap that is not covered there. It's possible this is because the guide was written in 2002 and since then there are a lot more capabilities in digital photography, but I don't think it tells the whole story. For example, the guide says that it's within reasons to make adjustments in focus or glare - but the author of this post had an issue with an over-sharpened photo in a professional publication. So where's the explanation there? How do you know what's too much?
In that same vein, I really appreciated the depth to which the Sarasota Herald-Tribune explained their photo policy and broke it down into what warrants what level of discussion. It is obvious that the paper provides an open, discussion-based environment that is willing to judge things on a case by case basis instead of instituting hardfast rules. In times when the technology is constantly changing, this seems like the smartest strategy. It was also interesting to see what other papers considered acceptable or unacceptable in terms of photo content and manipulation. Especially interesting is the restriction of photos that feature bodies or victims (which I found appropriately sensitive of the papers) and photos of politicians signing documents or looking at checks near a campaign season. You can tell that these staffs have really thought long and hard about how these images are perceived by their readers.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
March 18 reading
The interviews with the Hartford Courant, Oklahoman and Chicago Tribune were really interesting! I think that thinking about design is a huge part of journalism that is often overlooked on the end of the journalist. I'm sure this is the same thing that has frustrated Karl Gude at Michigan State. With multimedia all the buzz, reporters are constantly told to think about how they can tell their stories visually, but that's still a very different thing than thinking about what page design is saying about your story. I thought it was really interesting that the Oklahoman talked about "entry points" since that's such a Web thing. Online there's really not one way to go about reading a page because we just scan along and read what we feel like reading. I also thought it was interesting to hear about the Hartford Courant's use of dot-com in the front page banner. I wouldn't have thought that one of the oldest newspapers in the country would be so willing to refer to the Web in such a blatantly obvious way. I think the redesigns and the way that the editors talk about the design are really indicative of the way that the industry is moving.
The focus on Web-like design is definitely something we can take into consideration when we are designing the print version of our project for class. I predict we'll use color as a navigation tool and add a lot of visual, pop out elements to help streamline the storytelling and break things up for the reader.
Design also plays a heavy role in the idea brought up in the article "One Image, One Word," because the truth is, that idea doesn't play out without the right design. And also, to back up Gude again, journalists need to be able to think visually and graphicially to really get that. You have to have a visual storytelling-trained eye to be able to see a photograph and know immediately whether it is strong enough to tell the story alone.
I really didn't find the "Is the Web a Tab?" article relevant to this discussion or worth reading.
I really liked the reading on design myths. I think it's important to consider breaking "the rules" from time to time and something I'm sure we'll experiment with in our own publication. The grid system of design has been design editors' go-to response at the paper whenever I don't understand why something can't be done the way I want it to - so I'm glad to finally understand what the grid is.
What I found the most interesting about looking at the "World's best designed newspapers" was how extremely different they look from all the newspapers I'm used to reading. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, even The Ithaca Journal - all look nothing like that. It just goes to show that just because something is how it's always been doesn't mean it's really working. Again, it's really important for us, as up and coming professionals, to bring with us new ideas about what works, what doesn't, and how we can "break the rules."
The focus on Web-like design is definitely something we can take into consideration when we are designing the print version of our project for class. I predict we'll use color as a navigation tool and add a lot of visual, pop out elements to help streamline the storytelling and break things up for the reader.
Design also plays a heavy role in the idea brought up in the article "One Image, One Word," because the truth is, that idea doesn't play out without the right design. And also, to back up Gude again, journalists need to be able to think visually and graphicially to really get that. You have to have a visual storytelling-trained eye to be able to see a photograph and know immediately whether it is strong enough to tell the story alone.
I really didn't find the "Is the Web a Tab?" article relevant to this discussion or worth reading.
I really liked the reading on design myths. I think it's important to consider breaking "the rules" from time to time and something I'm sure we'll experiment with in our own publication. The grid system of design has been design editors' go-to response at the paper whenever I don't understand why something can't be done the way I want it to - so I'm glad to finally understand what the grid is.
What I found the most interesting about looking at the "World's best designed newspapers" was how extremely different they look from all the newspapers I'm used to reading. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, even The Ithaca Journal - all look nothing like that. It just goes to show that just because something is how it's always been doesn't mean it's really working. Again, it's really important for us, as up and coming professionals, to bring with us new ideas about what works, what doesn't, and how we can "break the rules."
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
March 4 reading
I bascially couldn't sympathize with Joe Mathews more - the news industry obviously needs an injection. It seems that what's happened though is that over time, the industry has just been trying to stay afloat and evolving however it saw fit to do that - but the larger picture didn't turn out exactly as we expected it to. Peter Osnos then called it the "demonstrably broken business model of metropolitan newspapers and news magazines" And now, we are left with a skeleton of what has historically been the newspaper industry. It does what it's supposed to do at half the cost - but obviously some, Joe Mathews, would argue that it's only doing half what it's supposed to do. To be honest, our Top 20 idea for class almost perpetuates the problem Mathews describes. It's not to say I don't think it's still a good idea (we are going to choose the Top 20 stories relative to the lives of 20-somethings every day), but it's an example of how the industry has changed. I actually think that our Web site could be really successful. That's because people our age only want 20 stories. Maybe it's because any 20-something who hasn't studied journalism doesn't know what it used to be. I think that a lot of people don't realize that journalism isn't doing what it used to do - exposes and meaningful investigative reports are few and far between. And it's sad that an entire industry, and even the entire realm of expectations for that industry, have changed because of budgetary restrictions.
I think that the way some of today's readings relate is through society's expectations of what journalism does and how that has evolved. It's sort of a chicken or the egg question: did the expecations change because the business model forced journalism to change or was it the other way around? But let's imagine a city without it's daily newspaper, as David Folkenflik writes about. It saddens me as much as any newsie, but people would get by. I think that right now, the up and coming news audience - the 20 somethings we want to serve in our project - care more about news by niche (in this case 20 somethings) than by region. I don't know any 20-somethings that care what happened at the local board of education meeting but they do want to know how to get a job, if they have health insurance, even which club is best for a Friday night.
I'm really not sure there's still a way to keep funding local newspapers when the industry finally collapses. ProPublica has been a huge success, but it's backed by one wealthy family. I agree with Peter Osnos, who funds this? If you don't have a check you can rely on then you don't really have a stable business model. ProPublica is appealing to financial backers because of the nature of the work, but what about other kinds of work. Will someone fund a Web site that only runs feature stories? Profiles? Will we lose those stories altogether? Just because they aren't shining light on corruption doesn't mean they aren't stories valuable to the community. That's my worry in moving to a ProPublica-type model. Do I have a solution? Definitely not.
I think that the way some of today's readings relate is through society's expectations of what journalism does and how that has evolved. It's sort of a chicken or the egg question: did the expecations change because the business model forced journalism to change or was it the other way around? But let's imagine a city without it's daily newspaper, as David Folkenflik writes about. It saddens me as much as any newsie, but people would get by. I think that right now, the up and coming news audience - the 20 somethings we want to serve in our project - care more about news by niche (in this case 20 somethings) than by region. I don't know any 20-somethings that care what happened at the local board of education meeting but they do want to know how to get a job, if they have health insurance, even which club is best for a Friday night.
I'm really not sure there's still a way to keep funding local newspapers when the industry finally collapses. ProPublica has been a huge success, but it's backed by one wealthy family. I agree with Peter Osnos, who funds this? If you don't have a check you can rely on then you don't really have a stable business model. ProPublica is appealing to financial backers because of the nature of the work, but what about other kinds of work. Will someone fund a Web site that only runs feature stories? Profiles? Will we lose those stories altogether? Just because they aren't shining light on corruption doesn't mean they aren't stories valuable to the community. That's my worry in moving to a ProPublica-type model. Do I have a solution? Definitely not.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Feb. 25 reading
I'm glad we read about Spot.us in the article by one of its founders, David Cohn, because I think it's important to start pitching ideas about how to save the journalism business model rather than just complain about its failures. However, I don't think Spot.us is it. I'm glad, also, that Cohn realizes that the site has faults as well. From what I've heard, Spot.us has been pretty successful since it's gone live but I'm still very concerned about citizen reporting and a lack of editing. Especially the lack of editing. When reporters are getting paid by the citizens who want to read these stories, are they going to have certain loyalties? Certain biases? Those are important questions without answers. There's no oversight there. How can anyone trust what they're getting? And what's more, who's actually paying for these stories? If I owned a business in town, might it not be the same price to pay a reporter to write what is presented as an unbiased story about my organziation than to pay for advertising - which may or may not be effective to consumers? And in answer to my own question - the people who are paying for stories are people who can afford to spend money on that sort of luxury - the luxury of choosing what the news is. Doesn't that leave a large gap in the demographic of the readership who gets the stories they want told? I think Spot.us is an interesting experiment but could never be used as a business model for the news industry in general.
As Jim Kennedy and Josh Korr also write, it's obvious the industry needs a new model. But I agree with Kennedy that everything is happening so fast that people are scrambling to come up with new ideas, many of which aren't working. I, personally, don't understand the model Korr came up with - "link journalism" sounds like another catchphrase to me and I find it disheartening that after particpatory journalism, citizen journalism and the million other terms they've come up with to reinvent this profession, we are still in this stage. The one element of Korr's plan for a link based exchange that I did agree with; however, was the idea that it could provide readers with a reinstated trust in journalism. It's similar to the idea presetned in last week's reading by the Businessweek editor who created Businessweek Exchange. But I prefer the businessweek model because it separates traditional journalism with the more innovative and experimental ideas. So Businessweek provides both for its readers -but wants them to know that their roots lie in professionalism. I'm not sure I see a huge benefit to Korr's model of a link exchange - it's basically just a social network for journalists, which is a good idea, but I don't think we need to overplay it into an idea of a new and separate kind of journalism. That's not journalism and there is a real danger in constantly relabeling the profession because it loosens the ties between it and its deeply-rooted practices.
I appreciated James Gannon's article on the news service he started in Virginia more so than the other models presented in this week's reading. I like the idea that this veteran journalist and editor served as an editor in this capacity as well, the lack of oversight is my main problem with other business models presented to save journalism. And I think that, contrary to the fact that the Web has made the world "flat," people are becoming obsessed with finding a niche. It's almost as if the more people's world are opened up the more they want to retreat back to something small and more managable. We've already seen and read that niche publications are doing well and becoming more popular - I think we can assume location as a sort of niche itself. People want to read about their own niche in the world. I think this is a model that we can use when we are planning our own news sites in class. We should remember to stick to coverage we can manage and not reach too far. We should also remember that Gannon proves that people still want in-depth coverage and analysis, and not every news organization has to switch to a Twitter-like model of brief synapsis.
As Jim Kennedy and Josh Korr also write, it's obvious the industry needs a new model. But I agree with Kennedy that everything is happening so fast that people are scrambling to come up with new ideas, many of which aren't working. I, personally, don't understand the model Korr came up with - "link journalism" sounds like another catchphrase to me and I find it disheartening that after particpatory journalism, citizen journalism and the million other terms they've come up with to reinvent this profession, we are still in this stage. The one element of Korr's plan for a link based exchange that I did agree with; however, was the idea that it could provide readers with a reinstated trust in journalism. It's similar to the idea presetned in last week's reading by the Businessweek editor who created Businessweek Exchange. But I prefer the businessweek model because it separates traditional journalism with the more innovative and experimental ideas. So Businessweek provides both for its readers -but wants them to know that their roots lie in professionalism. I'm not sure I see a huge benefit to Korr's model of a link exchange - it's basically just a social network for journalists, which is a good idea, but I don't think we need to overplay it into an idea of a new and separate kind of journalism. That's not journalism and there is a real danger in constantly relabeling the profession because it loosens the ties between it and its deeply-rooted practices.
I appreciated James Gannon's article on the news service he started in Virginia more so than the other models presented in this week's reading. I like the idea that this veteran journalist and editor served as an editor in this capacity as well, the lack of oversight is my main problem with other business models presented to save journalism. And I think that, contrary to the fact that the Web has made the world "flat," people are becoming obsessed with finding a niche. It's almost as if the more people's world are opened up the more they want to retreat back to something small and more managable. We've already seen and read that niche publications are doing well and becoming more popular - I think we can assume location as a sort of niche itself. People want to read about their own niche in the world. I think this is a model that we can use when we are planning our own news sites in class. We should remember to stick to coverage we can manage and not reach too far. We should also remember that Gannon proves that people still want in-depth coverage and analysis, and not every news organization has to switch to a Twitter-like model of brief synapsis.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Feb. 18 reading
I think Jeff Howe hit a few important points in his Nieman article about citizen journalism. It was interesting to read that a former city editor at the Cincinnati Enquirer was now reduced to posting what she said were basically press releases to the Web. The first disturbing part of that prospect is that a city editor has essentially become a community blog monitor. The second disturbing part is that the paper is content to publish public relations-like fodder and pass it off as news. This is the problem with citizen journalism but I know that's not something that's surprising to anyone. In fact, I found most of this article to be repetitive to others we've read in the Nieman Report and elsewhere, though it was nice to see Howe's use of real examples rather than hypothetical situations.
What I liked about Howe's article, though, was the detail about the Cincinnati Enqurier changing the link asking for citizen contributions on its Web site from "Be a Citizen Journalist" to "Get Published" and eventually discussing that really, the public just wants to "Share." I found that to be a key piece of information for planning the news sites we'll build in class. I think instead of relying on reader-generated content for news, we need to keep the contributions within a small radius of topics. I think to assume a news organization can get by without some sort of interactive or community element these days will lead to failure - but you have to be clear on what part of your organization is going to be community run and keep control of the rest. You want your readers to feel involved, so you give them a spot on the Web page - maybe even in the print section, to be really daring. But you have to take reader contributions for what they are - people just wanting to connect with others, share a part of their lives. I don't see any reason why a newspaper can't serve as that outlet, but it shouldn't confuse the motive. I think Businessweek got it right, according to the article by John Byrne. I love the idea of a separate part of the Web site where the content is determined by reader input and interest with results from trusted sources all over the Web and provided by Businessweek. This way, readers still have that connection with Businessweek as a publication that cares about what they care about, but they also have the comfort of knowing that they aren't missing out on any information out there by sticking to businessweek.com. It's a brillant model.
I liked the Bradshaw and Adee articles on journalists who blog and use other social media because it goes to show that the tools that are successful, journalistically, are written by professionals. Communicating with your audience, seeking out sources and information and updating readers are all intelligent, useful, effective and ethical ways for someone to utilize a blog. But as Bradshaw revealed in the example he used of a newspaper using the blog to get the story about a company that had gone bankrupt - only someone with a journalists sense of responsibility would know what to publish, what not to publish and how to go about verifying what he's finding. Bradshaw also points out that bloggers are held more accountable for their mistakes and because of that they are fixed more often and more quickly. Because the sites we are developing in class will most likely have open commenting and community sections, it will be important for us to remember this aspect of responsibility in reporting and commenting ourselves.
These articles were the perfect introduction to the one on ethics by Bob Steele. I don't think that the dilemmas that editors, in particular, face today can be overlooked. It's hard not to give credit to the blogosphere when that's where people are looking for their news - which might also often be called gossip. But, of course, if they thought of it as gossip, the information would never be considered by an editor as a valid source. Is it ethical to report this information then try to balance it with adverse opinions? I with about a million other editors who aren't sure. I think that what's important for editors is to just hold strong to the same basic standards of journalism that have been practiced for years. Yes, it's a new age of journalism. Yes, news gathering and reporting has changed drastically. And yes, there will be certain elements of our standards that will have to evolve with the times. But in general, I think all basic journalism ethics withstand the changes, and editors keep a clear head when presented with new situations to be able to see that.
What I liked about Howe's article, though, was the detail about the Cincinnati Enqurier changing the link asking for citizen contributions on its Web site from "Be a Citizen Journalist" to "Get Published" and eventually discussing that really, the public just wants to "Share." I found that to be a key piece of information for planning the news sites we'll build in class. I think instead of relying on reader-generated content for news, we need to keep the contributions within a small radius of topics. I think to assume a news organization can get by without some sort of interactive or community element these days will lead to failure - but you have to be clear on what part of your organization is going to be community run and keep control of the rest. You want your readers to feel involved, so you give them a spot on the Web page - maybe even in the print section, to be really daring. But you have to take reader contributions for what they are - people just wanting to connect with others, share a part of their lives. I don't see any reason why a newspaper can't serve as that outlet, but it shouldn't confuse the motive. I think Businessweek got it right, according to the article by John Byrne. I love the idea of a separate part of the Web site where the content is determined by reader input and interest with results from trusted sources all over the Web and provided by Businessweek. This way, readers still have that connection with Businessweek as a publication that cares about what they care about, but they also have the comfort of knowing that they aren't missing out on any information out there by sticking to businessweek.com. It's a brillant model.
I liked the Bradshaw and Adee articles on journalists who blog and use other social media because it goes to show that the tools that are successful, journalistically, are written by professionals. Communicating with your audience, seeking out sources and information and updating readers are all intelligent, useful, effective and ethical ways for someone to utilize a blog. But as Bradshaw revealed in the example he used of a newspaper using the blog to get the story about a company that had gone bankrupt - only someone with a journalists sense of responsibility would know what to publish, what not to publish and how to go about verifying what he's finding. Bradshaw also points out that bloggers are held more accountable for their mistakes and because of that they are fixed more often and more quickly. Because the sites we are developing in class will most likely have open commenting and community sections, it will be important for us to remember this aspect of responsibility in reporting and commenting ourselves.
These articles were the perfect introduction to the one on ethics by Bob Steele. I don't think that the dilemmas that editors, in particular, face today can be overlooked. It's hard not to give credit to the blogosphere when that's where people are looking for their news - which might also often be called gossip. But, of course, if they thought of it as gossip, the information would never be considered by an editor as a valid source. Is it ethical to report this information then try to balance it with adverse opinions? I with about a million other editors who aren't sure. I think that what's important for editors is to just hold strong to the same basic standards of journalism that have been practiced for years. Yes, it's a new age of journalism. Yes, news gathering and reporting has changed drastically. And yes, there will be certain elements of our standards that will have to evolve with the times. But in general, I think all basic journalism ethics withstand the changes, and editors keep a clear head when presented with new situations to be able to see that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
