For this post, I have decided to examine all three outlets' treatment of a single story- Obama's recent 30-minute infomercial. As I have seen in my study, the Washington Post presents a far more comprehensive and in-depth analysis than the other two, which often allow partisan bias to color their reporting.
The Washington Post analyzed Obama’s ad, and put it in the context of the current campaign. It effectively showed how much Obama spent, what went into the ad and what some of his other tactics were, providing a more comprehensive view of the campaign. It also provided Howard Kurtz’s fair, informative commentary.
-The Huffington post featured http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/10/obama-ad-rating.html this article about how many people watched the infomercial and a direct link to the infomercial itself, but showed little effort in critiquing the infomercial or getting any new opinions. It only emphasized how popular it was, which Fox News had mentioned in its report.
-Fox News brought up the ad, presenting its main talking points, and seeming to show the audience reacting approvingly. However, the presenter focused on the audience’s negative reaction to the speech, while suggesting that the undecideds liked Obama as a person, clearly casting Obama in a negative light by suggesting that the people who judged him on character were not focusing on what mattered. The completely unanimous negative evaluation of the infomercial, especially in light of Fox’s conservative bias, also makes me doubt the methodology behind selecting the “undecided” voters.
While the story was in and of itself relatively unimportant, it helped highlight the three outlets' approaches to the election. The differences signify that often, the hectic deadlines of the internet and radio potentially lead to less comprehensive journalism due to time constraints. Stories that focus on being the first instead of being the best may outpace the competition, but if they do not provide enough information, they do not do the voters any good.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Mark Finkelstein: An Interesting Presenter of an Alternative View
While I often disagreed with what Mark Finkelstein's said in his talk at today's class, I personally found him more insightful and fair than Cliff Kincaid. Finkelstein incorporated a good body of evidence and historical detail in his talk, and came off as well-informed. His examples of liberal bias, like Dan Rather's forging the memos, were significantly more substantial than the ones Kincaid provided. He made the appropriate distinction between people who go on TV and give their opinion and people who make biased news reports, although he failed to note that Fox News claims to be "Fair and Balanced" in an almost Orwellian way. Rather than primarily focusing on the liberal media, Finkelstein provided effective advice about blogging, such as the effect that linking can have, and made an appropriate gesture of giving us his card after the talk, allowing us to contact him for any questions.
Unfortunately, Finkelstein tends to focus too much on the liberal media, while neglecting conservative and apolitical biases. Unlike Kincaid, however, he readily admits that there are conservative biases out there, but states that he has chosen to focus on liberal biases, showing that he is acknowledges the problem but chooses to focus his attention elsewhere, rather than willfully denying it. He occasionally used highly provocative comparisons, like equating Obama's association with Ayers with McCain associating with a KKK member. While I did not always agree with Kincaid, I respected his alternative viewpoint, and think that he should be invited back for Independent Media, as well as potentially for future Covering the National Election classes.
Unfortunately, Finkelstein tends to focus too much on the liberal media, while neglecting conservative and apolitical biases. Unlike Kincaid, however, he readily admits that there are conservative biases out there, but states that he has chosen to focus on liberal biases, showing that he is acknowledges the problem but chooses to focus his attention elsewhere, rather than willfully denying it. He occasionally used highly provocative comparisons, like equating Obama's association with Ayers with McCain associating with a KKK member. While I did not always agree with Kincaid, I respected his alternative viewpoint, and think that he should be invited back for Independent Media, as well as potentially for future Covering the National Election classes.
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Washington Post: "Why" as well as "What"
Journalism serves to answer the basic questions: who, what, when, where, why and how? While the first four serve as the basis for the "hard facts" of the story, the "why" and the "how" are no less important, as they serve to connect the story with other events and larger issues. Even if a story about a campaign event is perfectly accurate and as comprehensive as possible, if it does not have the "how" or the "why", it does not help the public understand the event's significance, which is why the Washington Post's reports are important as they are in this election.
-This Article effectively reports on why Obama currently possesses the advantage in the polls, and with whom. While knowing who is ahead can be important, the reasons why they are ahead helps illustrate the electorate's priorities and preferences in a candidate, as well as whether candidate strategies are attracting or alienating potential voters.
-While Sarah Palin is one of the more controversial figures in the 2008 race, few articles that I have seen have gone as in-depth into her effec on the campaign as this one does. Knowing what effect she has on the McCain campaign and what Republicans think of her is more useful information than discussion about her family, college education, or wardrobe, as this issue directly impacts McCain's chance of winning and strategies.
-This article takes an effective historical look at mailed political ads and how they changed over time, which is more substantial than merely highlighting new negative political ads. Unfortunately, it was placed in A13, a somewhat out of the way position, and should have been placed more prominently.
Elections and the events they involve are not self-contained, but are built off of past events, often involve the issues that arise in the course of the election, and once the candidates are elected, often lead to new discussions and new issues. Reporting on elections must thus take context into account, or else it will be nothing more than recounting current events, and of no benefit for informing voters. The Washington Post, however, fulfills this ideal in these stories and is well worth taking the time to read it.
-This Article effectively reports on why Obama currently possesses the advantage in the polls, and with whom. While knowing who is ahead can be important, the reasons why they are ahead helps illustrate the electorate's priorities and preferences in a candidate, as well as whether candidate strategies are attracting or alienating potential voters.
-While Sarah Palin is one of the more controversial figures in the 2008 race, few articles that I have seen have gone as in-depth into her effec on the campaign as this one does. Knowing what effect she has on the McCain campaign and what Republicans think of her is more useful information than discussion about her family, college education, or wardrobe, as this issue directly impacts McCain's chance of winning and strategies.
-This article takes an effective historical look at mailed political ads and how they changed over time, which is more substantial than merely highlighting new negative political ads. Unfortunately, it was placed in A13, a somewhat out of the way position, and should have been placed more prominently.
Elections and the events they involve are not self-contained, but are built off of past events, often involve the issues that arise in the course of the election, and once the candidates are elected, often lead to new discussions and new issues. Reporting on elections must thus take context into account, or else it will be nothing more than recounting current events, and of no benefit for informing voters. The Washington Post, however, fulfills this ideal in these stories and is well worth taking the time to read it.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Huffington Post: Misplaced Priorities in Story Selection
A news outlet’s intentions and professionalism are not only shown in how they report on the issues, but which ones they report on. Unfortunately, the latter standard shows the Huffington Post’s priorities are often misplaced, as they delve into completely inconsequential news about Sarah Palin.
-This article about Palin’s clothing is unbelievably superficial reporting, and without any redeeming news value apart from satisfying personal curiosity or serving as an attack on Palin. While $150,000 on clothing seems excessive, even for presidential candidates who must strive to look professional and appealing, it is an inconsequential sum compared to how much is spent on campaign expenses or new spending plans, items that if covered, would help readers understand the campaigns. This story from Politico, which the Post linked to, is a significantly better example in that it actually speaks to Republican donors and finds out what they think about this, receiving various and nuanced opinions in the process.
-This article , like many of the other stories about Palin’s ignorance, is mere “gotcha” journalism, potentially the result of the Huffington Post reporters trying to seem clever and analytical, or trying to make Palin appear stupid, rather than .pursuing informative election coverage. The ignorance might have some relevance if it could be demonstrably linked with Palin’s voting on global warming, but as it stands, all this signifies is that Palin has difficulty demonstrating her knowledge in press conferences.
-This article gives more attention to an admittedly vulgar Freudian slip McCain made to a greater degree than any of President Bush’s gaffes. While the Huffington Post did report on Obama’s remarks about “bitter” Americans – albeit without any regard for journalistic ethics concerning deception or political participation – those remarks were more newsworthy because they spoke to Obama’s thoughts about American conservatives and were clearly more deliberate, and attracted more attention from the national press than McCain’s adding an “n” to “cut” likely ever will.
The criticisms leveled against Sarah Palin have varying degrees of legitimacy. Her supposedly dealing harshly with people who opposed her in her tenure as Governor of Alaska is concerning and worth investigation, given that she is being considered for a position of even greater responsibility. Criticisms about her family and politicizing not having an abortion despite knowing that her son would have Down syndrome is overly personal reporting, albeit with some relevance to her political views. The stories I listed, however, are nearly inconsequential, and by posting them on the website, the managers of Huffington Post send a message to their writers, their readers, the candidates and the wider journalistic community that these stories are, in fact, news.
The stories also indicate a strong anti-Republican and especially anti-Palin tilt in the Huffington Post’s news. While news organizations should not create false balance or censor stories for fear of being labeled as biased, the Huffington Post seems to put McCain and Palin to a higher standard of scrutiny than Obama and Biden, as I have never seen them cast the Democrats in a critical light over something so minor, like Obama’s absent flag pin. While objectivity is an appealing but flawed concept for journalists, striving for fairness is an absolute necessity, and is severely lacking in the Huffington Post’s coverage of Republicans.
-This article about Palin’s clothing is unbelievably superficial reporting, and without any redeeming news value apart from satisfying personal curiosity or serving as an attack on Palin. While $150,000 on clothing seems excessive, even for presidential candidates who must strive to look professional and appealing, it is an inconsequential sum compared to how much is spent on campaign expenses or new spending plans, items that if covered, would help readers understand the campaigns. This story from Politico, which the Post linked to, is a significantly better example in that it actually speaks to Republican donors and finds out what they think about this, receiving various and nuanced opinions in the process.
-This article , like many of the other stories about Palin’s ignorance, is mere “gotcha” journalism, potentially the result of the Huffington Post reporters trying to seem clever and analytical, or trying to make Palin appear stupid, rather than .pursuing informative election coverage. The ignorance might have some relevance if it could be demonstrably linked with Palin’s voting on global warming, but as it stands, all this signifies is that Palin has difficulty demonstrating her knowledge in press conferences.
-This article gives more attention to an admittedly vulgar Freudian slip McCain made to a greater degree than any of President Bush’s gaffes. While the Huffington Post did report on Obama’s remarks about “bitter” Americans – albeit without any regard for journalistic ethics concerning deception or political participation – those remarks were more newsworthy because they spoke to Obama’s thoughts about American conservatives and were clearly more deliberate, and attracted more attention from the national press than McCain’s adding an “n” to “cut” likely ever will.
The criticisms leveled against Sarah Palin have varying degrees of legitimacy. Her supposedly dealing harshly with people who opposed her in her tenure as Governor of Alaska is concerning and worth investigation, given that she is being considered for a position of even greater responsibility. Criticisms about her family and politicizing not having an abortion despite knowing that her son would have Down syndrome is overly personal reporting, albeit with some relevance to her political views. The stories I listed, however, are nearly inconsequential, and by posting them on the website, the managers of Huffington Post send a message to their writers, their readers, the candidates and the wider journalistic community that these stories are, in fact, news.
The stories also indicate a strong anti-Republican and especially anti-Palin tilt in the Huffington Post’s news. While news organizations should not create false balance or censor stories for fear of being labeled as biased, the Huffington Post seems to put McCain and Palin to a higher standard of scrutiny than Obama and Biden, as I have never seen them cast the Democrats in a critical light over something so minor, like Obama’s absent flag pin. While objectivity is an appealing but flawed concept for journalists, striving for fairness is an absolute necessity, and is severely lacking in the Huffington Post’s coverage of Republicans.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Fox News: Shortcomings From Its Medium and Shortcomings From Itself
While Fox is not always the most reliable or in-depth news outlet concerning the election, not all of it is the individual reporters’ or producers’ fault. Part of it is due to an inability to vigorously pursue stories, but part of it is due to the vigorous competition to get stories out quickly, and part of it is due to televisions’ limitations as a news medium.
-The segment about the “Race Debate”, which lasts four minutes, only includes one expert, talking about a single comment Limbaugh made. It only covers a small part of the issue, and does not make enough of an effort to speak to a variety of people about their perspectives the same way this story from the Washington Post does, and it would take me less time to read that article.
-The “Gutter Journalism” piece had largely superficial analysis of the article, dismissing the claims about Cindy McCain out of hand without bringing up any evidence to refute them, primarily focusing on a Facebook message the reporter sent to her minor daughter. The show included three experts, but as they were introduced in the last two minutes and fifty seconds of the segment, they each had, on average, less than a minute to speak. The media’s treatment of Cindy McCain deserves scrutiny, but it also deserves more substantial analysis that goes beyond its most superficial and surface-level aspects.
-“What Did He Know,” the second part of Sean Hannity’s “Obama and Friends: History of Radicalism”, apart from the explicit bias in the title, and painting Obama as associated with radicals, spends much of the first two minutes replaying commercials and footage tying Obama to Ayers, essentially giving them free showing on the news. The entire six-minute segment- longer than the two previous shows that had potential journalistic value- does little except serve as a lengthy attack ad on Obama that makes him sound as though he is covering up his association with Ayers, and is a disturbing example of Fox’s priorities with regards to newsworthiness.
-While this is not election-related, the news item about a horse getting its head stuck in a tree illustrates an essential flaw in television news. While I would consider this story not worth my time if I encountered it in the paper or on an online news site, on television, I have to sit through it, or turn away from the news for a minute, and potentially miss the story coming up next. The story is also a significant waste of time for the show, and takes up far more of the news hole than a similar item would if it appeared in the paper.
Television news’ immediacy is important for many stories, especially in terrorist attacks like those of September 11, 2001, when a catastrophic event happens that people need to hear about immediately; or in natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, when important information concerning evacuation and shelter can be broadcast over the airwaves. While these are situations in which the news should come in as soon as possible, they are also situations that need extensive coverage, and in an age when Internet journalists can deliver news extremely quickly, TV news must find some niche other than immediacy in order to prove it still has worth for the public.
-The segment about the “Race Debate”, which lasts four minutes, only includes one expert, talking about a single comment Limbaugh made. It only covers a small part of the issue, and does not make enough of an effort to speak to a variety of people about their perspectives the same way this story from the Washington Post does, and it would take me less time to read that article.
-The “Gutter Journalism” piece had largely superficial analysis of the article, dismissing the claims about Cindy McCain out of hand without bringing up any evidence to refute them, primarily focusing on a Facebook message the reporter sent to her minor daughter. The show included three experts, but as they were introduced in the last two minutes and fifty seconds of the segment, they each had, on average, less than a minute to speak. The media’s treatment of Cindy McCain deserves scrutiny, but it also deserves more substantial analysis that goes beyond its most superficial and surface-level aspects.
-“What Did He Know,” the second part of Sean Hannity’s “Obama and Friends: History of Radicalism”, apart from the explicit bias in the title, and painting Obama as associated with radicals, spends much of the first two minutes replaying commercials and footage tying Obama to Ayers, essentially giving them free showing on the news. The entire six-minute segment- longer than the two previous shows that had potential journalistic value- does little except serve as a lengthy attack ad on Obama that makes him sound as though he is covering up his association with Ayers, and is a disturbing example of Fox’s priorities with regards to newsworthiness.
-While this is not election-related, the news item about a horse getting its head stuck in a tree illustrates an essential flaw in television news. While I would consider this story not worth my time if I encountered it in the paper or on an online news site, on television, I have to sit through it, or turn away from the news for a minute, and potentially miss the story coming up next. The story is also a significant waste of time for the show, and takes up far more of the news hole than a similar item would if it appeared in the paper.
Television news’ immediacy is important for many stories, especially in terrorist attacks like those of September 11, 2001, when a catastrophic event happens that people need to hear about immediately; or in natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, when important information concerning evacuation and shelter can be broadcast over the airwaves. While these are situations in which the news should come in as soon as possible, they are also situations that need extensive coverage, and in an age when Internet journalists can deliver news extremely quickly, TV news must find some niche other than immediacy in order to prove it still has worth for the public.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Washington Post: In-Depth Reporting on Complicated Issues
In-Depth Reporting in an Industry of Deadlines
Former Ithaca College professor Michael Scully once called television journalism “a mile wide and an inch deep.” My experience with television news has largely confirmed this statement; the networks I’ve watched, including CNN and FOX, barely have enough time to cover the current issues in America and the rest of the world in the twenty minutes they have on air, much less go in-depth about any of them, when they are not squandering time on “news of the weird” stories like people finding strange objects in their food.
-This article effectively addressed the issue of negative campaign ads, and brought their effectiveness into question. It appropriately analyzed the tone and helped find where they went wrong.
-This article appropriately touches on Obama’s tactics, and is especially useful as it may impact what he offers to do while in office.
-This article effectively keeps the reader updated on the candidates changing policies, and effectively discusses the policies and their implications.
Staying relevant is an important issue for the news business, but so is providing high-quality and in-depth reporting. Many television stations and some blogs fail to do that, and even many newspapers, given the space and the opportunity, do not serve this need. Citizens should look to newspapers like the Washington Post for in-depth coverage of the issues that guide our presidential race.
Former Ithaca College professor Michael Scully once called television journalism “a mile wide and an inch deep.” My experience with television news has largely confirmed this statement; the networks I’ve watched, including CNN and FOX, barely have enough time to cover the current issues in America and the rest of the world in the twenty minutes they have on air, much less go in-depth about any of them, when they are not squandering time on “news of the weird” stories like people finding strange objects in their food.
-This article effectively addressed the issue of negative campaign ads, and brought their effectiveness into question. It appropriately analyzed the tone and helped find where they went wrong.
-This article appropriately touches on Obama’s tactics, and is especially useful as it may impact what he offers to do while in office.
-This article effectively keeps the reader updated on the candidates changing policies, and effectively discusses the policies and their implications.
Staying relevant is an important issue for the news business, but so is providing high-quality and in-depth reporting. Many television stations and some blogs fail to do that, and even many newspapers, given the space and the opportunity, do not serve this need. Citizens should look to newspapers like the Washington Post for in-depth coverage of the issues that guide our presidential race.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Matt Drudge: The First of a Brave New World for Journalists
Matt Drudge is in many ways a threat to the traditional structure and ideology of journalism, which may help explain his appeal. He has no formal journalism training, nor even any experience in any mainstream media company, thus raising the notion that anyone with enough skill can become a journalist regardless of backgrounds. He works by himself without any editors or supervisors, and thereby appeals to those who are disgusted with the media's power structure and seeming institutional liberal bias.
I find Drudge's appeal troubling for several reasons. His lack of editorial oversight removes any barriers to his making mistakes apart from whatever care he exercises. While having editors to review one's work does not necessarily prevent mistakes or breaches of ethics- Stephen Glass was able to fabricate articles for The New Republic despite its extensive editing process- it helps reporters receive input on their work, notice mistakes that they missed and make the best ethical decisions in reporting. Without this oversight, Drudge essentially runs his sight with his own judgment, unchecked by anyone else, and can make mistakes without authority disciplining him. Drudge's standing apart from the mainstream media poses a problem for them in a time when the public trusts the news media less and less. News bloggers like him have the potential to accelerate this process by presenting an alternative to the news media, making it less likely that the public will trust them again. While this belief is partly based on my fear that as newspapers are cutting back, it will become more and more difficult for print journalists like me to get jobs, I personally believe that professional news journalists, at best, have the best training, experience and resources to handle important issues, and that print journalism has demonstrated a greater willingness to go in-depth into issues than broadcast journalism. As someone who hopes to do whatever is necessary to restore the public's faith in the news media, I see the rise of an alternative whose practitioners do not report as we do as a new movement that media consumers should not trust so readily.
While bloggers do not always follow appropriate ethical guidelines and pose a potential threat to any efforts journalists in the mainstream media may make to re-establish the public's trust in them, they have the ability to pick up on stories that the mainstream media would miss or not be able to report on because of advertiser or corporate pressure. Instead of being dismissed as amateurs thinking that they can outdo people who do it for a living, citizen journalists' talents should be harnessed by being placed under the oversight of a special panel designed to handle them.
-The panel should be a non-profit, non-governmental organization composed of retired journalists, journalism professors, and other experts on journalism not currently involved in the mainstream media. The committee would have nine members who serve five-year terms; however, their tenures would be set so that every year, two of the members will be replaced- except for one year in a five-year cycle when only one is.
-The panel would have the power to grant "certification" to blogs that applied, provided that they met several conditions.
*They must set and keep to a certain schedule of posts for six months.
*They must not display any openly biased reporting that a reasonable journalist would find unbalanced, for example, publishing an attack against a candidate without contacting the candidate.
*They must agree to follow the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics, and in the case of blogs with multiple reporters, make sure that anyone who joined be instructed to do the same.
-Blogs must submit their work to the panel, as well as a mission statement, in order to be considered for approval. A two-thirds majority is required to approve a blog.
-The approval is to be shown on the blog's website, and is intended to show that the blog is recognized as journalistically sound, which is intended to help citizen journalists be recognized as "real" journalists.
-The panel should give the approved blogs advice if they have an area that needs improvement, and should answer any questions that the bloggers e-mail them.
-If the blog commits an ethical violation, the panel's members can cite it for the violation by plurality. If the blog's offense is repeated, the blog's approval will be revoked if the panel votes to do so with a two thirds majority.
-Blogs can regain their approval by following the same steps for gaining approval. However, the blog must mention when it lost its approval and why, as well as when it regained approval.
-Any blog having committed a serious offense, like plagiarism or malicious libel, will have its approval permanently revoked.
-Every year, the panel will grant awards for specific pieces (such as Best News Story or Most Influential) and for blogs (such as Most Timely Reporting or Most In-Depth Coverage).
-The panel's website will contain records of all past decisions by the panel, who voted, by what margin they were approved or disapproved, and for what reasons, in order to help journalists and the rest of the public understand how the panel operates.
The panel would thus provide the guidance, judgment and support to citizen jouranlists that good editors provide to reporters. The rules would serve as a check on those who would otherwise go out of bounds, and citizen journalists who understand and sincerely pursue ethical journalism would be in no danger of being cited or having their approval revoked. They would, however, have the guidance they need to report fairly and accurately, and the approval to be recognized as journalists and treated as such by those they report on.
I find Drudge's appeal troubling for several reasons. His lack of editorial oversight removes any barriers to his making mistakes apart from whatever care he exercises. While having editors to review one's work does not necessarily prevent mistakes or breaches of ethics- Stephen Glass was able to fabricate articles for The New Republic despite its extensive editing process- it helps reporters receive input on their work, notice mistakes that they missed and make the best ethical decisions in reporting. Without this oversight, Drudge essentially runs his sight with his own judgment, unchecked by anyone else, and can make mistakes without authority disciplining him. Drudge's standing apart from the mainstream media poses a problem for them in a time when the public trusts the news media less and less. News bloggers like him have the potential to accelerate this process by presenting an alternative to the news media, making it less likely that the public will trust them again. While this belief is partly based on my fear that as newspapers are cutting back, it will become more and more difficult for print journalists like me to get jobs, I personally believe that professional news journalists, at best, have the best training, experience and resources to handle important issues, and that print journalism has demonstrated a greater willingness to go in-depth into issues than broadcast journalism. As someone who hopes to do whatever is necessary to restore the public's faith in the news media, I see the rise of an alternative whose practitioners do not report as we do as a new movement that media consumers should not trust so readily.
While bloggers do not always follow appropriate ethical guidelines and pose a potential threat to any efforts journalists in the mainstream media may make to re-establish the public's trust in them, they have the ability to pick up on stories that the mainstream media would miss or not be able to report on because of advertiser or corporate pressure. Instead of being dismissed as amateurs thinking that they can outdo people who do it for a living, citizen journalists' talents should be harnessed by being placed under the oversight of a special panel designed to handle them.
-The panel should be a non-profit, non-governmental organization composed of retired journalists, journalism professors, and other experts on journalism not currently involved in the mainstream media. The committee would have nine members who serve five-year terms; however, their tenures would be set so that every year, two of the members will be replaced- except for one year in a five-year cycle when only one is.
-The panel would have the power to grant "certification" to blogs that applied, provided that they met several conditions.
*They must set and keep to a certain schedule of posts for six months.
*They must not display any openly biased reporting that a reasonable journalist would find unbalanced, for example, publishing an attack against a candidate without contacting the candidate.
*They must agree to follow the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics, and in the case of blogs with multiple reporters, make sure that anyone who joined be instructed to do the same.
-Blogs must submit their work to the panel, as well as a mission statement, in order to be considered for approval. A two-thirds majority is required to approve a blog.
-The approval is to be shown on the blog's website, and is intended to show that the blog is recognized as journalistically sound, which is intended to help citizen journalists be recognized as "real" journalists.
-The panel should give the approved blogs advice if they have an area that needs improvement, and should answer any questions that the bloggers e-mail them.
-If the blog commits an ethical violation, the panel's members can cite it for the violation by plurality. If the blog's offense is repeated, the blog's approval will be revoked if the panel votes to do so with a two thirds majority.
-Blogs can regain their approval by following the same steps for gaining approval. However, the blog must mention when it lost its approval and why, as well as when it regained approval.
-Any blog having committed a serious offense, like plagiarism or malicious libel, will have its approval permanently revoked.
-Every year, the panel will grant awards for specific pieces (such as Best News Story or Most Influential) and for blogs (such as Most Timely Reporting or Most In-Depth Coverage).
-The panel's website will contain records of all past decisions by the panel, who voted, by what margin they were approved or disapproved, and for what reasons, in order to help journalists and the rest of the public understand how the panel operates.
The panel would thus provide the guidance, judgment and support to citizen jouranlists that good editors provide to reporters. The rules would serve as a check on those who would otherwise go out of bounds, and citizen journalists who understand and sincerely pursue ethical journalism would be in no danger of being cited or having their approval revoked. They would, however, have the guidance they need to report fairly and accurately, and the approval to be recognized as journalists and treated as such by those they report on.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Cliff Kincaid
I was somewhat disappointed by the talk that Cliff Kincaid gave in class today. While I had hoped that he would have a substantial media analysis that would give us more to think about, he generally repeated the overused "liberal media" charge, and made attacks on liberal politicians and media figures.
Some of Kincaid's conclusions were based on sparse evidence. He was only able to cite one inaccuracy in textbooks, and that was concerning his own website, which was not substantial evidence for any trend. He was only able to tie the rise of liberal media to liberal college students being taught "interpretive journalism," and did not adequately explain how interpretive journalism lended itself to political biases.
Kincaid focused too much on the perceived liberal bias without discussing the conservative biases enough. Whenever conservative politicians or media figures were being critiqued, they were often done alongside the liberal media groups, seemingly as an afterthought. This was seen when he mentioned two examples of "liberal" newspapers being unable to estimate their sustainability footprint, then mentioning one example of Fox censoring its describing the French Riots as "Muslim" under pressure. He seemed largely unwilling to consider corporate influences in the news when answering my question. Reporters should not artificially put equal blame or praise on both sides, but they should make a good faith effort to fairly evaluate both of them, which was lacking in this part of the presentation.
Attacking the media as liberally biased and insisting that it is the foremost problem is problematic for several reasons. It creates a chilling effect, causing editors and managers to censor reports that would seem to have a liberal tilt, potentially doing so to such a degree that they become almost conservatively biased. It legitimates more conservative media outlets like FOX, and by deeming the rest of the media liberally biased, makes them seem "fair and balanced" by comparison. It also draws attention from reporters' professional failings and their editors' and owners' decisions, which have a considerably greater influence on the news than liberal or conservative bias. The problems the media face are too complex to be blamed on liberal bias and too pervasive to be identified on such meager evidence, and as such, Kincaid's theory about the media is ill-suited to help journalists understand and address the problems their industry faces.
Some of Kincaid's conclusions were based on sparse evidence. He was only able to cite one inaccuracy in textbooks, and that was concerning his own website, which was not substantial evidence for any trend. He was only able to tie the rise of liberal media to liberal college students being taught "interpretive journalism," and did not adequately explain how interpretive journalism lended itself to political biases.
Kincaid focused too much on the perceived liberal bias without discussing the conservative biases enough. Whenever conservative politicians or media figures were being critiqued, they were often done alongside the liberal media groups, seemingly as an afterthought. This was seen when he mentioned two examples of "liberal" newspapers being unable to estimate their sustainability footprint, then mentioning one example of Fox censoring its describing the French Riots as "Muslim" under pressure. He seemed largely unwilling to consider corporate influences in the news when answering my question. Reporters should not artificially put equal blame or praise on both sides, but they should make a good faith effort to fairly evaluate both of them, which was lacking in this part of the presentation.
Attacking the media as liberally biased and insisting that it is the foremost problem is problematic for several reasons. It creates a chilling effect, causing editors and managers to censor reports that would seem to have a liberal tilt, potentially doing so to such a degree that they become almost conservatively biased. It legitimates more conservative media outlets like FOX, and by deeming the rest of the media liberally biased, makes them seem "fair and balanced" by comparison. It also draws attention from reporters' professional failings and their editors' and owners' decisions, which have a considerably greater influence on the news than liberal or conservative bias. The problems the media face are too complex to be blamed on liberal bias and too pervasive to be identified on such meager evidence, and as such, Kincaid's theory about the media is ill-suited to help journalists understand and address the problems their industry faces.
Monday, October 6, 2008
News and Opinion: Not to Be Blended
While all journalists have their biases, they must acknowledge that there are times when they can view their opinion and times when they must put their opinion aside to do their job. Journalists that fail to do so when reporting on the news are at best, failing to exercise appropriate care and professionalism, and at worst, attempting to use their reporting to influence people toward their personal views.
Bill O'Reilly of Fox News's "Obama Chronicles" is one such example. The series is pitched as a way of revealing more about Obama for both those who will vote for him and those who will not, but at several points shows O'Reilly's personal bias.
-In the first segment, talking about Obama's parents, O'Reilly characterized Obama's mother as a "hippie" who took "decades" to get a Ph.D and characterized his father as "irresponsible." While this is a less egregious example of his bias compared with other incidents, it establishes his judgmental tone.
-In a segment talking about Obama's connection with a controversial Catholic priest, whom O'Reilly said argues that America is a racist nation, O'Reilly frequently interrupted the guest when he attempted to explain the priest's position, disputing his arguments. This raises the possibility that O'Reilly did not want the guest challenging this negative characterization of the priest, which would make Obama look bad through his association with him.
-In the segment about Obama's connection with MoveOn, Obama's questions for the guest were significantly less critical and he did not interrupt as often. While he voiced some skepticism about the extent of Obama's connection with MoveOn.org, he did not show active disagreement.
These are not the only times when Obama has taken a highly judgmental attitude. One of the better known incidents is his interview with Jeremy Glick, whose father had died in the attack on the World Trade Center, in which he repeatedly told Glick to "shut up", accused him of sympathy with the terrorists, and cut off his interview and forced him to leave the building. Banderas' interview with Shirley Phelps is another example of blatantly opinionated coverage with no regard for delivering the news.
The Huffington Post is guilty of similar faults.
-This article about McCain supporters calling Obama a terrorist quotes a blog article that features biased language.
“McCain was speaking today in New Mexico, doing his usual personal attack on Barack Obama, as the stock market plummeted (you can see the ticker next to McCain on the screen, an apt reminder of what McCain and his fellow Republicans represent)” contains two thinly-veiled attacks on McCain, one on his campaigning style and one on his economic policy. It then makes a snide remark that "McCain does say in the next sentence that he's upset about all the 'angry barrage of insults.'" while contributing nothing that the other quotes did not.
-This article takes a highly presumptive tone with "There appears to be little doubt" about the ad being express advocacy, which indicates a reporter's agreement. However, because it is a wording choice, I am more willing to believe that it was due to carelessness, rather than active bias.
In a time when the media are being criticized for being biased and scrutinized by the rising movement of citizen journalists who write in blogs, it is up to individual journalists to take more care in reporting and writing to ensure that their reports adequately cover the issue without any hint of favoritism or spin. Not only do readers depend on the reporters for news, but media critics are watching them, and have the potential to see one incident as a symptom of systematic bias. Fox News and Huffington Report's lack of care is thus problematic, and it is up to media consumers and producers to do what they can to try to guide them toward more professional reporting.
Bill O'Reilly of Fox News's "Obama Chronicles" is one such example. The series is pitched as a way of revealing more about Obama for both those who will vote for him and those who will not, but at several points shows O'Reilly's personal bias.
-In the first segment, talking about Obama's parents, O'Reilly characterized Obama's mother as a "hippie" who took "decades" to get a Ph.D and characterized his father as "irresponsible." While this is a less egregious example of his bias compared with other incidents, it establishes his judgmental tone.
-In a segment talking about Obama's connection with a controversial Catholic priest, whom O'Reilly said argues that America is a racist nation, O'Reilly frequently interrupted the guest when he attempted to explain the priest's position, disputing his arguments. This raises the possibility that O'Reilly did not want the guest challenging this negative characterization of the priest, which would make Obama look bad through his association with him.
-In the segment about Obama's connection with MoveOn, Obama's questions for the guest were significantly less critical and he did not interrupt as often. While he voiced some skepticism about the extent of Obama's connection with MoveOn.org, he did not show active disagreement.
These are not the only times when Obama has taken a highly judgmental attitude. One of the better known incidents is his interview with Jeremy Glick, whose father had died in the attack on the World Trade Center, in which he repeatedly told Glick to "shut up", accused him of sympathy with the terrorists, and cut off his interview and forced him to leave the building. Banderas' interview with Shirley Phelps is another example of blatantly opinionated coverage with no regard for delivering the news.
The Huffington Post is guilty of similar faults.
-This article about McCain supporters calling Obama a terrorist quotes a blog article that features biased language.
“McCain was speaking today in New Mexico, doing his usual personal attack on Barack Obama, as the stock market plummeted (you can see the ticker next to McCain on the screen, an apt reminder of what McCain and his fellow Republicans represent)” contains two thinly-veiled attacks on McCain, one on his campaigning style and one on his economic policy. It then makes a snide remark that "McCain does say in the next sentence that he's upset about all the 'angry barrage of insults.'" while contributing nothing that the other quotes did not.
-This article takes a highly presumptive tone with "There appears to be little doubt" about the ad being express advocacy, which indicates a reporter's agreement. However, because it is a wording choice, I am more willing to believe that it was due to carelessness, rather than active bias.
In a time when the media are being criticized for being biased and scrutinized by the rising movement of citizen journalists who write in blogs, it is up to individual journalists to take more care in reporting and writing to ensure that their reports adequately cover the issue without any hint of favoritism or spin. Not only do readers depend on the reporters for news, but media critics are watching them, and have the potential to see one incident as a symptom of systematic bias. Fox News and Huffington Report's lack of care is thus problematic, and it is up to media consumers and producers to do what they can to try to guide them toward more professional reporting.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
The Washington Post: A Step in the Right Direction
Election journalism's most persistent problem is its practitioners losing sight of their purpose in their drive to scoop the competition. Stories about candidates' personal scandals or gaffes tend to gain precedence over pieces attempting to explain why the candidates think as they do, and stories about which candidate is ahead run in favor of those attempting to explain why one candidate has favor with a certain group, or why another does not. This tendency can be exacerbated by the Internet, in which deadlines come more quickly than in print or television, and the competition is even more intense. The Washington Post does a significantly better job of this than many other news outlets.
-This story effectively explains Obama's appeals to blacks and to what degree they find him appealing. Unfortunately, this story was printed on A7, and should have received more prominent placement.
-This story effectively describes voters' thoughts in the current economy. While it may be somewhat obvious that an issue as large as the financial crisis plays a significant part in the election, this article effectively explores why, particularly in mentioning how resentment toward Bush's policies influences voters, and to what degree voters find each candidate well-suited to deal with the situation.
-The Washington Post occasionally prints stories that only serve to update on the current state of the "horse race," and sometimes gets bogged down in "gotcha" journalism and the private life of Sarah Palin. However, some scandal stories, like this one take on more substantive issues than her personal life, as this revelation may become important in the ongoing discussion over Palin's governorship of Alaska.
Such pieces of journalism are refreshing, as they help to inform the viewers of the issues that are truly important, helping them to make informed choices and understand the electoral process. Internet journalists should take note of it, and should, while still working diligently and quickly to produce news, never forget that Internet news should be comprehensive, useful and informative as well as fast.
-This story effectively explains Obama's appeals to blacks and to what degree they find him appealing. Unfortunately, this story was printed on A7, and should have received more prominent placement.
-This story effectively describes voters' thoughts in the current economy. While it may be somewhat obvious that an issue as large as the financial crisis plays a significant part in the election, this article effectively explores why, particularly in mentioning how resentment toward Bush's policies influences voters, and to what degree voters find each candidate well-suited to deal with the situation.
-The Washington Post occasionally prints stories that only serve to update on the current state of the "horse race," and sometimes gets bogged down in "gotcha" journalism and the private life of Sarah Palin. However, some scandal stories, like this one take on more substantive issues than her personal life, as this revelation may become important in the ongoing discussion over Palin's governorship of Alaska.
Such pieces of journalism are refreshing, as they help to inform the viewers of the issues that are truly important, helping them to make informed choices and understand the electoral process. Internet journalists should take note of it, and should, while still working diligently and quickly to produce news, never forget that Internet news should be comprehensive, useful and informative as well as fast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
