Independence and Journalism

Like objectivity, I feel like being completely independent in journalism is difficult. Even though all people have different opinions, they do overlap, and that's when/how factions and other groups and labels are created. 

It is easier for journalists to be independent from other journalism sources that they might be competing with, but there are always other groups that are divided by class, race, gender, ethnicity, and many more categories that could be potentially problematic to join forces with as a journalist. By labeling oneself with a specific group could be harmful to the credibility of a journalist because a journalist aims to be unbiased, but how can they be supporting a particular group while still remaining unbiased? It's tricky. It's also problematic because if you identify yourself in one way you risk the chance of not being accepted by people who lean the other way. Remaining as unbiased, unattached, and independent as possible is less risky. 

Overall though, when I think of independence and journalism the first thing that comes to my mind is freelance journalism. I feel like being a freelance worker makes you connected to more sources, yet actually tied down to less. It almost seems like a lacking of responsibility, but not in a bad way. More like in a safer way actually. Here's some further perks to working in freelance journalism:

http://www.writersbureau.com/writing/What-Makes-Freelance-Journalism-Different-from-Ordinary-Journalism.htm

Here's an example of a campaign that is promoting another big part of independence in journalism: diversity. http://en.rsf.org/russia-independent-journalism-a-combat-08-10-2013,45302.html

The wonderful thing about independence in journalism is how diverse coverage becomes. There are all kinds of different stories and opinions that are less attached, and that is so much more interesting that hearing or reading stories that share the same opinion as a ton of other people. It really just keeps things interesting. 

Religion and Journalism

The issue of religion being very prominent in journalism has been something on the minds of many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the last 10 years. Between Proposition 8 in California and the Mitt Romney’s presidential campaigns, the church has been put in the spotlight thanks to journalists and media everywhere. The media coverage that has been surrounding the church has been both positive and negative. I think that it is very important that we as journalists in the making learn lessons from the ways we’ve seen our church covered and how religion comes into play in the journalism world so we can be prepared to handle it when we need to. 

It can seem at times that all aspects of the secular world might not align with religious ideas. Here is an article that addresses that very topic: http://www.scu.edu/ethics-center/ethicsblog/atthecenter.cfm?c=14207

I found one part of the student presentation in particular to be helpful in helping me understand where journalism and religion meet. First of all, religion is based on beliefs, and journalists are in tune with their beliefs when choosing stories to cover. Although journalists should not let beliefs bias their coverage, they are still important to have. Another connection is the importance of truth. Truth is the foundation of journalism as well as religion. 

Another interesting concept is what journalists are to do about writing about religion. In my opinion, and I think the opinion of many others, a good background on a wide variety of religions is important so the most truthful and accurate representation of a religion can be covered. Here’s an article that talks further on the subject: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2011/10/a-religious-journalist-on-religion-journalism/

March on Washington

Previous to this class I had never looked into the March on Washington really. I was aware that it had happened, but I never looked into the coverage behind it. I was shocked and not impressed with what I learned about how Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Had A Dream Speech" wasn't properly covered by the media. Having been raised in the generation that I was raised in it seems unreal to me how something like that just wasn't covered. Everything nowadays is covered, both the great and the awful. It's only been 50 years since it occurred, yet so much in journalism has changed. Here's a nice little read that agrees with the generally unanimous opinion of its poor coverage: http://madamenoire.com/295404/poor-journalism-i-have-a-dream-speech-completely-ignored-by-the-washington-post-newspaper-back-in-1963/

Something I found interesting from the student presentation was the difference between the coverage that print journalism did compared to broadcast. Journalists who covered the March on Washington in print were a lot more able to pick and choose what they wanted to include in their pieces than broadcast journalists who were capturing the events with video and radio, such as Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech. They weren't able to exaggerate the story because they facts were able to be seen by viewers firsthand instead of just reading about it after the fact. It held them to keeping the coverage truthful and accurate, which was a very good thing considering all of the bias that was going into covering the event in other methods.

I really liked the advice that was given in the presentation, which was to pop our media bubbles. We should be exposing ourselves to a variety of media sources to avoid getting a close minded single viewpoint from just one source. This concept is familiar not only in journalism, but in business, and other areas. Here's an example of a breakdown of how businesses use different medias: http://www.whiteglovesocialmedia.com/infographic-how-small-businesses-use-a-variety-of-effective-social-media-marketing-strategies/

Technology and Journalism

Obviously, the way journalism is put out for the public is different now than it was when journalism first began. And that is due to advances in technology. In the generation that we live in, we as college students are seeing advances in technology way more than our parents and grandparents ever did. Some points were brought up in the student presentation that we do with social media in the field of study that we are in. They included having a twitter account, an updated public blog that includes links to other sites, and an online portfolio available for reference by future employers.

I hadn't realized it before this journalism class and other media classes this semester, but Twitter is a MASSIVE news source.
https://twitter.com/

Short and easy to read summaries of news that is taking place is being updated and posted constantly, and it's all public because it's on the world wide web. This relates to some other points that were brought up in the student presentation about the Internet in general. It is ideal because of its convenience, inexpensiveness, and quickness.

There is one thing about journalism and technology that I disagree with, and that is that online journalism has taken off, but the advertisements haven't. I disagree with that because I am on the Internet every day and more advertisements pop up on my screen than I can often handle.

It's so excessive. And I'm not the only one who feels that way: http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/24/online-ad-survey-most-u-s-consumers-annoyed-by-online-ads-prefer-tv-ads-to-online-want-social-media-dislike-button-and-reckon-most-marketing-is-a-bunch-of-b-s/

A lot of times there are ads that pop up because they match me based on things I've searched or pages I subscribe too, but most of the time they are honestly so irrelevant and annoying to me. so I think there is no shortage of advertising on the Internet, and if anything, it should be filtered.

Ethics

I feel like everything about any kind of journalism has a major focus on ethics. Probably because following ethical standards can make or break your career. I think the Code of Ethics put out by the Society of Professional Journalists is probably good to keep in mind: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

A big issue in regards to ethics that I've found most interesting is how ethical something is even if it's not illegal. There's a big grey area there that is kind of for anyone to determine, but obviously people have their own opinions as to what's ethical and what's not. Clearly, anything that's illegal probably isn't the most ethical, for many reasons. The difficult part is determining what's ethical even if it's legal. There are plenty of bad things that people do that are legal, but are they right? When I ponder this question it makes me grateful to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because I was raised to have good standards an judgement that will prove to be helpful in a career of journalism. Having been taught to be honest and have integrity is something I knew would come in handy in life, so it makes sense how much it applies to the field of journalism.

I found this cool handbook online that has some good guidelines for good practices of ethics from NYU: http://journalism.nyu.edu/assets/PageSpecificFiles/Ethics/NYU-Journalism-Handbook-for-Students.pdf

A quote I like from this handbook is 
"The best defense against crossing ethical or legal lines is openness and honesty."
That's something I can definitely agree with. 

Private Government Papers Containing Vietnam Relations Information Leaked

The issue of the Pentagon Papers was a pretty interesting situation. This was a majorly significant moment for journalism. The fact that the New York Times published these secretive documents and that a former government official leaked them, was not good for the US government.
It would have been pretty crazy to see this headline back in 1971: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB348/secret_briefs.htm

Our little class debate that we had on this subject was really interesting. I found myself not knowing where I stood anymore on the subject. I could definitely see how both sides of the argument had very valid points as to whether the papers being leaked was right or wrong and why. Obviously it's good and important for us as American citizens to know what's going on in our country and what our leaders are doing, but is ignorance bliss? I think it could go either way, depending on how much I felt like what was going on in Vietnam affected me. Coming from where I am now in 2013, I feel like I would have been ok not knowing what the Pentagon Papers contained. However, I can't help but think that I would feel differently if I was living through the Vietnam war. I might want to know more since it was more applicable then.
I liked this because it kind of talked about how some people felt at the time about the release: http://whitehousetapes.net/exhibit/first-domino-nixon-and-pentagon-papers

I think this is interesting in relation to ethics as well. Are there exceptions to what should and shouldn't be printed? It's a total judgement call, and everyone's opinions differ as to what's right or wrong to publish or write about. That's why as journalists we need to be independent thinkers, but at the same time use our own moral compass and good judgement.

Who Pays for Journalism?

In my Comms 101 class we recently discussed the same idea of who pays for journalism. The response of the class was pretty much unanimous: the majority believed that wealthy people pay for journalism (in the case of newspapers) because they have the money to spend on them and newspaper subscriptions cost money. I don't think that's necessarily always the case, and my doubts were confirmed in class last week when we talked about the same topic in Comms 239.

There was a lot of talk in class about how advertising pays for journalism, and I would have to agree with that. I feel like anytime I see any sort of journalism, whether it's print or online or the radio or television, there are all sorts of advertisements associated with it. Commercials on TV and radio, ads on the side of webpages, and ads in newspapers. They're everywhere.

Here's an interesting article I found about who pays for journalism. It's a viewpoint that addresses how it's paid for with paper journalism kind of falling out of the spotlight because there's more focus on non-print journalism with all the new technology that's taking center stage:  http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/who-pays-for-journalism-in-the-post-print-era/            

In the student presentation I enjoyed looking into how the matter of who's paid for journalism as changed over time and what it was like historically. Journalism didn't use to be such a business centered field, and I forget that a lot of times. Money wasn't always the main focus; the news was the priority. But of course, times have changed.

This was an interesting post I found that talks about how money affects journalism now: http://www.editorsweblog.org/2011/11/29/journalism-the-good-the-bad-and-the-money