What is Journalism?

As the semester has progressed and my understanding has increased, my definition of a journalist has changed—and rightfully so, I think. Originally, I thought journalism was an avenue for someone to relay information as the public wants it. I have come to the understanding know that journalism is the avenue for someone to relay information as the public needs it.

            I have come to learn that a journalist serves the citizen, and the citizen only. A journalist does not serve the news company, the media or big corporations. Rather, a journalist has an eye out for the public. This then creates a relationship of trust between the citizen and the journalist because the journalist listens to and cares for the people, and then relays information as it would best serve the people.

            I have also realized the importance of a journalist empowering the public to come to a conclusion themselves. While the facts, figures and storylines are presented, it is up to the citizen to put the pieces together and create opinions and conclusions. A journalist thus, is empowering the citizen to develop opinions themselves.

            This is all then encased in the tactful usage of a journalist’s personal morals. Innately a journalist houses experiences, opinions, standards and ideologies that affect his or her writing. A journalist is not supposed to not have these innate qualities, yet, a journalist is supposed to be able to not allow those qualities seep into the writing in a persuasive or influential way.

            All in all, I find journalism to be the sharing of information as it best serves the citizen, and for that purpose only. This article agrees with this idea as it states journalism to be a "public good." 

http://stearns.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/journalism-as-a-service-not-a-product/

Like this journalist on the front line and many others, journalism is merely a service to the citizens.

What is the True Definition of Objectivity? And, How Does Objectivity Provide a Framework for You to Function Ethically as a Journalist?

As we have learned pretty thoroughly in this class and while reading the class textbooks, it is impossible for a journalist to be entirely objective. Be it through personal morals, ideologies, experiences and background each journalist has ingrained personality which inherently affects his or her writing. Also, the journalist will not be able to perform as a journalist unless he or she gets in the inside, yet by getting into the inside of the story objectivity (as generally accepted) flees. However, the true definition of objectivity as I have developed from this class is that objectivity is not so much being entirely removed from the situation, rather, it is more the ability to present the facts, laws, regulations and situations in their perfect truth, and then let the reader choose for himself or herself the take-away.

            This perception of objectivity enables me as a journalist to function ethically because it disallows me to insert an opinion or standing on the current situation. It strips away any commentary, and solely leaves the story to remain. This further enables the reader to make conscious decisions and moral judgments hopefully without the influence of the journalist.

 In this picture, objectivity is displayed as perfect fairness, unaffected by any outside sources. I think journalistic objectivity is more like this, "Objectivity is not about perfect neutrality or the elimination of interpretation. Objectivity refers to a person’s willingness to use objective methods to test interpretations for bias or inaccuracies."  With this in mind, journalists can function ethically.

https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2011/08/31/rethinking-journalism-ethics-objectivity-in-the-age-of-social-media/

What are Your Motivations in Becoming a Journalist?

            I find myself going into journalism for many different motivations and reasons. For one, I’ve always had a desire to serve others. I’m unsatisfied when I do things that I don’t think are that fulfilling. Rather, I try to fill my life with opportunities to reach out and help others. If we’re spending our time doing things that don’t uplift and better man, then why are we doing them? I think that through a career in journalism I could serve the public by offering accurate news. Vinh Nguyen said, " I think real journalism can help society a great deal, because real journalists may care to uncover real corruptions, put more time into their works, and risk their lives for their beliefs." http://essayboard.com/2011/02/23/why-i-think-real-journalism-matter/

            Secondly, I’ve always had this thirst, or need rather, to be informed. Ever since I was a little girl, I’ve loved being “in-the-know.” I’m sure I suffer from the “have-to-be-in-the-loop-syndrome”. Awareness is something I always strive to obtain and I’ve loved reading and digesting the news, so to be a part of the news would just be thrilling to me.

            A third motivation behind my interest in journalism is my desire to communicate and interact with people. I love to ask questions and to better understand an individual through observance. I love that journalism offers a journalist the opportunity to get in the middle of a story and learn the details. I’m a detail-conscious person and I think journalism caters to that.

Lastly and probably most importantly, my interest in journalism doesn’t stem so much from a motivation but from an inspiration. I’ve felt very strongly that my career path is to deal with public information and understanding through communication. 

My dream job would be to follow in Carole Mikita’s path--she has the coolest job!!!

Another dream job would be to the Church’s PR representative. As society becomes more and more wicked, a voice for virtue will only become more and more unpopular. Yet, I would love to boldly declare and defend the standards of the Church while remaining tactful, kind, approachable, understanding and personable. I think that there is much to be said for someone who is unwavering in his or her standards and beliefs, yet has the capacity to interact sincerely with anyone and develop good relationships across the board. I think that broadcast journalism could be a springboard to better develop communication, thus launching me more into a work of advocacy. 

Reading this Blogpost will Ensure Beauty and Wealth Granted to You Immediately! (a sensational headline designed to introduce the topic:)

As I was searching for outrageous and exaggerated stories, I found myself so surprised at just how ridiculous a lot of the stories were! It almost seemed as if the journalists covering them had no intention of even sounding slightly legitimate or fact-based. Bold statements, exclamation points and colorful embellished imagery laced the headlines. One such story truly caught my eye and captured my attention, as was the intention of the journalist: “Swine Flu Could Kill Millions Unless Rich Nations Give £900 Million”. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/20/swine-flu-costs-un-report

            

This story drove every fear, complaint and doubt about the H1N1 virus to the extreme. Published in the United Kingdom’s The Guardian, I think the journalist, Rajeev Syal, created such a dramatic story to take a current problem and turn it into a “pandemic killing millions and causing anarchy.” I think this story was driven so ridiculously out of proportion because the whole swine flu situation was covered by a lot of different journalists across the world. I think Syal was attempting to get his story a lot of traffic and to have the strongest rumors spread.

            I think that to make an interesting and accurate story covering swine flu, Syal could have focused on and highlighted individual cases with the swine flu. This would provide accurate recounts, yet not make it so sensational. I also think Syal could have shared the numbers, facts and quotes concerning just how many people have been affected, in what regions of the world and what specific steps and policies the government is making to fix the situation. His story as it currently stands leaves a lot of unanswered questions just blanketed by inflated claims that readers get hung up on. 

How Can Journalists Make the Significant Interesting, Without Making it Sensational?

Oh, how I enjoy reading and digesting incredibly sensational news. I understand the novelty, inaccuracy and sometimes tackiness found therein. However, I would be a self-proclaimed liar if I were to say that I don’t thoroughly enjoy partaking in such a type of news (if it even can be considered news).

When we as journalists, however, take into account and truly try to understand what the public needs as to what the public wants, we can appease both their desire for their news to be factual and informative as well as interesting and captivating. The public, like a magnet to steel, is powerfully attracted to quick, memorable and especially extraordinary information. Although, most of the time the type of information the public needs to hear or read isn’t particularly extraordinary. Yet, this news stories do need to be heard and read. Journalists sometimes fall into a rut where in efforts to sell more papers or get more viewers, they seek out the scandalous and sensational stories. This can be dangerous as evidenced in this article: http://www.dailysource.org/about/problems#.UJLqf8XA_K0

So what are journalists to do? How can a journalist make the important news stories interesting without going overboard and dramatizing or trivializing the situation?

I don’t have all of the answers, but I have come up with a few suggestions that I believe when instituted in modern journalism will capture a much larger and interested audience. One thing a journalist could do is to provide more numbers and physical evidence as to why certain situations are becoming the way that they are. For example, if Idaho’s water table is being affected by a new pesticide, then it would be in the journalist’s best interest to involve how much geographically of Idaho’s water will be undrinkable or unusable, as well as the number of people affected by the poisoned water. Which cities have been hit the strongest by this unsafe water? The answers to these questions are the type of information that would make an informative story interesting as well.

            Secondly, using stronger and more effective dialogue in news stories makes the story bound to be interesting. Let the public hear from the public themselves. Don’t get quotes for the sole purpose of just getting quotes. Make them worthwhile.

            Lastly, journalists should constantly remind themselves of the reader’s situation. The journalist should always put himself or herself in the reader’s shoes and thus delineate how the information is being conveyed.

            These few suggestions should help a journalist make the significant interesting, without making it sensational. 

Why Do You Think Journalists Should Provide a Public Forum- a Marketplace of Ideas?

I believe that journalism should invite and encourage both public opinion understanding. I find it necessary that individuals can look to journalism for an embracing of their ideas. I know that there is nothing more discouraging than when someone shoots down my ideas or discounts an opinion of mine. One of the liberties we as Americans should hold most dear and appreciated is the freedom of speech, and further, the freedom of press. We have been blessed with the freedom to express our opinions and ideas as diverse and unconsidered as they might be. Thus, I think journalism should foster this public conversation where the community feels free to declare whatsoever they would like to declare.

I do also believe however, that journalists should be very tactful in dictating how to provide a public forum. I think journalists should sift out what news and conversations are in the public’s best interest to explore. This in turn will create a safer marketplace of ideas where the conversations might be channeled towards certain topics or away from certain topics. As it is in relationships, education, the workplace and in journalistic forums some topics should be addressed at certain times and for certain reasons and others shouldn’t. Using tact is one of the most key things journalists can focus on. When journalists are tactful then the public form will truly become a marketplace of ideas that embraces and encourages opinions and ideas of all sorts.

Daniel Sinker, a journalism blogger, summed up perfectly this very idea, "I believe that experiments are crucial to new paths forward for journalism—that trying new ideas, making prototypes, embracing failure as an option (and learning tool), and iterating on experience are key. And so we need to try things, we need to build, Journalism needs to make."

http://sinker.tumblr.com/post/12301360208/journalism-in-the-open-making-a-new-reality

Do Journalists Fulfill Their Watchdog Role?

I believe that journalism houses a pretty interesting quality. I think journalism is different for each person. Journalism reaches everyone differently and what one person takes away from journalism could be incredibly different than what someone else takes from journalism. I think it has to do with what each reader is seeking.

            If the reader is seeking inspiring, comforting or even exciting stories, than those stories will stand out to them. The reader will gain the sense that the world is full of goodness and that mankind is innately moral.

            Now, on the other hand, if a different reader is seeking scary and disheartening stories that weaken the public’s faith in mankind, then that reader will find those stories.

            It’s been said that journalists are to, “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” What I gather from that is that journalism watches out for the reader and offers them what they are looking for. If the public needs to be more aware of a certain issue, be it personal or social, journalism steps up and showcases those stories. On the other hand, journalists also gauge if the public needs an inspirational, faith-building story. Journalists, then in this sense, fulfill the watchdog role by offering the public what it needs.

            

One investigative piece that has specifically influenced my life was written by Nigel Jacquiss and it is entitled, “The 30-Year Secret.” http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/7648

This piece showcases the scandal behind Portland, Oregon’s governor and his 3-year long sexual relationship with a 14-year old girl while in office. No word of the scandal was spoken until 30 years after the instance had occurred. What makes this piece so personally influential was that I lived in Portland while this very crime was being committed. Once Jacquiss published this story, Oregon was changed dramatically. The people became less trusting of officials and more aware of sexual crime. 

This is a picture of the governor, Neil Goldschmidt:

I believe because of Jacquiss and investigative reporting, Oregonians benefited from the fulfilled journalistic watchdog role.