What is a journalist?

In my first blog post, I commented on the question "What is journalism?"  I noted that journalists embody truth and knowledge, as long as they abide by the principles and ethical considerations of their trade.  At the end of the semester, and after learning a little bit more about what those principles and ethical considerations are, I still stand by what I said at the beginning of the year, but with more of an idea as to how journalists can accomplish "embodying knowledge."

One of the reasons I wanted to get into journalism was because I was tired of listening to so many people tell me how things were or should be.  I have never liked forming an opinion around what someone else tells me.  Instead, I'd rather hear the facts from a source that I can trust to tell me the truth, and then make my own decisions based on my own logic and reasoning.  As a journalist who maintains the ethical principles of their field, I would be able to give other people those facts the best I could without allowing them to appear biased.

As a journalist, one is also able to discern the reliability of sources for oneself, as well as use objectivity to aggregate facts that can form a complete picture of a situation.  As someone who likes to be independent from others' opinions and prejudices, I appreciate the need for being objective enough in my process that I don't allow my own prejudices to come forward.  I also admire the need for accountability in a journalist, and believe that a true journalist would embody that important quality, as well as so many others to become a source of truth for those without the opportunities to find out for themselves.

What is the true definition of objectivity? And, how does objectivity provide a framework for you to function ethically as a journalist?

I'm an avid supporter of Wikipedia, despite the fact that many teachers don't consider it a reliable site for information.  So, before beginning this blog post, I decided to check the definition of objectivity in journalism on Wikipedia.  My Elements of Journalism book was all the way across the room and getting it to make sure I had the definition right would have required getting off the bed and finding it, so I thought Wikipedia was a safe bet.  According to this wonderful website, "in the context of journalism, objectivity may be understood as synonymous with neutrality."  Now, despite my (sometimes) blind trust in this paragon of knowledge, I recognized this for the flawed definition it was.  Fortunately for me, I had read my Elements of Journalism book thoroughly and knew that objectivity is not neutrality, and shouldn't have to be.

In the fifth chapter of Elements of Journalism, it talks about a man named William Safire who wrote, not neutrally, but objectively.  He was "someone independent, true to a set of ideas rather than a member of a team, someone who put his readers first."  (I didn't have this memorized, I actually got up to get the book).  I feel this is a much more sophisticated definition of objectivity.  In journalism, it's ok to have an opinion.  In fact, I'd rather read something by someone who does have an opinion.  The important thing is to never allow those opinions to cloud your judgement or interfere with your desire to tell your readers the true facts.

When I become a journalist, I hope to use this definition of objectivity in my work so that my readers or watchers can trust me to tell them the truth.  In journalism, I find that it's very important to have ideas or a set of ideals as William Safire did. However, i also believe that, just like him, it's important to remember that this world is full of people who think differently and that representing differing ideas is one of the most important aspects of a journalist's work.

What are your motivations in becoming a journalist?

As a child, I loved to read anything and everything I could get my hands on.  My mom taught me to read when I was about four years old and I can still remember the very first book I read all on my own. It was a Dr. Seuss book that was probably only about 10 pages, but that memory and the feeling I had is still very lucid.  As I've grown older, my love for reading has never vanished, although the pressures of life do make it much more difficult to find the time to read.  Now, much of what I read is the news or  other various articles online, but that early love of reading taught me how to be inspired by what I encountered.

One day, a couple years ago, I was reading Reader's Digest and came upon an article about a huge Hollywood producer who gave that life style up to go build homes and schools for underprivileged children in Cambodia.  For some reason, inexplicable to myself even now, it gave me the inescapable desire to, not only accomplish something like this, but to find others like this man who were doing incredibly inspiring things, and write about them.  Since that day, I've cut out or printed dozens and dozens of articles or pictures of anything that inspires me or explains something really well.  As I look through this amalgam every once in awhile, I'm filled with a desire to tell these stories, and maybe even invent a few of my own.

Scott Neeson and the children in Cambodia 

In our book, The Elements of Journalism, they once described journalism as "storytelling with a point." I've always admired people who were pragmatic and straightforward, but I also always valued imagination.  To me, journalism can be a perfect blend of these two things.  I know I will face many obstacles before I might write about what I wish, but I also know, any struggle will be worth it.

Please find a news story that blew the facts out of proportion. Please tell 1. Why you think it was blown out of proportion, and 2. How the facts should have been stated instead so that the story would be interesting, but not sensationalized.

A story I recently discovered on Fox News that I believe completely blew the facts out of proportion was the appearance of a psychiatrist by the name of Keith Ablow who was called in by the Fox News team to evaluate Joe Biden's performance in the 2012 Vice Presidential debate.  First of all, the fact that they even called in a psychiatrist was inappropriate, already insinuating by this move that there was something mentally wrong with Biden's performance.  However, it got even worse when Ablow diagnosed Biden with dementia purely based on the fact that he interrupted Paul Ryan multiple times.  When one of the other commentators on the show ventured to contradict him, he started proffering even more ridiculous scenarios as to why Biden was acting the way he was, going so far as to hypothesize that Biden had been drinking before the debate.

Both claims were ridiculous and unfounded considering Biden could remember tons of intricate facts (something that someone with dementia or drunk could never do).  Biden's mother and sister were both killed in a drunk driving accident as well, causing him to very rarely drink.  The other way this story blew the facts out of proportion was by having someone with a medical license state conjectures as if they were facts, his license giving him a false authority for this.  A better way to analyze the Vice Presidential debate would have been to summarize what was said during the debate for the audience and then fact check all the claims that were made.  Instead, they chose to offer their own unfounded opinion.

How can journalists make the significant interesting, without making it sensational?

Increasingly nowadays, desperate journalists, in an attempt to make the stories they write more interesting, turn from responsible journalism and write in such a way that exaggerates and sensationalizes what happens in the news.  Hyperbole and myth are just two of several tools these type of journalists use to get people to pay attention to what they write, even if what they're writing is an assembly of twisted or fabricated facts.  Some claim that publishing pieces like these are the only way to turn a profit, but there are other ways to make the significant interesting without altering the facts.

Sensationalized Journalism 

One of the most important ways to do this is to create characters in the piece that aren't just caricatures of a person, but are built using dialogue and description that cause them to come alive to the reader in a natural and realistic way.  The reason that so many enjoy reading fiction isn't simply because the plot is something they wouldn't encounter outside of their own experiences, but because they can relate to the characters in the story and they become emotionally invested in their well-being.  Therefore, the first step in constructing a story that draws the reader in without exaggeration, is doing enough research and presenting the true characters of the story in such a way that readers will relate to them and find themselves personally invested with the character's life.

Another important tool for writing an interesting piece about something that many may often overlook, is to use a unique or creative way to organize the story.  Many journalists are trained to write in specific formats, the most common being the inverted pyramid.  However, a journalist working to craft a story that will intrigue readers will construct his story in a way that will make the most sense and emphasize certain points in the most effective way, even if it doesn't conform to the common format.  Mozart's music was revolutionary, not because he followed all the accepted rules of music during that time, but because he learned how to use those rules, and then broke them.  It is important for journalists to learn to write using the accepted rules, but some stories require a more creative approach in order to get the reader to listen.

There are so many stories to be told in this world, and so much information that people really should hear, but sometimes it's difficult to convince those people that it should be important to them.  Journalists must remember that they have the responsibility to give the truth in a way that doesn't cause people to believe something different from reality.  However, if a journalist can stay true to the story and the facts, and yet still construct a story that invites a reader's imagination, they have no need to sensationalize anything, but instead can inform and move.

Why do you think journalists should provide a public forum - a marketplace of ideas?

Journalism needs to provide a public forum now more than ever before, but it must be just that: a marketplace of ideas, not a boxing ring.  In the age of 24/7 news and an abundance of talk shows, the public seems to be shouting and arguing more, and analyzing and compromising less.  The country of America was built on a real public forum, with many able to voice their ideas in the newspapers of the time and discuss the changes they felt needed to be made.  These ideas would be distributed across the colonies and others were able to learn and build on them, eventually leading to the foundation of a government that would become a new world super power.

This spirit of compromise is what the public needs again.  It wasn't easy for many back then, and it won't be easy now, but it is necessary.  Most major broadcast news organizations have a clear bias, and in 2006, 40% of all cable television were talk shows - shows pandering to those who simply wanted their opinion repeated to them by their news.  The unfortunate thing is that these sell and do well.  Sometimes it seems the public forum has simply digressed into the public searching for either entertainment or their opinions validated by an authority source.

However, without a true public forum, the public will become ignorant and complacent if they take their example from the pundits who deliver this type of "news".  If journalists refuse to distribute unbiased and uncensored facts, the public will, instead of learning to entertain and consider different opinions and values, only learn to argue.

Yesterday, I discovered who Ann Coulter was: a political and controversial pundit for Fox News who has written several books essentially blaming liberals for everything wrong with America.  I was shocked and appalled.  I have never heard more idiotic statements come out of a news personnel's mouth, which is really saying something.  It is people like her who completely shut down the public forum created by journalism and make it a battle between two sides.  Unfortunately, her books are bestsellers.

As I was giving up on the idea of an intelligent public forum in major news corporations, I came across an article by a woman who describes how she goes through the letters and emails sent to the Boston Globe by citizens who are genuinely concerned with serious issues and wish them to be discussed.  And I realized, although, perhaps, so many biased and idiotic people get attention, there are so many intelligent, regular citizens who truly rely on good journalists to accurately inform them of the truth.  As an aspiring journalist, I have decided that I will always produce work that creates the opportunity for intelligent and lively discussion that will enact change if need be. Because that is the true reason why journalists should provide a public forum.  Just like in the early days of our country, words are powerful.  However, the public must be able to compromise and discuss them in a rational way, and only then can change happen.

In their watchdog role, journalists are to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." Please post a visual and link to an investigative piece that has influenced your life. Then, in 200-250 words, explain why it has influenced your life OR explain the data and the methods which the journalist built the news on.

An investigative piece of journalism that influenced me was a successful story written by a Cambodian citizen by the name of Sam Bunnath who was able to uncover some serious corruption in the education system of Cambodia's Battambang province.  The local education officials had been requiring those who wanted to be teachers to pay around $300-450 for a permanent government education position.  Many times, these people would sell all of their belongings to pay this fee, and then wouldn't even be offered a teaching position.  Bunnath interviewed dozens of sources and gained access to documents that proved the corruption, then wrote a full, unedited story investigating the bribery.  Normally, the  local paper would have been reluctant to print such a story, but through a program sponsored by the US, they had recently been encouraged to find the courage to print these stories.  The story got attention from the local people as well as the Prime Minister who ordered a full-fledged investigation and punishment of the government officials.

This story particularly affected me because I have done extensive research on the government of Cambodia and the economic turmoil they have faced after several devastating civil wars.  I've also concluded that many of the economic hardships the people face (as well as the devastating poverty) has been caused by a lack of opportunity for quality education.  The fact that a small piece of investigative journalism could have such a huge impact on something so important gave me renewed hope in the power of the word.

  Sam Bunnath

Journalists should NOT be neutral. If this is the case, how do they accurately cover the news? How does this influence your perspective on news?

Complete objectivity and neutrality is impossible for any human being to accomplish.  Each person has experienced different joys, adversities and emotions throughout their entire life that form their worldview, which ultimately dictates the lens through which that person sees the world and processes the information they gain.  Journalists are just the same.  They can no more tell a story without forming some sort of an opinion on it than anyone else.  The difference between journalists and everyone else, however, is the journalists' responsibilities to the public and the people they write for.  Even a journalist with strong opinions can tell the news accurately if they remember that they are not only writing for themselves, but for so many others as well - many of which have very different world views.  In order to accurately and unbiasedly report the news, a good reporter must respect differing opinions and realize that his opinion is not only dependent on so many factors outside his control, but that it isn't always necessarily right.  Humility is also an extremely important characteristic for a journalist who wants to accurately report the news because being humble reminds the reporter that he really, ultimately, doesn't know.  There is no way, sometimes, to know which side is right, if there is a "right side" at all, and keeping an open mind is the best way to discover that.

However, the most important  characteristic for a journalist to have is independence.  A journalist must maintain an independence from those they cover and truly know who they are and what their values are before they even begin to report.  They must not bind themselves to a party so tightly that when that party strays from what their values originally were, they allow themselves to be strayed along as well.  

Because I know that journalists are not neutral, I make sure to consider everything I read with a bit of skepticism.  I must first decide whether or not I think the journalist at least tried to be fair and accurate, and based on that conclusion, I then consider the facts they present.  Through this method, I have discovered that there is a fair amount of quality journalism and that I can accurately be informed by someone who has a very different opinion than mine, and in that way, I can also broaden my own

mind.

Do you believe journalists truly serve you, the citizen? Why or why not? What should be done differently so that you, the citizen, are effectively served?

Whether or not journalists truly serve me, the citizen, is a very multifaceted question.  Journalism comes through all different forms and mediums and there are thousands of different news outlets from which to get one's information.  Consequently, there is a huge range in quality throughout the journalistic field.    Before taking this class, I was thoroughly disenchanted with the media and those who reported it.  The fact that my homepage was Yahoo! (because that's where my email was) most likely contributed to this disgust, as most of their "news" consisted of stories like these:

As much as I would love to read about Pamela Anderson's airline attire and which beers are the best, I concluded that serious journalism had gone the way of all the earth.  I used to watch the evening news on several stations, but ultimately felt like I was being lead astray through manipulation of evidence and footage that was doctored in order to fit the biases of the station.  It wasn't so much what the journalists were saying, it was what they WEREN'T.  I felt there were so many more important stories to report on, but that I was being bombarded by useless information about celebrities and other such nonsense simply because those were the type of stories that sold the advertising.  In fact, I also read a story (on Yahoo!, but it was more substantive the usual), about the difference in American Time magazine covers compared to the international copies.  Instead of featuring the Egyptian revolution as the others did, it displayed a cartoon illustrating a piece that talked about anxiety being good for you.  Although both magazines contained both stories, I felt that the American mainstream media was emphasizing stories they thought would be more palatable for the public.

However, when I started my Principles of Journalism class, I was asked to read a good amount of the New York Times for different quizzes.  Before, I had never really had the time to find a quality news outlet, sit down and read and actually digest it.  Now though, I'm forced to do so, and I hopefully will retain that habit even after this class ends.  Although the New York Times, of course, has its own biases, they are most certainly not as pronounced as other news I have read, and the stories are both interesting, intelligent and well-written.  The New York Times also reduces the amount of ads in their paper if more room is needed for an important story.  I was pleased to find that there were some select outlets that still upheld the principles of quality journalism

Now I realize this marketing of inane stories isn't entirely the media's fault.  If the public is the one reading the material, and they read the idiotic stories, advertisers realize that's what sells and those are the types of stories they pay for.  However, if a news organization establishes itself as an institution that only produces quality journalism and then live up to that promise, both advertisers and the public will recognize the importance of this quality and respond favorably. 

As long as quality is the aim rather than profit, their will always be enough people to appreciate that integrity.  As long as the public is given the evidence for stories as it really was instead of doctored to change the context, their will always be people to appreciate that honesty. And as long both the public and the media realize the importance of understanding and changing the world around us through true information, we can all appreciate the growth that will stem from that idea.

What purpose does journalism serve in your everyday life?

The easy pat answer to this question might be something like "journalism provides me with information about the world outside of my own direct experience" or "journalism informs me of the problems in my community and society".  Well of course it does.  The real question is, what do you DO with that information?  How do you let the information you receive influence your life?  Obviously journalism's purpose is to instruct you and give you reference to what is happening around you, but everyone reacts differently to information.  In my life, journalism plays a huge role in inspiring me.

I have a myriad of goals and ambitions and no idea how to go about accomplishing them.  However, ever since I can remember having these goals, I also remember clipping out newspaper or magazine articles about  people or events that gave me ideas or inspired me to do what they have accomplished.  I keep these for reference for those days when I'm going to set about accomplishing all my impossibly high goals.  I've saved articles about Scott Neeson, who left his lucrative job as a Hollywood producer to bring sustenance and education to starving children.  I clipped out a National Geographic article that described the land mine conditions in war-torn Cambodia and what they were doing to combat the accidental explosions.  I want to use all the information that I'm given to allow myself to be inspired to make history as well as record it.  Many people are easily discouraged by what they read in the news.  But I want to be inspired by it.  If something discourages you, set out to change it!  And be that inspiration for others.

What does journalism mean to you?

As humans, we have innate desires.  One of the most powerful of these desires is the need for information.  Especially in this day and age, we consume information about the world around us constantly, even if what we're learning does not directly affect us.  We must learn and share, inform and understand.  In fact, the only way we can cope with much of our lives is to find a way to understand what happens around us, or at least convince ourselves that we understand, even if we have no hope of doing so.  The free sharing of information is crucial to a democracy, otherwise those in power can so easily take advantage of that power and abuse it.  Without the sharing of ideas and stories, no one would be able to come together and make a change, or fix a horrible situation.  No one would be inspired by the success stories of other people achieving their dreams.  Each person would live in their own small world, never having a chance to expand.

And this is what journalists make possible.  Recently, the quality of journalism and the media in general  has gone - to put it eloquently - down the tubes.  News has become entertainment and entertainment has become news.  The definition of a journalist has become hazy at best, and many people have begun to distrust those that call themselves as such.  But fundamentally, a journalist - a real journalist - is something that embodies the word knowledge.  Journalists' first obligation is to the truth.  To discover what that truth is and then make it known.  They must also be an independent verification of that truth, allowing people who need and want information and knowledge to rely on what they're saying and then be able to form their own opinion from that information.  The world is full of those spouting their own, uneducated opinion.  It has no need of more of that.  It DOES have need, however, of pure, simple and unbiased knowledge, so that those who want to make an informed decision, actually can.  And that is what a journalist is.  An embodiment of truth and knowledge.  A person who puts their own selfish instincts and opinions on hold so that others can have the truth.  

http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles