Week 3’s readings gave me a lot of useful information about what a journalists should and should not do. After skimming Poynter’s “100 Things Journalists Should Never Do” and “Frank Fee’s Tips for Accuracy,” I walked away with several tips that will help me both as an editor and as a reporter. I think one of the best tips is to always ask, “Is there anything else I should know?” This is always a question I get nervous to pose when I am reporting. In my mind, it seems like a weakness if you have to ask it. Shouldn’t you be able to know if you’re missing something? Besides, it’s the reporter’s job to ask, and the source’s job to answer, right? But if I’ve learned anything from my (albeit not very extensive) reporting experience, it’s that you can’t be afraid of putting yourself out there and sometimes looking like an idiot. I would much rather have to bite the bullet and ask that humble question than later have to go back and ask again. And as an editor, I would hate to have to scurry to find missing information in a story on deadline.
One of Poynter’s tips that stood out to me was: “A journalist should never do: confuse impartiality with decontexualised he said-she said reporting.” I was always taught that if you are dealing with a controversial story, you have to get both sides. Frank Fee, in his “Tips for Accuracy,” says journalists should “always follow the Rule of Fair Comment.” But when does it turn into pure hearsay? I know I’ve read several stories that sound like they were collected from a middle school cafeteria. Many stories dealing with two sides sound like gossip. But if you have to get both sides, how do you prevent this? I don’t really have an answer to that; I am really just thinking out loud. Perhaps the key is to follow another one of Frank Fee’s tips and follow the “Rule of the Best Source.” If journalists always make an effort to contact the most authoritative and objective sources, these he-said, she-said stories could be avoided.
After reading through week 4’s readings, I learned that my own hesitation to ask “Is there anything else I should know?” reflects a problem all across the journalism industry. I think one of journalism’s main flaws is its own ego. For so many years, newspapers were the sole authority for news. They were trusted everywhere. People ran to the streets to grab copies when something major happened. Newspaper reporters and editors were people who were trusted among citizens. Then came the Internet, and everything changed. Nowadays, there are such things as “citizen journalists” and bloggers. They provide established media organizations with competition, competition that often lacks the professional training of traditional journalists. Our first instinct as journalists is to disregard these new media outlets. But this week’s readings show me that collaborating with the public, as well as competing media organizations, might just save the industry. The writer of “State 2.0: A Front End?” defines networked journalism as a collaboration of “the technical capacity of mainstream media with much greater public participation in a thoroughly more open structural relationship between citizen and/as journalist.” In other words, news organizations work hand in hand with the public to deliver news. In “SuperMedia: The Future as ‘Network Journalism’” the writer says this public participation “liberates” traditional media. Now it’s up to traditional media to get over its long-held ego and let the public in. If newspapers can break the façade that has separated them from the public, I think they have a shot at surviving. The writer also says “networked journalism is a process, not a product.” Before the Internet, when newspapers only had to worry about the actual print product, journalism was very much a tangible product. Nowadays, when people expect live updates on news all day, journalism is becoming less about the tangible product and more about the process. The Fort Meyers News Press understood this when they asked for readers’ help in finding information after Hurricane Katirna. There’s no doubt that they had to overcome a lot of pride in doing this, but in the end, collaborating with the public worked for them.
Network journalism not only requires collaboration with the public, but also with competing news organizations. An example of this can be found in Publishing 2.0’s reading about four journalists from competing newspapers in Washington working together and linking to each other’s stories when covering a major story. This also must have taken a lot of humility, but in the end, the news was delivered in a more timely and accurate fashion. And that is the No. 1 priority in journalism, not our egos.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Poligraft
I chose to run this story in the New York Times through Poligraft about the Tea Party's efforts to secure candidates in the Senate primaries. Tea Party organizers are preparing to challenge some of the longest-serving Republican incumbents in 2012. I chose to use this story because I believe in stories about political candidates, information about campaign contributions from various groups and industries is very important. Knowing who is receiving funds from whom is key when making decisions about future leaders. I believe Poligraft is a very useful tool in tracking campaign contributions and determining who is backing whom. Below is the report I received from Poligraft after running the story through. I learned a lot about what industries are backing Tea Party groups and whose priorities these candidates would be looking out for if they were elected.
Contributions
Club for Growth has aggregated $2,000 to Chris Cannon (R)
Points of Influence
Olympia J. Snowe (R)
Top Contributing Industries: Finance/Insurance/Real Estate, Ideology/Single Issue, Misc. Business
Elena Kagan
Jason Chaffetz
Top Contributing Industries: Ideology/Single Issue, Finance/Insurance/Real Estate, Misc. Business
Chris Cannon (R)
Top Contributing Industries: Communications/Electronics, Finance/Insurance/Real Estate, Misc. Business
Robert F. Bennett (R)
Top Contributing Industries: Finance/Insurance/Real Estate, Misc. Business, Ideology/Single Issue
Club for Growth
Richard G. Lugar
Top Contributing Industries: Finance/Insurance/Real Estate, Misc. Business, Agribusiness
FreedomWorks
Orrin G. Hatch
Top Contributing Industries: Health, Finance/Insurance/Real Estate, Lawyers/Lobbyists
Case Study 4
After debating with myself the consequences and benefits of running this photo, I decided that if I were the editor, I would run this photo, just not on the front page of the newspaper. When I first saw the image and read the accompanying description, my jaw dropped. I was appalled. It’s pretty gruesome and hardly an image the everyday person wants to see as they are eating their breakfast with the morning paper. But in my opinion, that’s not reason enough to refrain from running it in the paper. No matter how gruesome it is, this is happening. The duty of the news media is to tell people the truth about what’s going on in the world. We can’t hide the truth about the war just because it might offend some people. On top of that, nothing delivers a message like a photograph. Telling this story with only words simply wouldn’t have the same effect as running the photo.
Another reason I would not refrain from publishing this photograph is that it is not obvious what is being hanged. Without a description, it’s nearly impossible to tell that these are the remains of human bodies, much less those of American civilians. If the charred bodies could be recognized as human forms, I would most likely still run it, but possibly on the newspaper’s website with some sort of warning ahead before the reader just stumbles upon it. If the bodies were not charred or the face on one of the bodies was recognizable, I would not run the photograph. I would not want to run the risk of any of these civilians being recognized. Even if none of the faces were showing, someone could possibly recognize a family member based on their clothes, body types, where they lived in Iraq, etc. The harm inflicted upon the family members of these civilians outweighs any benefits of running the photograph. In my opinion, who was charred doesn’t make a huge difference in my decision, unless they were children. If they were American soldiers rather than civilians, or if they were Iraqis, the duty of the newspaper is still to display what’s happening. However, if they were Iraqis being hanged, I would want to be very cautious about how I would present the photograph so it doesn’t seem that I am praising their actions. On the other hand, if children were charred, I would absolutely not run the photograph. Maybe I don’t have a solid, justified reason, but that just seems cruel.
I would prefer an alternate image on the front page, and I would run this story inside the paper. I would not make it any bigger or smaller than a standard news image, especially because it is not obvious that people are being hanged. If it were obvious, I would make the photograph smaller or run it on the website instead. I suppose I would include an explanation for running the photograph. I would explain the importance of publishing the truth about world news, no matter how gruesome or appalling it is. I would issue a warning about the graphic nature of the photo on the website. I don’t know how that would work in the print edition, but if it were possible, I would do it. Although I may be tempted, I would not alter the photo in any way. In news, there are only a few exceptional cases in which it would be acceptable to alter a photo, and even then the newspaper would need to tell the reader it was altered. This is not one of those cases. The media platform would have a huge influence in whether I run this photo and how I run it. On the website, I would not put this photo on the homepage, but rather include a warning about graphic footage. On television, I would also make a verbal warning before running these kinds of photos. But even then, there is the risk of someone simply flipping through the channels stumbling upon a photo they don’t want to see.
The issue of public opinion for or against the war in Iraq would not really affect my decision. It’s not like publishing this photograph is manipulating the news in any way to make a point. This photograph is telling people what’s happening, whether they support the war or not. Any change of opinion would be the result of an honest portrayal of the war, not manipulation or propaganda. The only questions Poynter poses that would concern me is that it would somehow affect the safety of other civilians or soldiers in Iraq. This photo could possibly be a sort of inspiration among (some) Iraqis, possibly spurring even more violence. And more violence is the last thing I would want.
Another reason I would not refrain from publishing this photograph is that it is not obvious what is being hanged. Without a description, it’s nearly impossible to tell that these are the remains of human bodies, much less those of American civilians. If the charred bodies could be recognized as human forms, I would most likely still run it, but possibly on the newspaper’s website with some sort of warning ahead before the reader just stumbles upon it. If the bodies were not charred or the face on one of the bodies was recognizable, I would not run the photograph. I would not want to run the risk of any of these civilians being recognized. Even if none of the faces were showing, someone could possibly recognize a family member based on their clothes, body types, where they lived in Iraq, etc. The harm inflicted upon the family members of these civilians outweighs any benefits of running the photograph. In my opinion, who was charred doesn’t make a huge difference in my decision, unless they were children. If they were American soldiers rather than civilians, or if they were Iraqis, the duty of the newspaper is still to display what’s happening. However, if they were Iraqis being hanged, I would want to be very cautious about how I would present the photograph so it doesn’t seem that I am praising their actions. On the other hand, if children were charred, I would absolutely not run the photograph. Maybe I don’t have a solid, justified reason, but that just seems cruel.
I would prefer an alternate image on the front page, and I would run this story inside the paper. I would not make it any bigger or smaller than a standard news image, especially because it is not obvious that people are being hanged. If it were obvious, I would make the photograph smaller or run it on the website instead. I suppose I would include an explanation for running the photograph. I would explain the importance of publishing the truth about world news, no matter how gruesome or appalling it is. I would issue a warning about the graphic nature of the photo on the website. I don’t know how that would work in the print edition, but if it were possible, I would do it. Although I may be tempted, I would not alter the photo in any way. In news, there are only a few exceptional cases in which it would be acceptable to alter a photo, and even then the newspaper would need to tell the reader it was altered. This is not one of those cases. The media platform would have a huge influence in whether I run this photo and how I run it. On the website, I would not put this photo on the homepage, but rather include a warning about graphic footage. On television, I would also make a verbal warning before running these kinds of photos. But even then, there is the risk of someone simply flipping through the channels stumbling upon a photo they don’t want to see.
The issue of public opinion for or against the war in Iraq would not really affect my decision. It’s not like publishing this photograph is manipulating the news in any way to make a point. This photograph is telling people what’s happening, whether they support the war or not. Any change of opinion would be the result of an honest portrayal of the war, not manipulation or propaganda. The only questions Poynter poses that would concern me is that it would somehow affect the safety of other civilians or soldiers in Iraq. This photo could possibly be a sort of inspiration among (some) Iraqis, possibly spurring even more violence. And more violence is the last thing I would want.
Friday, January 28, 2011
FOI
Team Ace decided that our FOIA request would be the amount of money spent by UF Housing on the creation and maintenance of "GatorSpace," a new social network created for UF students. Here's the letter: FOIA Letter Team Ace.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Strat44
From The Gainesville Sun
Third-grade jugglers participate in Littlewood Elementary School's annual Medieval Faire Thursday in Gainesville.
The second tip on the cutlines checklist is to “write with energy… a good cutline can sell the readers on taking a look at an accompanying story. I think that this is a good example of a cutline that could use a little more flair. “Participate in” and “third-grade jugglers” could both be reworded to reflect the lighthearted, fun nature of the story and event. With these kind of events, I think the writer has a lot more leeway in the types of words they choose.
Three ye-young jesters juggle for the crowd Thursday at Littlewood Elementary School's annual Medieval Faire in Gainesville.
From The Independent Florida Alligator
Freshman Gabby Jackson drums on a garbage can on Turlington Plaza Thursday afternoon. The garbage can drums were part of an effort to spread gospel through different mediums such as music, step, dance and drama.
The third tip on writing cutlines is to “Explain what is happening in the picture, without wasting words on what is obvious.” This is an example of a cutline that explains the obvious. In my opinion, some of the best cutlines are those that include quotes from the people pictured in them. I’m sure the photographer would have talked to Jackson, so he or she could have gotten a quote about “spreading the gospel,” the importance of music, etc. To make room for this quote, I would merge the two sentences into one and get rid of the unnecessary “drums on a garbage can”:
Freshman Gabby Jackson makes music on Turlington Plaza on Thursday in an effort to spread the gospel. “Quote,” Jackson said.
From The Gainesville Sun
In this photo provided by The White House President Barack Obama takes part in a conference call in the Situation Room of the White House concerning the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tucson, Ariz., Saturday, Jan. 8, 2011. From left are Obama, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, incoming Chief of Staff Bill Daley, Deputy Chief of Staff for Ops Jim Messina, Director of Communications Dan Pfeiffer, and Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs Phil Schiliro. Also taking part in the call are Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and FBI Director Robert Mueller.
This cutline is way too long, and pretty daunting to readers. Most readers will not want to read this cutline, nor the story accompanying it. It’s an AP photo, so I’m sure the cutline was provided on the wires. Not everyone in this photo needs to be identified. All this information is not necessary, and the editors should have cut it down to make it more readable like so:
Barack Obama takes part in a conference call at the White House concerning the shooting of Rep Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tucson, Ariz., on Jan. 8. Photo provided by the White House.
The second tip on the cutlines checklist is to “write with energy… a good cutline can sell the readers on taking a look at an accompanying story. I think that this is a good example of a cutline that could use a little more flair. “Participate in” and “third-grade jugglers” could both be reworded to reflect the lighthearted, fun nature of the story and event. With these kind of events, I think the writer has a lot more leeway in the types of words they choose.
Three ye-young jesters juggle for the crowd Thursday at Littlewood Elementary School's annual Medieval Faire in Gainesville.
From The Independent Florida Alligator
The third tip on writing cutlines is to “Explain what is happening in the picture, without wasting words on what is obvious.” This is an example of a cutline that explains the obvious. In my opinion, some of the best cutlines are those that include quotes from the people pictured in them. I’m sure the photographer would have talked to Jackson, so he or she could have gotten a quote about “spreading the gospel,” the importance of music, etc. To make room for this quote, I would merge the two sentences into one and get rid of the unnecessary “drums on a garbage can”:
Freshman Gabby Jackson makes music on Turlington Plaza on Thursday in an effort to spread the gospel. “Quote,” Jackson said.
From The Gainesville Sun
This cutline is way too long, and pretty daunting to readers. Most readers will not want to read this cutline, nor the story accompanying it. It’s an AP photo, so I’m sure the cutline was provided on the wires. Not everyone in this photo needs to be identified. All this information is not necessary, and the editors should have cut it down to make it more readable like so:
Barack Obama takes part in a conference call at the White House concerning the shooting of Rep Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tucson, Ariz., on Jan. 8. Photo provided by the White House.
Case Study 3
Why Protocols are Important
We've all heard the familiar phrase about what assuming does. This story is a perfect example of the consequences of making assumptions. Clearly, the editor assumed that because Leslie Manning had a girlfriend, Leslie Manning was a man, therefore changing the second reference of Manning from a "she" to a "he." But in reality, Leslie Manning is a woman, as the writer had it in the original story. One little letter can change so much. I can't imagine the backlash the editor or writer received from Manning. Especially these days, when so many people are openly homosexual, no one should have ever made this assumption.
This story reminds me of when I met the corrections editor at The New York Times this summer. He's probably one of the funniest people you will ever meet. Occasionally, he'll let some of his humor show in corrections. Anyway, he was telling us interns about a story in the Weddings/Celebration section one week about the marriage of two gay men. I don't remember the specific details of the scenario, but there was debate over who was the bride, who was the groom, or whether to refer to both of them as grooms. And whoever won the debate was wrong. The couple was, to put it lightly, a bit annoyed.
In terms of editing, I think this is mistake is a good lesson on why editors should always double-check with writers before making major changes. An editor should never change the facts of a story without asking the writer first. I learned that this summer. Even if I was absolutely positive that a name was spelled wrong or that the numbers in a story didn't add up, I would always check with the writer before changing any facts. Granted, sometimes the writer would be a little defensive, but usually they would respond respectfully and thank me for catching the mistake.
This is why protocols are important. If editors do not have guidelines on what they can and cannot change and what all they should review with the writers before tweaking, editors may make these mistakes all the time.
We've all heard the familiar phrase about what assuming does. This story is a perfect example of the consequences of making assumptions. Clearly, the editor assumed that because Leslie Manning had a girlfriend, Leslie Manning was a man, therefore changing the second reference of Manning from a "she" to a "he." But in reality, Leslie Manning is a woman, as the writer had it in the original story. One little letter can change so much. I can't imagine the backlash the editor or writer received from Manning. Especially these days, when so many people are openly homosexual, no one should have ever made this assumption.
This story reminds me of when I met the corrections editor at The New York Times this summer. He's probably one of the funniest people you will ever meet. Occasionally, he'll let some of his humor show in corrections. Anyway, he was telling us interns about a story in the Weddings/Celebration section one week about the marriage of two gay men. I don't remember the specific details of the scenario, but there was debate over who was the bride, who was the groom, or whether to refer to both of them as grooms. And whoever won the debate was wrong. The couple was, to put it lightly, a bit annoyed.
In terms of editing, I think this is mistake is a good lesson on why editors should always double-check with writers before making major changes. An editor should never change the facts of a story without asking the writer first. I learned that this summer. Even if I was absolutely positive that a name was spelled wrong or that the numbers in a story didn't add up, I would always check with the writer before changing any facts. Granted, sometimes the writer would be a little defensive, but usually they would respond respectfully and thank me for catching the mistake.
This is why protocols are important. If editors do not have guidelines on what they can and cannot change and what all they should review with the writers before tweaking, editors may make these mistakes all the time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)