Emotion - To include it, or leave it out?

Emotion in a story works to create not only a mood, but also a setting that can help to grasp many readers attention. It gives insight into a background and can go so far as to convey the emotions of an entire crowd.

But where is the line between emotion and editorializing? Often times, writers will work to write emotion into a story, but will fail when they forget the thoughts of their subject and include their own opinions into a subject.

Emotions in Journalism by Ruhi Khan gives in-depth insight into the subject that many have had struggles with (including myself) of writing with emotion but avoiding that fine line. One quote that really caught my attention helped to bring into perspective my ill-thought belief on journalism and reporting on only the facts.

"The tremendous use of emotional play in news reporting makes one wonder whether it is reporting, or is it crossing over into something else and whether the media are increasingly getting involved in a moral crusade?"

A moral crusade perfectly describes what I have been dealing with, but in a different light. I have been trying to fight my emotions and what I was taught when it came to writing. I was keeping my own opinion in that all readers were like myself, and wanted something that could draw them in through imagination.

But the more I research, and the more I learn, the more I realize that I am not like everyone else, and news is catered to a market that has been around for centuries, so why try to fight my own battle? Is it really right to include emotion in a story, and if so, where does that line end where it turns into nothing more then a personal moral crusade?

Read more...

Could editorialization be the future?

As a writer who is used to giving in depth description and honing a skill of showing emotion through words, editorializing has been my biggest downfall. Journalism trains writers to give facts, and only facts; writing without bias and taking all emotion out of most stories.

Maybe this could be the underlying reason I tend to avoid news articles, as they leave nothing to the imagination and lay out all of the facts that help build a "good" story. Maybe this is also the reason that blogging has been able to thrive where newsprint has begun to dwindle.

In searching for pertinent information regarding editorialization in blogging, I was shocked to see the results of a Google search that contained many articles that pointed out editorializing in news articles. I began to understand why this is such a taboo point in news as many readers crave the facts and are looking for a quick read, and not another persons opinion, but when it comes to blogging, the conflict is welcomed.

The additive of consumer interaction has helped to boost the blogging lime-light as it adds an all important aspect of conflict into the story. The ability for a reader to voice their opinion on a writers views or facts adds involvement that helps the reader feel as if they are a part of the story and may also shed light on additional aspects of a topic for those who are un-informed.

Could this be a welcome aspect for news print that may help to once again promote their margins and give them a leg up on instant media access?

Read more...

"Released With A Hashtag"

Imagine living in a society where your voice was silenced, your rights were minimal, your safety was not guaranteed and the information you received about the world around you came with the caution that it may or may not be the truth. This unfortunately was not just the imaginary life for millions of people, it was the reality for those calling Egypt home.

In the midst of their recent revolution, however, there has been a great shift. This shift was outlined by Hanna Sistek in a post she recently co-authored with Tanja Aitamurto.

Prior to the revolution, Freedom of the press was not a feasible ideal. Nor was the idea of citizen bloggers, tweeters or facebookers. In fact, the media was so highly regulated by the government that a top newspaper, Al-Ahram, printed an apology for "inaccurate reporting" after President Mubarak stepped down.

With Mubarak no longer in control, the country's consumption and production of media has changed dramatically. The article states that new channels are being created, media agencies are forming and citizen journalist are becoming high profile "celebrities" in the region. This all began with something so simple, something most of us do everyday in America and something that is taken for granted-sharing.

This new environment is happening via the Internet in Egypt, and has begun to transform their culture and allow them to partake in the global exchange of ideas. It has also given way to a stronger sense of unity and ownership because they are now able to more freely communicate with one another and have open and progressive discussions on where they see themselves as members of this new Egyptian climate.

Although tremendous strides have been made in the short time since Mubarak's exit, there are still barriers to break down in the country. Freedoms of speech and press have increased significantly, but people are still being prosecuted, convicted and jailed for their words. The good news-the people in Egypt will not allow this to go on quietly. Thanks to their new tools (facebook, twitter, ect.) they are able to quickly spread the message and mobilize support when these instances occur. In fact, one blogger was recently freed from jail after an enormous outcry from the country. She was not only released but also saved with a hashtag.

Read more...

Illegal or Undocumented?

When writing articles on immigration what terms should the media use, illegal or undocumented? This is one question that is posed by every journalist when writing a story about the topic.

According to the AP Style book the term that is preferred is Illegal Immigrant, but it says not to use just the term illegal as a noun.

There are many groups like the Diversity Committee of The Society of Professional Journalism and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists are trying to get jour

nalists to use other terms like undocumented worker or undocumented. These groups consider the term illegal a slur and politically incorrect.

What terms do other countries media use? An article by New America Media gives a few examples of what other countries use. Most Spanish speaking countries and the Philippines term Undocumented instead of illegal. In Russia both terms are used. However in Vietnam and China they use the term illegal, although in China it is not as controversial.

How should the American media react to this? Is this as controversial as some groups make it out to be? Is the term Illegal politically incorrect and should we start using the term undocumented?

Photo by: Fibbonaci Blue

Read more...

Who Cares About the Emmys?

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the Emmys dropped a million viewers from last year. This statement is not suprising and should have dropped more than a million viewers.

But when all America's coverage and center focus is the Emmys its hard to have the viewing number drop more. When our world is at war with two different countries, in major debt crisis, and constantly increasing the

unemployment rate more coverage should be directed towards those issues.

The Emmys are entertainment and should have little but some coverage. War and the debt crisis should be broadcasted and be covered fully. Media should have a direct focus on American society. Media needs to have priorities when chosing coverage of topics.

However some people are concerned with the Emmys most people would rather be worrying about our society and where it stands. This leaves me with my statement "Who Cares About the Emmys?"

Read more...

Embedding Code

This is an example of how to embed code.

Read more...

Freedom of Speech Costing Freedom

Turkish journalists marched in protest on Sunday in Istanbul’s central Taksim district on the 200th day since journalists Ahmet Şık and Nedim Şener were arrested.
“It is not Ahmet and Nedim who are on trial in this case, it is journalism itself that is on trial, press freedom and freedom of expression are sitting in the felon’s dock,” journalists said.
The two arrested journalists, Ahmet Şık and Nedim Şener, have been in prison for 200 days. In the indictments against them, which were completed more than three weeks ago, they were charged with aiding and abetting the alleged Ergenekon criminal gang.
Some 1,500 people, including members of the Freedom for Journalists Platform, or GÖP, the “Friends of Ahmet and Nedim” group, journalists, and main opposition Republican People’s Party, or CHP, deputies Sezgin Tanrıkulu, Bihlun Tamaylıgil, Süleyman Çelebi, Gürsel Tekin and Umut Oran, marched during the protest.
Those who attended the demonstration held banners that read “No to pressure on media,” “Freedom for journalists,” “Even if we get burned, we will touch it,” referring to Şık’s telling reporters, “Those who touch [the Fetullah Gülen community] get burned” as he was being detained by police on March 6.
Demonstrators chanted slogans like “Ahmet and Nedim are our honor,” “Ahmet will be free and write again, Nedim will be free and write again.”
After marching down İstiklal Avenue, the protesters made a press statement.
“Dozens of journalists like Ahmet and Nedim are in prison and on trial with the charges of dozens of years behind bars because of the research they did and the articles they wrote,” journalists said.

Photo:Creative Commons

“Those who say that ‘Turkey should not be the country of suspicions and fears, it should be the country of freedoms and ideals’ have unfortunately created a country where more than 50 journalists are in jail, more than 4,000 journalists are on trial, books are confiscated before they are published and people are afraid of expressing their thoughts,” journalists said. Journalists said all the information in the indictment against Şık and Şener which are considered as the “evidences”, are in fact “normal activities of journalism.”http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=journalists-protest-arrest-of-colleagues-2011-09-18

Read more...

Contemplation on Ethics

I just got home from the movie Contagion, and I am thoroughly disturbed by what I saw. The main issue came from the character played by Jude Law. I shall do my best to refrain from spoiling the plot for those who have not seen the movie as of yet, but I am not certain I can accomplish that objective while leading into my main point.

Jude Law plays a freelance journalist who has "over 18 million unique visitors" to his blog. He is out reporting news and, when a virus outbreak begins to emerge, he does something questionable. At one point in time he makes a video blog post where he explains the symptoms he has from the virus and then takes a particular medicine, saying that if he is still alive in a day or two it works to cure this epidemic.

When he doesn't drop dead everyone wants this drug and, when everywhere begins running out of it, violence breaks out and anarchy reigns across the cities.

Do not read this next statement if you do not want a part of the plot spoiled... he never really had the virus.

This made me think about the ethics of a journalist. At what point should the line be drawn between a breaking news story and a dishonest fabrication? Where does a person learn how to tell when the line is being crossed?

There is a code of ethics posted on the Society of Professional Journalists website. In the preamble it states "Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility." Johann, whom I blogged about yesterday, has lost a piece of that cornerstone with his plagiarism. Jude Law's character, if the truth would be revealed to the public, would lose credibility and some of those unique visitors.

According to the code of ethics posted, there are four components that are mentioned: seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently and be accountable. Jude Law's character only really followed one of those. He was more concerned with giving the people "what they wanted" and providing a solution to their problems. That answer turned out to cause more harm than could have been predicted.

Which leads to the question of how do you know whether or not a choice is ethical. It is highly likely that over the course of a career in journalism you will be faced with a scenario where reporting the truth would cause immense harm. There will be times when reporting something might jeopardize your job. How would you handle those situations?

I don't know if that is something you can really plan for.

Read more...

The Cost of Plagiarism

Never plagiarize. This is a rule we hear about in any writing format, no matter what the class is. Professors warn us to never use Wikipedia as a source. They caution us to always use attribution whenever there is doubt. The last thing you would think that a journalist of any measure would do is to plagiarize.

According to an article on journalism.co.uk, prize-winning journalist Johann Hari did.

He attributes this error in judgement to a lack of ethics training. More like common sense training. His list of journalistic errors in judgement includes taking 545 words directly from someone else's work, elaborating quotes, and editing other journalist's Wikipedia pages to include unflattering comments about them.

He has returned the Orwell Prize he won in 2008 and is in the midst of a four month suspension. He is currently undergoing journalism training and it is expected he will resume his position after the four months is over.

Is this punishment enough to fit the crime? You have to think that his actions will affect the way readers view The Independent. When a writer does something that brings their credibility into question, they will lost their effectiveness in connecting with the audience. Readers and critics will not be so fast to forgive this lapse in judgement.

There is a long history of journalist scandals, and most of the plagiarism cases end up with either a resignation by the journalist or their employment being terminated. How will it affect The Independent if they choose to brush this issue aside and proceed as if it never happened?

What message will that send to readers of newspapers everywhere? The market for newspapers is already on the decline; it is unlikely that it can withstand a major blow. Something as simple as this could be a fatal blow for newspapers everywhere.

What do you think should happen to Johann?

Image from Creative Commons.

Read more...

What’s The Value of Good Journalism?

If newspapers are to survive, a keen look at what their value is will be required. Other media outlets – radio, TV, and especially the internet – have stolen the focus from papers. This has caused the media world to cannibalize itself by offering free online media. With such an option, what reasons do patrons have to purchase physical newspapers?

Ben Fenton of FinancialTimes.com reports on such a question. More importantly, he reports on one media icon, Sir Martin Sorrell’s, suggestions.

Sir Sorrell, CEO of WWP Group, strongly believes that newspapers must adapt their strategies to the common era. Sir Sorrell spoke at the Royal Television Society conference in Cambridge and mentions three things the newspaper industries around the globe must do to remain pertinent:
• Find a way to put paid-for content on the internet
• Consolidate more titles
• Most importantly, find some form of subsidy for “preserving good journalism.”

These are very interesting idea. Though Sir Sorrell is surely not the first to have such ideas, a prominent figure presenting them at such an event could have a large impact on the industry.

I find particularly interesting the idea of subsidizing “good journalism.” With free media ever-present at the readers’ fingertips via mobile devices and home computers, will we the readers soon be getting what we’re paying for?

It is a scary thought. With no one paying journalists, they cannot continue working and writing quality stories. What checks and balances does our modern society have to preserve good journalism in the future?

Image compliments of guardian.co.uk.

Read more...

Expansion of Citizen Sources

An Associated Press story by Brett Zongker reports on the $4.1 million grant to the American Public Media awarded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to expand its network of “citizen sources”. This expansion would help citizen sources to provide more direct news coverage to local media outlets throughout the county.

In our expansive world of media coverage, accurate coverage of breaking news can be hard to find. This is where citizen sources come into play. While they are not paid for their contributions, citizen sources can have a huge impact on story coverage. Citizen sources may provide tips on breaking news to reporters, or in some cases may even write a story which journalist will seek permission to publish.

Zongker interviewed Joaquin Alvarado, vice president of digital innovation for American Public Media. Alvarado had the following to say regarding citizen sources:

“In some cases, Public Insight drives very forward-facing reporting or special feature or interactive magazines.”

This is the exact purpose of the grant. The goal is to add 100,000 more individuals to the citizen sources network to better help capture the collective intelligence of society.

Not only this, but the grant will also be used to expand upon mobile news applications to process information from sources more quickly.

The American Public Media is focused on recruiting citizen sources from all backgrounds to add a more diverse field of sources.

Read more...

The Robots Are Coming!

They are smarter, faster, stronger and even better at Jeopardy than us. They are robots, and they appear to be finding a niche in almost every facet of our lives-not excluding reporting. A technology feature in The Week debuted the newest arena for robots to play: journalism.

That's right, robots are now being hired from one company by more than 20 anonymous sources to pen some of their articles. Although primarily focusing on sports, they are writing on countless other subjects with just as much success. Why hire a robot to do what humans have been doing for centuries? Apparently, they are not only efficient at the task, but also quite good at it. Robotic writing programs "can write articles in under a minute," and industry leader Mr. Hammond predicts, "in five years, a computer program will win a Pulitzer Prize."

Panic (for everyone even slightly involved with the journalism industry) seems to be a natural reaction, but nerves can be calmed...for a moment at least. Experts in robotics say that the stories being written currently are simply stories that would not have been told if it wasn't for the journalist robots. However, one point of alarm is the quality at which they are writing. Linguist "seem impressed." The former versions of these programs and the products they produced seemed, well, quite robotic. New technology has been able to provide a more humanistic voice to the work along with an attention to detail that only a computer could posses.

It seems only logical in this age of ever-growing technological advancements that computers would begin playing a larger role in reporting. There are areas with which humans simply cannot compete with a program such as the speed at which they are able to write. Simultaneously, there are some with which we can. Emotion and genuine concern are two key components lacking in current robotic reporting. Although journalist must stay fair and unbiased, it is their intangible drive for the common good that leads them to reporting and keeping the public informed. If you are still worried about lay-offs due to an influx in robot reporters, a career in robotics is always an option.

Read more...

Crime reporters come with a variety of credentials...and rights

Covering crime stories is not for the faint of heart, nor is it any longer reserved solely for those who are "professional journalists." A piece in the Washington Times recently discussed this new trend.

The article detailed the August 26th verdict of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Glik v. Cunniffe. This outcome was monumental because it stated that citizens, too, have the right to document the world around them, despite their journalistic resume, and further upheld the First Amendment.

The case revolved around a man who used his phone to film what he thought to be police brutality, and was arrested when he would not turn the phone over to authorities. I am a strong supporter of quality and excellence from professional reporters, but with advancements in information sharing, I must accept (and appreciate) that news will come from many different sources; news that we may otherwise never know.

"News stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper."

Our textbook offers a few guidelines for reporting on crime, such as get to know the cops, but if it is they who are the offenders this advice falls short. There are key items that should be taken into account, but even if one is a professional reporter they do not always help. The article states that journalist are first and foremost citizens, acting on behalf of fellow average citizens. If we take that as our definition of a journalist, then we open up the field to all. Furthermore, if we use that as our foundation then we will leave a mark on the world that is not only informative but compassionate as well.

Read more...

Investigative Journalism Finds A New Home: Online

With advancements in technology we no longer just absorb news or information in one way at a time. Instead, we rely on multiple media sources at once, and everything is now on a multimedia platform.

For example, when I open a new story on KCCI's website, I can view/listen to a video, see pictures, and read a typed article, all full of information about what happened.

I had never before considered how this would effect the necessity for investigative journalists, until I read a blog about the topic.

In past years investigating a large story would take an investigative journalists a lot of time, and there for they would have to be payed a lot of money. Today, social networks and millions of other networks make it easier to find leads, sources and experts to contact about a particular topic. Therefore, it takes much less time for someone to get the amount of information they need.

So now you might think that with this many sources to use anyone could do the investigating themselves and wonder, what is an investigative journalist for? The author says the two main things are:

-uncovering the hidden

-reporting the new

Not all of their work is done online. They not only have to find this information, but they have to verify it, link it together and explain why it's newsworthy.

Instead of thinking that investigative journalism is becoming easier, I think we should realize that this accessibility might actually make it harder. All of this information is available, and now the investigative journalist will have to take the time to look at ALL of it and will have no excuses for missing bits of information.

It's a changing platform, just like all aspects of the media, but it's definitely not dying off.

Read more...

The Switch to Digital Media

With the internet changing the way millions of people receive their news, media organizations are realizing that a straight switch to digital is not quite the answer.

Patrick Smith of TheMediaBreifing.com wrote an interesting article on how our society is not yet completely digital. Many citizens (of the UK in Smith’s article – and I’m sure many American’s as well) don’t even have internet access. Smith estimated that 8.73 million UK adults have never been online.

This is a large audience that is being missed by the digital armada. Some could argue that a blog post or an online story is only as good as its potential audience deems it.

Smith points out that the growing use of smart phones and tablets is leading to a larger consumption of media online. Mehreen Khan and Salamander Davoudi of Financial Times (ft.com) commented in their article Future of Communications that, “As newspapers and magazines innovate to meet the demands of the new consumer, the transformation should be seen as an evolution, not a threat.”

It is no question that the internet has changed the way that we consume information. However, marketing and media outlets cannot simply flick a switch and move into a digital world. The progress with be gradual, but unstoppable.

Read more...

Are Sports Writers' Jobs at Risk?

First a computer beat us on Jeopardy, now their taking jobs from reporters. A company know as Narrative Science has created a machine that can write sports stories that seem quite…well, human.

The New York Times reported on the fascinating new technology. An excerpt from the article is as follows:

“WISCONSIN appears to be in the driver’s seat en route to a win, as it leads 51-10 after the third quarter. Wisconsin added to its lead when Russell Wilson found Jacob Pedersen for an eight-yard touchdown to make the score 44-3... . ”

These words were written by a computer within 60 seconds of the end of the third quarter of the U.N.L.V. – Wisconsin game. The Big Ten Network seems to be capitalizing off of the efficient and apparently cheap story writing technology. According to Chris Gayomali of Techland, a division of TIME, the current rate for a 500 word story is merely $10. This seems quite a bit cheaper than employing a freelance human writer.

How long until machines take over writing human interest stories or romance novels?

Or homework!?

Read more...

Bias - Seeing Both Sides of the Story

When writing a recent story a highly newscast sporting event, I constantly found myself having to use the backspace key to rework a sentence. I kept having to step away from the computer and collect my thoughts before returning to the screen to take another stab at what I was writing. Why was this so hard? I thought I could write without bias no problem, but every time I went to type about how my favorite team screwed up, I found myself regretting the story. How do you overcome bias in journalism?

A recent blog I came across that hinges on overcoming bias in journalism had an interesting article by Robin Hanson detailing bias in journalism and what readers are really searching for. One comment by a reader really struck me when dealing with my own bias.

"I wouldn’t say that this is really what customers want. I think most readers want
opinionated journalism that affirms their biases. Newspapers used to be much more partisan.
If you read 19th century newspapers it’s startling how opinionated and partisan they were,
but that’s because there were a lot more newspapers per city. In the early 20th century
newspapers started consolidating and cities came to be dominated by one newspaper, which,
in order to maintain its monopoly, had to present at least the appearance of an unbiased,
even-handed perspective. When tv news sprang up, it was built on this model. Now the world
of blogging has revived the former world of partisan journalism. This is advantageous for
assessing their truth claims because readers can take into account the writer’s biases, and
also because readers have access to genuinely ardent and articulate defenders of both (or
many) sides of an issue. The problem of the journalist taking the middle ground, is they may
not really understand one or either position that well. It’s valuable to hear both sides of the
dispute for readers presented by people who understand and can defend that position well
because then you much better evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the various
opinions. In short, I think presenting the middle ground is fine, if you understand the debate
well, but it’s unlikely that most journalists will understand both sides of a controversial
question well."

I believe the reader makes a solid point that with today's changing media outlets, readers are becoming more adverse in their knowledge and seeking differing views in hopes of detailing the story in their own perspectives.

A common saying better illustrates this ideal, "History is always written by the winner." Throughout history, the victor in a war was the one who made history and as the other nations crumbled, no one remained to tell the other tales. How would our history books look today if both perspectives were written on many notable times? Would we feel the same way about bias in journalism if we understood both sides of the story?

Read more...

"Infotainment not information"

Unforeseen news stories are quite unanimously some of the most difficult stories on which to report. Even if a reporter follows a checklist similar to the one laid out in Inside Reporting for covering disasters, there is still so much uncertainty (coupled with so many variables) that make it one of the most difficult tasks a reporter may ever have to endure. The horror of 9/11 was not an exception. On the anniversary of that tragic day, we are once again bombarded with the heartfelt remembrances from victims' loved ones, photos of the devastation and forced to relive the nightmare that was that fateful day. And every piece of this media has been mindfully and meticulously chosen for circulation.

The substance and quantity of what was selected to be publicized, particularly immediately following 9/11, is what incited one writer to begin examining the journalistic choices after that tragedy. Andria Dunkin, a reporter for The Newark Metro, explains some of her findings in her Review Essay: Journalism After 9/11. She states in the article that journalism helped create a strong sense of community after 9/11, but also took advantage of the nation's need for healing after the events of that day.

Infotainment is what was being provided to the American people not information, according to Dunkin. She raises a very valid point, by in a way asking the question, where was the in-depth reporting? The events of that September day caused some of the greatest pain and suffering this country has ever experienced, but it was caused by terrorists attacking our country, and that should have been more closely examined in the reporting.

After reading this article, I feel as if the media was slightly pandering in their coverage of 9/11, and continued to re-play the same heart-breaking stories over and over to keep the public watching. There was a very serious threat looming over America with Al-Qaeda. However, there was not enough information being released about them, which kept people living in an even greater state of constant fear. If it is the media's job to report the stories, then they must report it all. Constant airing or multiple articles on the same topic do not resonate with most as responsible and ethical reporting. The ultimate goal of journalism should be reporting truth, the whole truth no matter how uncomfortable it may be. If it is not the end goal, then what can be learned when we look back on history and events as unfortunate and unspeakable as those of September 11th?

Read more...

Non-journalists going journalist.

To be or not to be...a journalistic company? A recent article posed this question to some of the largest corporations in the world. Sam Diaz, a technology and business blogger, begun to explore the role and responsibility that that these Internet companies now hold in our society in one of his latest posts.

The decision of being a committed journalistic resource has began to take on greater importance because of the increasing role in daily life that these companies now hold. Diaz cites specifically Facebook, Google and twitter when he mentions journalistic credibility and responsibility. It is an extremely important matter to examine when so many use these outlets to facilitate their hunger for news.

Each of these corporations have their own ranking and ratings systems that allow users to consume and comment on material that is most important to them, and also what has received the most attention. It is the latter, however, that leads to the issue of when do these social media sites become more than just a facilitator of thoughts? They are now contributing to the news of the world, and although some say they are simply displaying it, others are willing to accept the challenge to do so with more of a quality, journalistic approach.

Diaz ends his article by asking the reader if these companies should strive to do more to preserve journalist standards, or if it even matters? Simply from the few short weeks I have had in my reporting class, I can answer with a resounding yes. They should do all they can to protect the integrity of the information their sites are contributing to news consumption everyday to help the populations of the world stay involved and connected. Another yes to the second question of if it matters. It is similar to the social responsibility we all have to own each day, and these are standards that must be set in place in order to have any chance of complying to them every day.

Read more...

Off the Record - Does Such a Thing Exist?

There are many varied interpretations of the journalistic phrase "off the record". To some it means the comments can be used as long as there is no attribution. To some it means that anything said can only be used as indirect background information, without attribution or direct quotation. And still to others it means anything said during an interview is unable to be used in any form whatsoever.

With the variety of definitions, how can anyone ever be certain what a source means when they want to be interviewed "off the record"? A good practice is suggested on JournoWorld, which states:

if there is any doubt at all about the status of a conversation then you should clarify it.

Jamie McIntyre, a former senior pentagon correspondent for CNN, wrote that he often begun off-the-record dinners in the pentagon in the same manner. "Just to be clear and so there is no misunderstanding," he would proclaim in a somber voice, "when we say off the record, we mean not for reporting in any form, (pause for effect).. unless it's REALLY, REALLY good."

That may seem like a humorous comment, but if you really look at it he has a point. Anything that is said off the record can not be used, but it can be confirmed from other sources later who may be willing to go on the record. Anything being said should, in reality, be something that is willing to be printed and attributed. Sooner or later it is bound to come back at you anyway.

McIntyre goes into a bit more analysis on the idea of off the record in an article on the American Journalism Review.

There is even more reason to question whether or not there can be a conversation that is off the record any longer. An article on the Online Journalism Review mentions how, in 2008, a writer for the Huffington Post wrote about a comment that Barack Obama made during a gathering where journalists were not allowed. This writer was present as a campaign supporter, and did what any good blogger or tweeter would do in today's world: report about the controversial comment made.

That was three years ago and even then the question came up about citizen journalism taking over things. If I overhear something that is being said between two people who are "off the record", is it wrong for me to blog or tweet about it? No, I don't think so, because I was not part of that agreement.

And in a world where everything can be found with ease, an eavesdropped comment can pop up within minutes. That could spread to dozens of places within half an hour. How can you have damage control for that? The only viable solution: don't go "off the record" because such a thing is a notion of the past.

Read more...