Media Bias....Helpful?
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Bias seems to be a term met with much negativity in the journalism world. As budding journalists we strive to keep our stories right in the middle of the political spectrum.
The latest in news-industry issues, as written by multimedia journalism and integrated marketing communication students at Simpson College.
Bias seems to be a term met with much negativity in the journalism world. As budding journalists we strive to keep our stories right in the middle of the political spectrum.
Photo courtesy of CreativeCommons.org
On September 17th, all was normal with Twitter. However, if you chose to glance down at trending topics, there were a couple of interesting choices:
#occupywallstreet
#sept17
#USdayofrage
If you were intrigued enough to click on one of these hashtags, the content might have surprised you. For it appeared our nation was in the middle of a giant, unexpected economic protest on Wall Street. The hacktivist group Anonymous used some of its many Twitter accounts to help organize the event, and stood among the crowd during peaceful demonstrations against 'coporate pigs' and the American government.
If you were watching the mainstream American news, you never would have heard any of it. As the day went on, Twitter users began complaining of a major media blackout against what they claimed civilians would deem to be news. And it seems to be true: the first major media company to release an article over the event was Al Jeezera English, a foreign media outlet (read the article here). In fact, while Al Jeezera released their article the same day as the popular revolution begun, it took American outlets at least a full day before they began to release any kind of coverage (see Business Week's coverage here). It was too long for the protesters, one of whom tweeted "This whole lack of news coverage thing for #occupywallstreet is kind of disturbing. Yet the asinine Glen Beck rally got all that press?"
Why did it take the American media so long to respond to a major protest on one of our country's most famous streets? For weeks, journalists have been covering foreign protests with a lot of effort and no small amount of dedication, yet the biggest news of Saturday was left to the foreign media and protesters to break themselves. There is speculation that major media corporations dragged their feet on purpose to cover it, because after all- the public was protesting specifically against corporations. Were the major news networks purposefully avoiding the subject to save their own dignity?
If journalists are going to continue referring to themselves as our nation's 'watchdog', then they need to be watching their own business moves. When you are a journalist, you don't do what's best for the corporation. You're doing what's best for your nation's civilians, and sometimes, you need to swallow your pride.

Twitter exploded with hashtags of #neverforget and #GodblesstheUSA on the decade anniversary of 9/11, as over three million tweets acknowledged the occasion.
We shared where we were, who we were with, what we thought on that Tuesday morning ten years ago. Various news and social media websites encouraged us to express our memories and describe our experience since. The New York Times, among others, created an entire addition to their website covering every aspect of 9/11 from the events of the day itself to the impact on American Muslims since. Television documentaries and films consumed practically every station from CBS to OWN, Animal Planet to the History Channel. Newspapers took the opportunity to bring out the biggest and best in front page illustration.
We were bombarded with images and sounds. Videos of the attacks themselves and the minutes after. Recordings of panicked 911 calls and final goodbyes to loved ones.
Was it too much? Did the hundreds of hours of anniversary coverage trivialize the events? Or honor those affected most by the tragedy?
Nevertheless, whether there was too much exposure or not enough, the media succeeded in helping us remember that tragic day and the lives lost. A plummeting stock market, the Presidential election, and debt reduction plans were slightly further from our mind as we took the time to tune in to the coverage or glance through the commemorative magazine. Through television specials and newspaper articles, Americans came closer together as a nation in remembrance, just as we were a decade before.
photo courtesy of pingnews.com via www.creativecommons.com
Read more...
If that wasn't the icing on the cake, Google made another announcement that they would be making a few more changes, including: support for Android phones that had front facing cameras, sharing streaming through their computer's screen, and sharing a GoogleDoc.
With all these new changes to the world of journalism, its making me very excited to hop right into the business and learn all these new ways to give me an edge of success.
Picture Credit: Creative Commons.
Accreditation: Jeff Sonderman at Poynter.org
The night of May 2, 2011 is one that no American can forget. President Barack Obama declared, "Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden." It was with these words that the entire country erupted in shock and celebration. The media also exploded with the news, and different themes were prominent in different mediums.

Don't bring your work home. Don't mix business with pleasure. Don't poop where you eat. Personal life and professional life should be separate.
"Off the record," journalists have heard this over and over again, and it is a bit of a disappointment every time. Clearly journalists want the entirety of an interview to be "on the record"; we are not nearly as interested if it can't be published. With this in mind, what is the right way to use tweets?
As of late, members of the senate have been claiming that their public tweets are to be considered off the record. The fact that these tweets are public, for everyone to see, should point out how outlandish of a suggestion this is.
According to Jeff Sonderman on Poynter, several prominent bloggers and writers noticed this disclaimer and were then forced to remove several tweet quotes from their blog, noting the absurdity of the situation.
If prominent members of the senate are willing to tweet their thoughts for the entire Twitter community to see, then they should be equally willing to have these tweets quoted in text. It is no different then journalists using a quote from a previous speech. Senate members should back off, and keep their tweets "on record
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?
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?
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.
When writing art
icles 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 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
| Photo:Creative Commons |

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.

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.

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.
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.
© Blogger template On The Road by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009
Back to TOP