Journalism and Celebrity

The Mind of A Journalist included a passage asserting that there is a difference between people who become celebrities because of their ability and people who happen to be famous and so are assumed (possibly falsely) to have great ability. This can be applied directly to journalism. Some journalists obtain celebrity status (and thus, influence) because they have spent years building a reputation of quality work and integrity. Others seem to desire celebrity more than they desire to make quality contributions to society. 

Celebrity journalists seem to achieve the effects they desire.Some, like Walter Cronkite and Nick Kristoff bring important attention and insight into complex issues like the Vietnam War and sex trafficking. Cronkite's commitment to producing quality work that helped the public is evident in this American Masters description of his attitude when he  accepted the anchor position at CBS' television newscast:

 At the time, the broadcast — like the news broadcasts of the other networks — was just 15 minutes long. But Cronkite wanted the networks to be responsible citizens, to take the news more seriously, to devote more time and more funds to news — whether that commitment made them a profit or not. He also wanted the title of Managing Editor so that the staff and the audience would know that the news judgment on the program was his.

By contrast, Anderson Cooper's segment "The Ridiculist" seems like a step in the opposite direction. He is taking time that could be devoted to quality journalism and using it for humor instead.

I hesitate to bring up Anderson Cooper because he seems like the easy, go-to target for celebrity journalism criticism., but I don't see many celebrity journalists out there, so my pickings for examples are slim. These days, celebrity journalists are almost always on television, even then, they are almost always on national programs. The amount of celebrity journalists compared to the amount of journalists who have a fairly local recognition base is so one-sided that this seems like a theoretical issue more than a practical one.

Do Journalists Associate Religion With Issues That They Shouldn't?

An interesting question was posed in class as I helped in a presentation about faith and journalism. Prof. Whisenant said that he thought conflicts that were labeled as religious in the text--Mind of a Journalist by Jim Willis--were actually plain, old secular problems. Sure, they occurred with a religious background this time, but the religion was not the primary element in the story. (This is how I understood what the professor said, at least.)

I'm not sure he's right but I'm willing to entertain the possibility and I'm going to use a current event as a case-study to explore the idea.

Lets examine the controversy over building a mosque (that is just one portion of the proposed community center that also includes a performance hall and swimming pool) at ground zero. I'll use a CNN article. Those mentioned in the article who support the mosque being built, say that:

• Technically the project didn't require the permission of the city to go ahead and build anyway. They just asked to be polite.
• It will celebrate pluralism in the United States and within Islam
• It will help people understand that most Muslims aren't terrorists
• That area of Manhattan is mostly commercial and residents need a community center

The two people specifically mentioned in the article who oppose the plan say that:

• The mosque would add insult to injury for the families of victims
• The terrorists were Muslims, so a mosque there reinforces their message that the attacks were God's will

Actually, I had a hard time breaking the comments of the dissenters down into a clear argument. Here is what they actually said:

"Lower Manhattan should be made into a shrine for the people who died there," said Michael Valentin, a retired city detective who worked at ground zero. "It breaks my heart for the families who have to put up with this. I understand they're [building] it in a respectful way, but it just shouldn't be down there."...

"[The 9/11 terrorists] did this in the name of Islam," Zelman said. "It's a sacred ground where these people died, where my brother was murdered, and to be in the shadows of that religion, it's just hypocritical and sacrilegious. "

I studied Islam for five hours today as a part of my Intro to World Religions class. While I'm not exactly an expert yet, I feel confident saying that the dissenters quoted don't understand very much about the religion. They probably technically know that terrorists are a part of the extreme fringe of Islam but don't have any experience with the peaceful and less visible Muslim majority; they base their feelings on the side that they have experience with--horrible, traumatic, tragic experience.

I agree with my professor that this case  is an issue of public ignorance about Islam more than conflict about the actual doctrines of the religion.

But this conclusion raises more questions. How shall we define religion? Prof. Whisenant is relying on a bare-bones, strictly defined to the thing itself definition, and I think that's an effective one to use. But there's another definition worth mentioning, the religion plus all of the trappings that pop culture associates with it. That method of defining things makes for a more nebulous definition, but accounts for the reactions that people have which seem incongruous when held to standard of the strict definition.

Perhaps that last paragraph got too abstract and foggy. Hopefully this next one will clarify my point:
This conflict could be categorized as "general ignorance versus reasonable request." In that case we might as well be talking changes to minimum wage laws or hunting policies. But there are elements connected to the mosque issue which are unique to religious issues. Partisans seem least likely to try understand and empathize with their opponents when religious leaders endorse one side or the other. There may be other reasons but I don't want to take the time to explore it now. 

My Civilization Professor's Thoughts on Citizen Journalism

I had an interesting conversation with my Digital Civilization professor, Gideon Burton, over +Google. He offered an interesting and informed perspective on the restructuring of news organizations. This is how it went:

 Prof. Burton: A very successful crowdsourcing platform for journalim is Deseret Connect. Once you register, you can get story assignments and get published in the online or paper versions of the Deseret News. I got an offer to do an assignment today to give Utah legislators a scorecard, for example. One of my prior students has published a movie review via Deseret Connect. While not without problems, the content platform has really gotten a lot of people to contribute stories and media (paying mostly in terms of reputation). 

My comment: Citizen journalism initiatives like Deseret Connect both encourage and frustrate me. I like that members of the community can provide skilled or expert perspectives that might not otherwise be published in a news organization's content. But I also wonder about the quality of a lot of journalism that is produced.
Also, since I'm studying journalism, part of me thinks, 'Deseret News, stop crowdsourcing the job I'm training for to volunteers from the public!' Questions about the training, ethics, and quality of citizen journalism aside--I feel protective about my prospective industry. Still, I recognize that perhaps I'll have to adapt with the economy and apply my training in a new business model or different industry...and that could be ok. 

Prof. Burton's Response: Just like many industries being challenged today due to digital shifts, journalism is having to reinvent itself. Rather than seeing unpaid correspondents as competition, you should look at the space it opens up for much-needed expertise. As I've spoken to the leaders of Deseret Connect, it was clear that while old jobs were being phased out, new ones are on the horizon. Who will train and organize the volunteers, for example? The scope of journalism, also, is expanding to areas where it has not been before. More available data and media means more possible types of stories and again, more need for other kinds of expertise. No, it won't be the old news room anymore, but Deseret Connect has shown proof positive that they can evolve into new labor and business models that work (which is more than can be said for other failing newspapers). They are a Phoenix rising from the ashes; pay attention.

Well, that gave me some good food for thought. In fact, I'm still digesting it.  He's right that journalism has to reinvent itself. Nobody's sure what that's going to look like yet, but the idea of a new need for people to train organized networks of citizen journalists is appealing and something I hadn't considered. I wonder if that suggestion came from one of the administrators of Deseret Connect?

"More need for other kinds of expertise" is an intriguing idea also. What might that be? Fact-checking and other forms of verification? Ethics monitoring? Contributor managing?

Anyoody have any ideas to flesh out Prof. Burton's advice?

My Journalism Ethics

Here's a brief overview of the principles that think are important and will abide by as a journalist:

What does mathematics and ethics have in common?

Both are centered around relationships. Math is the study of relationships between objects and numbers. And ethics matter because we have relationships with other people and our actions affect them. So my ethical construct will be categorized by the relationship involved.

With My Employer:

• I will complete the number of stories I am required to by my deadlines.
• If I must miss a deadline I will let my employer know in advance and explain why.
• I will abide by limits by my employer restraining my personal political activism within reason.

With My Audience:

• I will seek to help my audience understand their world better.
• With some stories this will mean giving little more than the hard facts and letting readers draw their own conclusions
• With more complex stories I will insert more of my own interpretation of events so that the audience can understand what is happening. I will try to keep my opinion to a minimum--using it only as much as is necessary for readers understand an issue well enough to form an opinion.
• If I do write an op-ed or other overtly opinion oriented article, my commitment will be to the truth, not to a special interest. (William Safire-style.)
• I will provide sources for my material (to the extent that I am able to)
• Names of human sources
• Studies where my statistics come from 
• etc.
• When I need to use a source anonymously I will explain to readers why I chose to.
• I will become a masterful writer
• There's enough poorly written journalism already
• I will read good books
• I will keep a clear head and continue to develop critical thinking skills
• I will not indulge in sensationalism.
• I will disclose ties I have to subjects involved in my articles.

With My Sources

• I will respect on/off record arrangements
• As long as they are made before the interview
• I will be lenient if the person should not have known better
• I will not necessarily go to jail to protect my sources. I'd probably give in to a subpoena out of respect for rule of law and obligation to my family to not go to jail needlessly.
• I will treat them respectfully.
• I will verify what they tell mew though other means as much as possible.

Role-Models

As the Comms 239 class continue to discuss ethics and a journalist's responsibility to conscience, I want to bring up the importance of industry role models. I've begun to identify both reporters, editors, and managers that I respect and want to emulate in my career. (I've also kept a few mental notes about those that I want to keep my distance from.) Good role-models help people rise to the best that they can be.

Here's a list of some people in the news industry that I admire:

• Historically: Edward R. Murrow of CBS News
• Historically: Walter Cronkite, also of CBS News
• Nationally: Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times
• Locally: Elisabeth Neff of the Salt Lake Tribune
• Editing/ Management: Peter Bhatia, editor of The Oregonian (not just because I'm from Oregon)

Response to a NYT Conclusion About Marriage

The New York Times recently published an article entitled For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage (by Jason DeParle and Sabrina Tavernise.) The story is useful because it calls attention to a troubling cultural landmark. But it does make a claim that is premature and slightly sensational.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

One group still largely resists the trend: college graduates, who overwhelmingly marry before having children. That is turning family structure into a new class divide, with the economic and social rewards of marriage increasingly reserved for people with the most education.

“Marriage has become a luxury good,” said Frank Furstenberg, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania. 

The shift is affecting children’s lives. Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems.

Ditch Twitter? But then how would I follow Kristoff?

I did an evaluation of my social media habits and realized that most of what I do on twitter (including tweet) is probably a waste of time. Twitter doesn't allow me to develop thoughts beyond that iconic 140 character limit. As far as sharing links goes, I doubt the effectiveness of my efforts because not many people follow my Twitter account.

So then, should I give up my Twitter account altogether, I wondered? Even though I enjoy the time I waste on it?

But wait! If I ditched the T-bird, then how would I hear about Nicholas Kristoff's articles and thoughts? (Like this one, an important addition to the discussion of poverty in America.) He's a writer for the New York Times, and my role-model in the industry. (It helps that he's from a small town in Oregon, just like me.)

Twitter, I realized, is valuable to me because it is a curator for my news consumption. Well, perhaps favorite reporters like Kristoff curate news first, and then Twitter aggregates their 'curations' for me. Possibly I could get the same utility from an RSS feed; I've never tried.

---now for a look back to last week's class discussion---

	Social Responsibility Model	Identity-based Model
Goal:	A better society	Survival of the publication
Responds to perception of:	Audience needs	Audience Wants
As a business model:	Seems impractical	Possibly successful

The reading we were assigned this week, from The Long Tale, offers interesting insights into the practicality of the identity-based model, calling it 'niche culture'. Probably there's even a way for forward thinking individuals to utilize niche culture to make a profit writing things that are actually beneficial to society (beyond entertainment value.)

Two Articles From the News This Week

It was a week of interesting news articles and two stuck with me in particular:

First of all, the horrific developments in the story of the Powell family. Specifically, Josh Powell apparently attacking his sons with a hatchet and exploding the house with all of them inside. I can't think of a set of news items that emotionally affected and disturbed me as much as these events.

The article in today's New York Times: 'We The People' Loses Appeal Around the World also bothered me. The article began with something interesting and valuable: coverage of a recent study showing that countries aren't using the U.S. Constitution as a model like the used to. That's definitely worth knowing. But as the writer, Adam Liptak, goes on and tries to explain why this might be, I saw him inserting his opinion into the piece carelessly and jumping to conclusions about what should be in a constitution.

Liptak quotes Thomas Jefferson's remark that every constitution “naturally expires at the end of 19 years” because “the earth belongs always to the living generation.” Just because Thomas Jefferson has a (well-deserved) place in the pantheon of American founders doesn't mean his opinions were all gospel truths.  If every generation had to relearn and establish the hard lessons of establishing and maintaining an effective democratic republic we would lose all of the benefits we currently enjoy from the toils of our forebears. The idea is to continually improve from generation to generation, not continually to restart. 

Liptak also writes that:

"Americans recognize rights not widely protected, including ones to a speedy and public trial, and are outliers in prohibiting government establishment of religion. But the Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care.

It has its idiosyncrasies. Only 2 percent of the world’s constitutions protect, as the Second Amendment does, a right to bear arms.  "

In conceding that the U.S. Constitution protects the many rights that other nations neglect (speedy and public trial, religion, right to bear arms) Liptak seems to really weaken his argument that our Constitution is failing to protect basic rights the rest of the world now expects.

Also, entitlement to food, education, and healthcare are all very controversial as civil liberties. I want everyone to have the necessities of  life, too; I'm just not convinced that the government should assume that responsibility on the scale Liptak implies. Entitlement is a dangerous beast to enthrone in a national consciousness. It promotes selfishness and removes incentives to work hard for one's self. Most of what the Constitution guarantees are protections against government intrusion, not promises of government assistance.

The first, second, fourth, fifth amendments and most others are examples of protections against government intrusion. About the only real things the Constitution says Americans are positively entitled to are a republican form of government, confrontation of witnesses, and protection by the military. 

I think the study Liptak was reporting on is good to know about, but I don't think that he left political bias out of his coverage.

Thoughts on the Reading: Wikileaks

The case study Friend or Foe? Wikileaks and the Guardian,published by the Knight Case Studies Initiative provides valuable insight into the way modern news is published. It looks at how British newspaper The Guardian came to team up with Julian Assange and other major newspapers to publish one of the biggest troves of confidential documents ever stolen from the U.S. government.

First of all, thank you to the producer of that article for helping me understand Wikileaks and its notorious founder, Julian Assange. Suspician, mystery, animosity, and admiration surround this international icon, but this article clears a lot of that away and helps me understand who he is and the way he operates Wikileaks. Understanding Wikileaks is crucial because they are on the cutting edge of citizen journalism, a new kind of source.

Wikileaks members--at least then--were a rich source, but not yet the communication platform they desired to be. Note that Assange was so glad to team up with members of the media establishment such as British newspaper The Guardian. According to the article, reporter Nick Davies said that Assange, "was aware that the Wiki model was a failure. He was already moving toward trying to use mainstream media to get more impact.” Apparently new web publishers sometimes need to lean on traditional media to gain credibility and exposure.

It is also interesting that neither no government attempted to prevent publication of the documents in question by official injunction. In the famous supreme court case New York Times vs. United States President Nixon had tried to restrain the publication of the Pentagon Papers, but failed.

Feature Writing's Place in Journalism

A recent cover of the New York Times sports section attracted my attention immediately. The page was almost completely blank, and there was a small photograph of a bloodied hockey player's face and with the title Derek Boogard: Blood on the Ice. The years of Boogard's birth and death (2011) were also given. The article that followed was the second in a three part feature by John Branch that told a sobering story about the lives of NHL enforcers using Derek "The Boogeyman" Boogard as a case study.

What made this article news? It wasn't the timeliness of it because Boogard passed away more than six months prior to the article's publication. It didn't appear relevant to most of the NYT's audience (will all the hockey fans in the room please stand up?) But I found the article fascinating; in fact, it made a strong impression on me. I felt like I saw for the first time the tumult that professional athletes can live in, especially in a sport as violent as hockey. Did you know that NHL teams keep an "enforcer" on their roster just to send onto the ice to fight the other team's enforcer to settle scores between teams and avenge cheap shots against star players? Neither did I. It sounded exciting. But then Branch describes Boogard's right hand, which was a mangled plump of flesh during his later years after years of getting it cut up and his knuckles broken and all out of place during fight after fight. Branch also describes the head trauma associated with such a lifestyle and that reminded me of Muhammed Ali's later years, when he had an ever-present tremor in him and could barely talk.

Inaugural Post

Hello Journalism 239 readers, welcome to my blog about journalism principles. In another class--well, it seems like ALL of my classes--I am studying mass digital communication more generally, so this blog is where I'll record my thoughts and questions about how those things relate to the journalism industry specifically. Also, I'll respond to New York Times articles here.

So the Daily Universe is going to be a weekly print publication and move the rest of their operations online. Obviously they should consider renaming the paper (at least the print edition) since it's only a daily publication online and on weekdays. I understand that BYU let a couple faculty members go as a part of the change-up. I'm sorry to hear of the loss of their jobs, that's a tough thing to go through. The move reminds me of an article in The Atlantic that included and estimate that an online-only version of the NYT woul only generate enough revenue to support 20 percent of their current staff. Journalism needs to get leaner and meaner in our world of converging media, but like the author of that article, I believe there will be survivors in the industry and that they will be the masterful writers with a specialization and that they (and their publications) will be adept collaborators.