What is a Journalist- Revisited

In the leviathan of the machine that is democracy, journalism is the cogs that keep it turning. It allows the people the knowledge they need to make informed decisions, it keeps politicians and corporations honest, and it broadens the perspective of the public by telling them the things they need to know. A journalist is an individual that puts his or her life aside to seek out truth- and reports it, whatever the cost. It's a noble profession worthy of only the truly dedicated.

So make sure you tie your necktie really well.

That's what it should be. But reality, unfortunately, is no mirror for perfection, and it is clear that today reporters are less the white knights than they are the grunge-churning peasants. Today, we see the creeping return of the guiding principles of old: sensationalism, partisanism, yellow journalism. This decline of quality journalism does no one any good: the public loses it's faith in the media, the media loses it's respectability, and journalism declines.

Of course, the decline of some newspapers isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Take the recent paper by the New York Post, which splashed a horrific photo of a man seconds before he was run over by a subway. Obviously, a terrible tragedy- both for the man, and that the Post decided to print such graphic filth. But what have other news organizations done? Publicized the Post's poor judgement, essentially spreading it's corrosive influence farther than the fringe newspaper could ever hope to do on it's own! This is a travesty of what journalism should be and an embarrassment to the industry.

Honestly, they shouldn't be allowed to walk around without their heads in paper bags.

So that's where journalism stands as of now. A once noble pillar, battered and cracked through the ages. Budget cuts threaten to cripple the industry even further. But there is hope- journalism will always have hope that new and idealistic reporters will return the news to it's former glory. That's the kind of individuals that journalists need to be. And it's my hope that it's what they return to. Until next time.

Stay classy, blogosphere.

An Objective Truth

Objectivity: it's a mythical ideal, a sort of journalistic holy grail. To be a part of a completely neutral news force, writing and reporting articles miraculously free of bias of any kind, would be a lot like riding a unicorn- awesome, a harbinger of a  perfect world, and completely unrealistic. 

Unfortunately, not going to happen.

That doesn't mean that it's not worth striving for. Obviously, journalistic objectivity is the gold standard that every reporter should strive for. But seeing as absolute objectivity (and unicorns) don't exist, an actual standard is needed. The true definition of objectivity, then, is being able to both acknowledge and work aside bias for the sake of accurate reporting. It means recognizing that completely nonpartisan reporting is both unachievable but still worth shooting for.

Doing the impossible is just another day on the job.

This helps put a framework for how a journalist needs to function. There are lines that reporters shouldn't cross, and those that they should. The truth needs to established through dedicated reporting, fact checking, and commitment to a higher ideal. That being said, failures will be made as journalistic integrity is jettisoned in some circumstances. But the foundation of ethical journalism will create a framework that allows journalism to flourish while being held accountable by other news organizations. It's a tricky balance to achieve, but it's imperative to try. A journalistic holy grail is worth an attempt at least.

Another interesting perspective on objectivity in journalism: http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-journalismwar/article_1218.jsp

So You Want To Be A Reporter

Why would I want to be a journalist? Why would I pick a major that would disappoint my grandmother, attempt to wrest a job from an ever-shrinking workforce, and all but guarantee that my income will be too low to buy my dream house in Santa Barbara? It's because journalism is more than a profession, more than some nine-to-five grind every week. Being a journalist is a higher calling- it's a mission to the American public, to provide them with the essential, hard-hitting news they need to be participatory and informed citizens in a democracy. Given the state of America today, I feel like everyone could really use me.

40% of Americans couldn't even get off the couch this year
to vote for the freaking President of the United States.

Of course, I'll admit there's some ulterior motive here. I like being up in front of a camera and talking. And the perks of meeting interesting people, celebrities, and getting up from a desk to explore what's going on in the community are all factors. And I feel like constantly reporting on new topics will make me at least a little bit smarter. (Or at least smarter looking, but that's important too.) But at the core of it is the fact that I really want to make a difference. I don't want to spend my working hours as a blip on the radar of life. I want to be out in the world, using an intellectual machete to cut through lies and red tape, at least making some small impact on people's lives.

I want to be this kind. This kind of journalist.

They say the unexamined life is not worth living, and I want to examine life- reporting stories, exposing corruption, and being a force for justice. And you know, be on TV. Maybe that's a little bit selfish. But hey, I'm giving up my potential Santa Barbara dream house for this. That's got to be worth something here.


Even Forbes agrees with me! Check out this article to see some other reasons why journalism doesn't suck: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/04/16/forget-that-survey-heres-why-journalism-is-the-best-job-ever/

It's the end of the world- again

Do you remember 2009? You know, when the global pandemic known as swine flu swept uncontrollably across the globe, leaving an unimaginable trail of death and destruction in its wake? You don't remember that? Weird- if you'd been reading, listening, or watching the news, you would have equivocated the rather mild outbreak of the H1N1 virus with the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it.

Aporkalypse now! Get it? C'mon, that was a good one.

 It's obvious that this story was blown out of proportion by the media as a whole. And the reasons are pretty apparent. The news cycle is driven by 24-hour reporting, and with a constant demand for fresh talking points there is always a burden to be sensational. It's like a watered down version of yellow journalism, where the biggest and best headline wins. In a slow-news period like the spring of 2009, H1N1 broke out at just the right time. Media coverage put the fuel on the fire, and public fear ignited it like a 50-gallon drum of oil at a matches party.

Pictured above- public sentiment.

Had there been more of a sedated reaction to the swine flu scare, things could have turned out differently. Cool, unbiased reporting of the facts, not scientists' worst-case-scenario predictions, could have kept the public calm and kept fear from spreading, ironically enough, like a virus. In hindsight, we realize how overblown our fears were- the death rates for swine flu barely exceeded the usual range for seasonal illnesses. While people were infected, vaccines quickly ended the H1N1 virus. However, the paranoia generated ended up hurting airlines, theme parks, and other businesses caught up in the deluge of fear. One would hope this scare would cure the media's fondness for overhyping stories. Sure- when pigs fly.

An old CNN article takes a look back at the swine flu hype: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/12/30/top.health.stories/index.html#cnnSTCText

College Kid Writes Stunning Exposé Blog! Read All About It!

Yellow journalism- a relic of a bygone era, when young newspapers screamed sensational headlines and the public lapped it up. The stories were generally overblown, consistently downplayed and overplayed key facts, and often could only be considered news under the broadest possible definition of the term. Who am I kidding? National TV these days fits the same bill. In the 24-7 news cycle we live in, we are bombarded in every direction from every network with the latest stories. And as has been the case for decades, news editors know that big headlines sell.

Yellow journalism- now in color.

This is not to say that journalism today is all like journalism then. Standards have tightened- we hold our newsmen to a higher standard of truth, and fact checking blasts through outright lies like a sneeze through wet Kleenex. But the compulsion to take the significant and make it sensational, in a frantic bid to get higher ratings or more web traffic, is only undermining the hard work true journalists do.

You know, this type of work.

Using interviews, telling stories to supplement the facts, digging for every detail- this is what good journalists are capable of doing. Thorough investigations of stories and leads can turn a dull story into a fleshed-out article capable of influencing and informing public opinion. They can tell a compelling, informative story without resorting to sensationalism or blowing things out of proportion. There may not be the glamour of penning a headline that has the whole country seeing red. But it beats yellow.

Still, people don't always get things right. This site helps: http://factcheck.org/

Public Forum of Dreams

"If you build it, they will come."
If journalists start the conversation, the public will join in. That's why true investigative journalism is so important. Journalists have the duty to bring stories to light that might otherwise never be told, to shake citizens out of complacency when something is wrong, and to engage the public in conversation about serious issues. As the ones responsible for getting the facts out there, the burden is especially high for reporters to dredge forth accurate and unbiased information so the public can make educated and informed decisions. If there is a marketplace of ideas available, the average citizen can both benefit from and contribute to a public forum of information.

The trade-off is Internet comments.

Of course, this is a two edged sword. If allowed to dictate the terms of the conversation, news outlets can blow issues wildly out of proportion and mislead readers or watchers with incomplete or prejudiced facts. It's important that while journalists start the news by breaking important stories, they don't also dictate its terms and control the perspective at the cost of the public.

It'd be like someone jumpstarting your car and then driving off with it.

Essentially though, the bulwark of our democracy is the voice of the people. And the people need information in order to formulate opinions, interact with society, and participate in the democratic processes that make our country the great nation it is today. So a public forum like a newspaper is essential, the journalists chronicling the news just as much so. That marketplace of ideas isn't going to build itself.

In this article, the Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger writes about the importance of a free press in engaging the public: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/06/importance-free-press-alan-rusbridger

Live and Learn? Apparently not.

Free journalism- it exists to be our watchful protector, our not-so-silent guardian, our voice that uncovers injustice and deceit.

Basically, our Batman.

That's why investigative, unbiased press is so important- it can bring us the information that we need to know. This lesson was irrevocably seared into my brain back in 2011, when I was but a lad and still innocent to the ways of the world. The local paper of my hometown, the Santa Barbara NewsPress, published a stunning 5-part expose of award-winning police officer Kasi Beutel. The articles uncovered  her shady past, a possible history of faulty DUI convictions, and bankruptcy fraud as reasons for this cop's patent unreliability. The NewsPress scooped enough dirt on Officer Beutel to put her six feet under. Sounds like good reporting, right? Quality journalism strikes again, right? Wrong!

Officer Beutel: the female one

Psych! (And I don't mean the TV show.) What makes this whole series suspect is that the man who penned these tirades: a Mr. Peter Lance, who had been pulled over by Officer Beutel for drunk driving and failed the breath test (he blew a .09, over the legal limit.) Now, Mr. Lance may have had perfectly valid points against Officer Beutel. Certainly, his expose had some merit, such as uncovering that Santa Barbara police vehicles do not come equipped with video cameras. But he is the very definition of a biased reporter. He clearly has a personal stake in the game! To pass this off as objective journalism is to make a mockery of the profession. As LA Times columnist James Rainey wrote, "The DUI opus in the News-Press... was presented as a straight news story, written by someone who has a lot riding on the outcome."

Peter Lance: Someone who has a lot riding on the outcome

This whole Peter Lance debacle made a powerful impact on me. I realized that to have credibility, a journalist must be objective and to some degree removed from the story he's covering. The NewsPress could have delivered a much more effective and powerful story had they used one of their own impartial reporters as opposed to to an independent correspondent with an undeniable bone to pick. Whether the officer is guilty as accused is at this point irrelevant. The issue is so clouded that a clear account of the truth will probably never be revealed. That's a shame. And by the way, Lance has recently begun skewering Beutel through the Newspress once again, which frankly is just dumb. Even Batman learned from his mistakes.

Unfortunately, the SB Newspress does not publicize its archive unless you have an account. Here is a link to the page where you could view the article: http://www.newspress.com/Top/Search/results.jsp?dateOrdered=true&articleIndex=100&pageNum=6
Here's an LA Times article on the subject: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/02/entertainment/la-et-onthemedia-20110702
And here's some good journalism: The Independent (Santa Barbara's variant paper) columnist Nick Welsh brought this conflict of interest into the limelight in the first place:  http://www.independent.c om/news/2011/jun/30/putting-ow-back-bow-wow/

Food for Thought

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

Above you see the definition of the word neutral. As we've heard countless times, this should be what a journalist strives for: impartiality, just reporting the news without opining it. But as I may have previously ranted about, this simply is not the case. That's because journalism is not written by impersonal machines (not yet anyways,) it's written by humans. People. And people have opinions and thoughts and emotions, things that must be quashed in order to write a truly unbiased piece of journalism. An interesting contradiction: reporters and journalists, guardians of the free press and the standard bearers of free speech, are forced to rein in their own opinions and walk the tightrope of neutrality when publishing their work? This seems contradictory, though journalism organizations (claim to) stake their reputations on doing exactly that. 

You didn't expect you'd doing this when you got that job at the newspaper, did you?

So is there such a thing as an objective press? The short answer, essentially, is no. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's natural to have bias, but it is important to recognize that fact and acknowledge it. More importantly, the public needs to realize this and make informed media decisions.   Using the vast power of the Internet that we have essentially sitting on hand, we have the ability and duty to make sure what we read and watch is conforming to the truth. A metaphor: if journalism is food, then watch what you eat. And try to keep a balanced diet. Don't just pig out on junk.

Pictured above: Unhealthy media consumption habits

Here's a very interesting article on objectivity in journalism I found (ironically enough) at the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karthika-muthukumaraswamy/media-has-a-yang_b_1921683.html

Enjoy and peace out.

Called to Serve

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

A journalist's first loyalty is to the truth? Perhaps. But a man's first loyalty is to support his family, and truth doesn't put bread on the table or pay for the kid's orthodontics. So journalists have jobs, and the truth is that in the end the journalist isn't serving you, the citizen- he's serving it, the company that's keeping him employed. And for a lack of a better metaphor, it's the carrot and the stick: the journalist writes his story, does a good job, and receives a paycheck, or he doesn't do his work and is subsequently fired. This makes the average reporter's day-to-day focus less on serving Average Joe Citizen and more about meeting the ever-present looming deadline. This is not to say there isn't good journalism out there- there's plenty of it, both print and broadcast- but at the end of the day, you aren't even the news company's primary customer. The advertiser is.

This guy had no idea.

 I'm being too harsh. Just because the journalist isn't necessarily serving the citizen (they're not waiters, after all) does not mean the citizen isn't being effectively served. With the advent of the digital era, we have access to more information than in any time previous. We are being served a veritable five-course meal's worth of reporting and news. Of course, this makes it even harder to discern who is dispensing veiled propaganda and who is holding their bias in check. Then again, as I learned in my Journalism class only yesterday, objectivity is essentially impossible. Even when an effort is being made to step past personal bias, the worldview of the journalist still influences their work.

So is the citizen being effectively served? Polls, like the one conducted above by the Pew Research Center, make it clear that the public doesn't think so. But is there any consensus as to what being "effectively served" is? Do we want pure logistical facts? Do we want commentary or punditry? Journalists ought to be lauded with praise for the job they do do, adapting and keeping the public informed at breakneck speed. Someone should offer them a carrot or something. Goodness knows they get beaten with enough sticks.

For even cooler looking graphs than the one above, check out the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. They've got something for everyone!

Do you believe journalists report the truth? Why or why not?

The legendary Johnny Cash once sang: "Can you blame the voice of youth, for asking/ What is truth?"

Pictured: the voice of a generation of truth seekers

Before asking whether or not journalists report the truth, a better question, perhaps, is what is truth? The answer is complicated- truth, especially when applied in the world of journalism, depends on sorting through the facts at one's disposal to tell the most accurate story of what took place. As more news is uncovered and more details come to light, the truth of a story may shift and change. Two journalistic goals, therefore, are correspondence and coherence: getting the facts straight while making sense of them. While its overall nature may be subjective, it's still important that truth remain the objective for all reporters to strive for. As those who essentially discover and direct what information we receive, dedication to providing accurate news (the basis for accurate opinions) should be their top priority. Is it?

Polls show trust in the media is at an all time low, and that journalists rank in the bottom tier of trustworthy occupations, hovering somewhere between bankers and politicians. Clearly, the public doesn't think so. Just turning on the television bombards the viewer with reporters slandering the coverage of other reporters, while talk radio is closer to "yell-and-bicker radio" than civil discourse. So apparently journalists don't think journalists tell the truth either.

Personally, I feel that journalists, in general, tell the truth. Or at least they intend to. Speaking generally, no journalist sets out to tell a completely fabricated story to the public. However, their human bias tints the perspective of any reporter, resulting in sometimes distorted accounts of what the truth is.

Truth is like Instagram, only slightly more filtered

So while I believe journalists report the truth, I also believe that truth's subjective nature sometimes makes it hard to judge it accurately. It's easy to point fingers and blame our news agencies for distorted truth while ignoring our own sizable biases. Thus, while journalists may strive to report only the truth, it takes extensive self-judgement to publish an unbiased truth.
Of course, some less than scrupulous journalists disregard this whole business of truth-telling and just straight-up lie. But that's a good way to end up, as Johnny Cash put it, "stuck in Folsom Prison."

Check out this link for the Edelman Trust Barometer, which measures the levels of trust in various institutions, including the media.

What purpose does journalism serve in your life?

"Never has freedom of information been so closely associated with democracy... The equation is simple. The absence or suppression of civil liberties leads necessarily to the suppression of media freedom."      -Press Freedom Index, 2011-2012

Journalism is essential to freedom, which in turn is essential to democracy. In totalitarian regimes, governments control the populace through a combination of media suppression and tightly hierarchal corridors of power. In other parts of the world, corruption and lawlessness leaves journalists fending for themselves, though this has begun to change. In the United States, we're blessed with a democracy that allows the people to elect their leaders. We have a Constitution that protects our basic rights and and grants us civil liberties. In other words, we're doing pretty good.

Pictured above: Journalism at its finest

So what purpose does journalism serve? The watchword of Peter Parker (aka Spiderman) was, "With great power comes great responsibility." As free citizens of the United States, we have both power and responsibility to make informed decisions when it comes to our country. How do we do that? Using journalism. Using the free press to stay informed, making intelligent decisions when it comes to the media we intake, and learning about the conflicts, politics, and events of the world around us. By the way, Spiderman's career when he wasn't fighting crime? A journalist! (More accurately, a photographer.) How's that for some symbolism?

Personally, I make it a habit to know what's going on in the world. Call me nosy, but I feel that to be an active participant in democracy needs to require a knowledge of current events, political happenings, and world affairs. And without good journalism, we'd have none of that. So what purpose does journalism serve? A better question, perhaps, is what purpose should it serve? We determine what media we intake, and we can make decisions based off of what we know. So make an effort to learn something today. Pull up a tab on the Internet and read a good article. With the wealth of information at our fingertips, it would be a shame to waste valuable time trawling through relationship statuses on Facebook or watching funny clips on YouTube. Learn something new today, because that's the purpose journalism should serve. With great power comes great responsibility.

What is a journalist?

Being a journalist is more than just a job, more than being a name in the paper or a face on the screen. Journalists carry the distinct responsibility to tell the public the truth, to break the stories that would otherwise go untold, and to uphold the ethics of their profession. Journalism and the media are the connection between the happenings of the world and the public as a whole.

Democracy, in particular, depends on free journalism. For the people to make informed decisions, they must be informed, and that can only happen with an unbiased, impartial media. When news organizations and journalists report with bias, it corrupts the system and undermines the principles that journalism is built on. However, balanced journalism and media can illuminate issues and allow citizens and voters to make the decisions that a democracy requires.

As the clip above evidenced, journalists sometimes risk life and limb to bring light to horrible situations. In a heavily censored and militant area like Syria, these few international journalists on the ground are our only real way of knowing what the situation there is. The risks they take, sometimes at the cost of their own lives, emphasize journalism at it's pinnacle: reporting the truth, for the sake of the truth.

That's all I have for the moment. For another good opinion of what journalism should be, check out Journalism.org. http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles
It's an article highlighting nine key principles of respectable journalism.
Till next time,
Isaac Wright