« To all future educators... | Main | Homecoming Summary »

October 11, 2005

Chapter 6 - Monitor Power and Offer Voice to the Voiceless

"Journalists must serve as an independent monitor of power."

After reading this chapter (and this quote in particular), I began to reflect back on the comment that Nancy Gregg made in class about her boss at the community college.
I think that this is where journalism crosses the line. I have a huge problem with getting into people's faces and asking them questions that shouldn't be asked. I sometimes even have a problem with going up to a person and asking them their thoughts. I guess that this has to do with the fact that I am not a very forward person and that I wouldn't like it if someone came up to me and started asking me a million questions for some article.
I found myself becoming very angry in class, as Nancy was describing the interview to the class. How do reporters think that they can get away with trying to sabbotage someone's reputation with their writing? I am almost positive that most of them would not answer the questions that they are asking if the roles were reversed, so why do they do it to others, just to earn their salary and a better reputation.
I truly think that if I were ever in a situation like this, I would simply refuse to speak to the reporter.

Posted by AshleeLupchinsky at October 11, 2005 11:02 AM

Comments

A university administrator's job description often involves speaking to the media, but certainly there's a point where the individual's right to conceal part of his or her personal life conflicts with the public's right to know.

Sometimes a reporter who digs into a story learns that there isn't really a scancal. Nancy knows about what this reporter did because she was there in the room, not becuase the reporter published an article. So it may be that the reporter was indeed asking pushy questions, but I would hope that the reporter and that reporter's editor would put the brakes on an article that was merely a character assassination.

Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz at October 11, 2005 01:27 PM

I agree. I talked about this in one of my blogs--
At what point do modern news sources take the role of "activist, reformer, and [most imporantly] exposer" too far.

It's like when Michael Moore "interviewed" the head of the NRA in "Bowling for Columbine"-- I don't like/dislike Michael Moore, but that was ridiculous.

Reporter's do have a duty to inform the public, but shouldn't go digging for dirt.

Posted by: David Denninger at October 11, 2005 01:35 PM

I appreciate your comments (Dr. Jerz and David. After I read through this blog, I realized that I may have been a bit harsh. I realize that an article that sabbotaged someone's character, such as this one would have done, probably would not have been able to be published.
To make up for my harsh remarks, I plan on doing a blog (later on today) about the good aspects of chapter 6.

Posted by: AshleeLupchinsky at October 11, 2005 01:46 PM

Ashlee, don't for a moment worry that you have somehow done something wrong, or that you need to make up for a mistake! I'd rather think that your blog has helped you see more deeply into a topic that sparked your emotions. And that's a very good thing!

Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz at October 11, 2005 05:35 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?