In my previous portfolios for this class I discussed how I was overcoming my bad attitude about news writing and learning through experience how hard news writing actually is. Both of these things are still true. I still have bouts of bad attitude (although, I think they are becoming less frequent) and I learn a lot about the process of news writing every time I write an article (and therefore, must interview, verify, and write). However, I think my biggest change since my last portfolio relates less to my actual abilities as far as news writing goes and instead more to my daily life.
I have found myself paying more attention to current events and the news as this class has progressed. In the past, I have paid very little attention to the news. If I stumbled across a headline on the Internet that I thought was intriguing, I would click on it and read it. That was the extent of it; I would not actively seek or go to news sites looking for news. However, while we were tracking the news cycle I began checking news websites daily for updates on my breaking news articles. When we finished that, I found that I kept checking the web pages daily anyway.
Furthermore, after writing my localized news article, I realized how in the dark I was to internet issues going on right now—legal issues which could affect everyone. I become cognizant that there is a real benefit to knowing what is going on. I also realized that it doesn’t take too much effort to go to a news organization’s website, skim over the headlines, and click on the links to the full articles of the ones that sound interesting/important.
Not only have I started seeking out news more, I also have found myself understanding why the reporters write the way they do and remarking on how they word and write things. Essentially, I am evolving into a more informed person not only about how news writing is done, but I find myself being more interested in the news. This interest and understanding are things which can follow me even after this class is over and even if I never teach a high school journalism class.
Coverage and Timeliness: I completed all assigned blogs and posted them all on or before the time that they were due. I list here only the blogs which did not fall under another category.
Depth: These are a few blogs that I put some extra thought into.
- Be Careful What You Wish In this blog, I made a connection between editorials (a new concept to me) and academic essays (something I have a lot of experience with). Through this connection and consideration of the similarities of the structure and form of the two, I help myself to better understand the new idea of editorials and hopefully help my classmates to understand better as well. I even made a chart to make the similarities even clearer.
- Journey from Blurry Vision to Clear Sight: Localized News Article In this very long and in depth blog, I go through and explain step by step everything I learned while writing my localized news article. I think this blog is a very good example of the synthesizing, reflecting, and learning I have been doing in the class.
- Finally, Someone Admits Objectivity is Impossible! In this blog I consider Haiman’s explanation of the real objectivity of news writing, which exists not in the journalist being unbiased, but in following “a consistent method of testing information.” I share my own frustrations with the use of the word “objectivity” and explain why I like what Haiman writes about it.
- Reevaluating the “Negative” News Bias In this reflection on Derek’s blog, I reconsider the “negative news bias” in news writing and question whether this tendency is really the journalists' fault.
Interaction: These
are some of my classmates’ blogs that got me thinking and resulted in me
commenting on them.
- On Matt’s Preaching to the Choir, I leave him a long comment explaining to him how his blog has increased my understanding about remaining unbiased.
- On Josie’s Fixing Our Mistakes Before They Happen, I politely disagree with her assertion that editors are not one of the most essential parts of making a paper excellent. I leave her two comments, one is very long and the other refers her to my own blog for a more thorough explanation. Dr. Jerz, Aja, Josie, and Angela also participate in the conversation.
- On Angela’s You Don’t Have to Be Perfect, I start the discussion off with a long comment in which I agree with what Angela said in her blog and add my own two cents. Then later I leave another comment addressing Aja’s comment and expanding yet more on the importance of publishing corrections. Derek also was part of the discussion and Angela responded to our comments.
- On Angela’s “I Wish to Remain Anonymous”, I again start off the discussion with a long comment. I point out to her that finding someone willing to have their name attached to a quote sometimes can be very difficult. Wendy, Josie, and Jenn jump into the conversation and I leave another comment expanding on what they wrote.
Discussion: These are some of my blogs which sparked discussion.
- Be Careful What You Wish Derek, Matt, and Josie comment on my relation of editorials to an academic essay and the chart I made to visually represent it. I answer them back with a lengthy comment. Wendy joins in and Derek answers again. Derek also wrote a reflection on this blog and I commented on his reflection.
- “Getting It Right” Josie, Angela, Aja, and even Dr. Jerz discuss my blog on Haiman’s suggestion that journalists read parts of their articles or quotes to the experts to make sure that they have the facts straight. In response to their comments, I leave a very long comment addressing the issues they brought up.
- You Better Have an Explanation Derek, Kaitlin, Josie, and I discuss the idea of including a daily column in newspapers which would provide explanations to the readers for why the paper and the journalists do what they do.
Xenoblogging:
The Comment Primo:
The Comment Grande:
- Derek’s Use Some Positive Judgment
The Link Gracias:
- My comment on my blog, You Better Have an Explanation
- Any reflection entry
Wildcard: I selected two wildcards. The first blog below, I selected because of how representative it is of the progress I have been making (and also because of how much time I spent on it). The second one I selected because it is an extra blog entry I wrote in which I applied the principles we are learning in news writing to a news article about Seton Hill.
Reflections: These are blog entries I wrote before class. They are based on my classmates’ blog entries. I expand on what I have learned from their blogs and what I now understand better thanks to them. If I use a reflection in another category, I do not include it here at well.
Previous Portfolios:
- EL150: Do You Believe in Magic?
- EL312: Discovering Preferences
Return to the course webpage.
The more I think about the whole issue of negative bias to news the more complex the issue seems to me. As a news consumer in the past, I have been of the same opinion as those which Haiman writes of. When I thought of the news, I thought of murders, deaths, disease. I perceived it as being nothing but bad things. However, since I began taking this news writing class, I have paid more attention to what types of articles are in newspapers. And I have been surprised by how many positive articles there actually are. Derek’s blog made me think even more about this. He quoted a Dr. Nauert, who explained that for issues such as a local health threat there is “increased attention and memory in readers.” If this is the case, then isn’t it possible there is positive news in every newspaper and we as readers simply allow it to be overshadowed by the negative (since we remember it better)? I don’t mean to suggest that there is no negative bias at all, I think there is one, it might just be less bad than we may think.
Furthermore, we do pay more attention to and remember these negative stories more, and thus, they become more newsworthy. Journalists do want their newspapers to be sold and if we as consumers pay attention to (demand) the negative, that’s what the journalists are going to supply. So how can we blame them for giving us what we ask for?
Lastly, there is the space issue to consider. Print newspapers only have so much room to deal with. When there is only enough room for one of two good articles written, a decision must be made about which one gets printed and which one is either saved for another day or is just never printed. The editor is going to pick the story that he/she thinks the readership will care more about. When there is a “positive” story about a woman winning a pie baking contest and there is a “negative” one about a murder, which one would you want to be put in the paper? If you are like me, you’ll have picked the murder. In light of these space constraints, sometimes there is little a newspaper can do to prevent there being more “negative” stories than “positive.”
Return to the homepage.
From Robert J. Haiman’s Best Practices for Newspaper Journalists:
“Discussions about reporters keeping personal biases out of their news stories sometimes get hung up on the use of the word ‘objective.’ Critics contend that reporters should be objective. Journalists say that is an unrealistic standard. More to the point is this distinction made in a publication of the Committee of Concerned Journalists: ‘When the concept of objectivity in the media originally evolved, it did not imply that journalists were free of bias. It called, rather, for a consistent method of testing information—a transparent approach to evidence—precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work. It is the method that is objective, not the journalist’” (54).
I apologize for the long quote; however, I feel that all of it is important. I personally have gotten hung up over the word choice of “objectivity” multiple times. I hear “unbiased” and “objective” and get very frustrated. Why? Because these are impossible goals to attain. It may be nice in an ideal world to claim that journalists can 100% make their articles impartial. But, this is frankly impossible. If you analyze the wording of almost anything you can find some sort of bias or leading words contained therein. For example, if I were to write in an article, “It all started when John, haunted by his past, decided to provide an opportunity for others to move on as he had,” I would be leading my readers to feel compassion for and relate to John. By saying “haunted by his past,” the reader automatically feels pity and connects his past to theirs. While this may be an effective way to keep the reader reading, it will also color their understanding of the rest of article and events. In light of the impossibility of achieving “objectivity,” I was angered that it was claimed so strongly this was possible.
However, I think the Committee of Concerned Journalists addresses this issue well. They explain quite clearly and reasonably that objectivity is impossible. They aren’t arguing that journalists are “free of bias;” instead, they clarify that the objectivity lies in “a consistent method of testing information.” In other words, it’s the same principle as Dr. Jerz’s saying, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” It is impossible for articles to be entirely objective. Articles are written from words and words are by definition emotionally charged and powerful. Nor can a journalist entirely distance themselves from their opinions on a subject matter. However, if they methodically check their facts and gather many quotes from a variety of people, it is no longer so much your words that charge the article, but theirs.
Derek on his blog posed some interesting questions about the responsibilities that journalists have in their treatment of public figures (or others used to dealing with the news media) and everyone else who is not used to talking to them. I think the key is that reporters need to consider the individual circumstances and situation. If they consider these specifics and remain “sensitive” (which Josie discusses on her blog), reporters won’t have to worry about treating people unfairly.
It would not be fair for journalists to treat people who were used to dealing with the news media and other people the same way. The politicians, celebrities, etc. know how to say just enough without saying anything, they have practice making it seem like they are answering a question without actually doing so, and they are very cognizant of the results that a slip of the tongue could have on the rest of their lives. Most other people are not used to this. They won’t realize the potential results of what they say. A journalist needs to make the interviewee feel relaxed and comfortable, but at the same time he or she needs to make the potential effects of the interview clear. Reporters should help the interviewee realize anything they say “can and may be used against them,” whether the “against” is intentional or not. However, all of this is essentially just “sensitivity”. If the reporter considers the circumstances and then considers how they would like to be treated were they the interviewee, the dilemma of how to treat people disappears.
From Robert J. Haiman’s Best Practices for Newspaper Journalists:
“’Connectedness’ has become one of the buzzwords of the national effort to restore credibility. One way to connect with a public that says it feels distanced from it newspapers is to explain to the public what the newspaper does and why” (41).
Giving an explanation to the public about why newspapers do what they do seems both practical and useful. First off, as Haiman highlights, many people do not understand journalistic practices. They may too quickly condemn something the newspaper does without understanding why. It will help the public better understand and through the understanding feel more connected to and more trusting of the news media. On another level, it will also force journalists to carefully evaluate their actions. If they are required to explain why they do or do not do something, they will be more likely to carefully consider what they print. Therefore, not only would journalists be forced to consider their decisions more closely, but the public would understand as well. It reminds me of in creative writing or as Dr. Jerz was explaining about using “said” in class, you have to have a good reason and explanation for what you do. It’s not arbitrary; there is reasoning behind your choices. My only concern was how you would go about doing this in a newspaper, but Haiman addresses this by given an example of what The Arizona Republic does. They have a separate daily column in their paper with explanations. I definitely think this is a practice which would benefit journalists and readers alike.
Read more on Haiman.
On her blog, Wendy created an interesting analogy between
anonymous quotes and sandwiches. She
explained, “anonymous
quotes are like a mystery to what your mom puts in your lunch bag.” This made me relate unsourced quotes to my
own experience in my high school’s cafeteria.
At least once every other week, “the signature entrée” (as they called
whatever was in the hot lunch line) was “tuna surprise.” There was always endless speculation as to
what the “surprise” was…however, since the “surprise” was a mystery and no
student ever managed to drag out of a lunch lady what the “surprise” was, the
general consensus was that the safest policy was to steer away from “tuna
surprise.”
Relating this to journalism, your anonymous source is like the “surprise.”
Since I didn’t know what else was with the tuna, I distrusted it and did not eat
it. In a similar fashion, readers will
distrust an unnamed source. Furthermore,
the practice of avoiding the “tuna surprise” can also apply to avoiding using anonymous
sources. For just as we feared
discovering the “surprise” too late, you don’t want to find out your source is unreliable
after your article has been printed and read by thousands of people. So unless you want to risk an unpleasant “surprise,”
do your best to find something better to eat (or, in other words, do your best
to find someone who is willing to be named).
Return to the homepage.
From Robert J. Haiman’s Best Practices for Newspaper Journalists:
“Veteran San Jose Mercury News reporters Pete Carey and Mike Antonucci have been reading stories or parts of stories back to sources for years ‘in the interest of getting it right.’ Says Carey: ‘If I’m quoting someone, I want them to pick up the paper in the morning and say, ‘Yeah, that is exactly how I feel about it’” (27).
I found this to be a shocking idea. I honestly never even considered sharing a draft or passage of an article with an expert. However, I think it is an excellent idea. As this reading stressed, many times in the journalism field, reporters are called upon to report on things they may not know a lot about. They should do their best to research ahead of time on the internet and to take classes which will help prepare them, but what better way to ensure accuracy than to ask an expert to look it over. Furthermore, not only will this safeguard the accuracy of the story, it will also make sure your source is satisfied that you expressed his or her opinion correctly. This could go a long way towards increasing his or her trust of your newspaper and make them more willing to help you in the future. I don’t think it would be realistic or time efficient to read him or her a whole article, but having the source look over a specific passage seems like a great way of “getting it right.”
Read more on Haiman.
Here’s just another example of the importance of making sure you have all the facts straight. As of Monday night, I was hearing rumors about there being swine flu on campus. I was incredulous at first. There was no cold, hard fact to base these reports on. When I got up the next morning, I had a campus-wide e-mail about swine flu care and prevention. Later on in the day, I saw a channel 4 camera man videotaping on campus. It seemed like all the evidence was pointing towards a swine flu case. However, as was reported later, none of this was true. You can read the WTAE article about the real events here. However, I think this is just another lesson about the importance of making sure you have the facts straight before you write or assume anything. Reporters may get interested in some story because of a tip someone might have given them, but just because you got a tip (or events seem to point towards something) does not mean it’s true. As Dr. Jerz says, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out” and “Verify or duck.”
Return to EL227’s homepage.
Josie on her blog challenged the assertion that change should start with the editor. While I definitely agree with her highlighting that journalists must accept responsibility for their article and the mistakes they may make, I still felt that to some degree the high standards have to start at the top and work down. If the editor is going to let the reporters get away with low-quality articles, some of them probably will. It takes less effort after all.
In considering acceptance of responsibility, I considered it in terms of a student-teacher relationship. If the teacher doesn’t demand a lot, chances are the student is not going to try as hard. If the student can get away with little effort and mediocrity, they probably will. However, if the teacher’s expectations are higher and the student must work really hard to get a good grade, the student will.
So in other words, high quality demands must start at the top. Yes, there are exceptions. There are some students and some journalists, who will work hard no matter what anyone else asks of them, but that is not always the case, and even these dedicated workers will work harder and strive for better work if pushed. While it is very important for individual journalists to aspire for their best possible work, I think it is important for the higher up’s not to have complacent attitudes either.
Read more on Haiman.
From Robert J. Haiman’s Best Practices for Newspaper Journalists:
“But the public sees it quite another way. They say they understand that reporters have to work very hard and fast under pressure, and they acknowledge that is not a system likely to produce perfection…But they do not believe this should exempt the newspaper from cleaning up its messes promptly and fully” (13).
I think a lot of what Haiman writes seemed simply like common sense to me. But, then again, since I have also been and viewed myself as a member of the public and not as a journalist until this class, perhaps it is easier for me to perceive what would annoy the public more than someone who has been a news writer for 20 years.
I chose the quote above because of how true it is. I have always respected journalists for the job they have to do. I doubt many people would claim that being a journalist is easy. I have said myself several times that I would not want to be a journalist because it would stress me out too much. Too much is simply out of one’s control for me to wish to do it as a career. However, no matter how stressful a job is people should and do have to take responsibility for their actions and mistakes. I am seeking a teaching certification and in the education field we call it accountability. If we don’t take responsibility for what we do and try to learn and change from our mistakes, we will simply perpetuate ineffective practices and mistakes.
I also think it makes sense that the public would prefer and have greater respect for the newspapers that own up to their errors. It may be slightly embarrassing, but it does make the newspaper more reliable. Who do you want to trust, someone who tries to sweep misinformation under the rug or someone who admits it and learns from it? Admitting you’re wrong is never easy, but you will gain more respect by doing so, both in life and in the news world.
Read more on Haiman.
Recent Comments
Greta Carroll on You Better Have an Explanation : Exactly, I think a lot of the
Kaitlin Monier on You Better Have an Explanation : I agree with your point, Greta
Josie Rush on You Better Have an Explanation : Greta, great points here. Muc
Derek Tickle on You Better Have an Explanation : You made me think about the "w
Derek Tickle on You Better Have an Explanation : I think it would be great if t
Greta Carroll on “Getting It Right” : Angela, I definitely understan
Aja Hannah on “Getting It Right” : I've read quotes that I've sai
Dennis G. Jerz on “Getting It Right” : Angela, I spend lots of time a
Josie Rush on “Getting It Right” : Angela, I agree this could be