New rules for Journalists?
At a time when the public feels strongly that too much news is over-analyzed and over-commented-upon--including by journalists on talk shows--it almost certainly would applaud a newspaper that adopted the Kaiser-Wiggins Rule: One clean shot at the facts of what happened before the motive-seekers and opiners descend on the story.
I like this rule, but I feel like it should be applied more to articles like crime and accident reports. There's a lot of value in adopting this rule as often as possible. I'm as guilty as the next journalist in including at least a little fluff in my articles. If we follow this rule, does that mean we can't include the public opinion in these articles? If we're only getting the facts, I'd take that as a "no." But that's okay, sometimes including the public's opinion isn't necessary, but what about expert opinion? Can we include that? I still feel like the answer is "no." I think the only quotes we could use are ones from the Police or eye-witnesses or something. Because, let's face it, what kind of a journalist doesn't include at least one quote?
I mentioned in class last week that I still have difficulty figuring out which facts are the most important ones to include in a story. Maybe if I try applying this Rule during our next exercise, I'll be more successful.
On a side note--when I was reading about the section on Diversity, it made me think back to my research paper in STW. I actually wrote it on the glass ceiling women and minorities still face in the world of journalism. However, this section of the book really opened my eyes to the other side. I never really paid attention to how much diversity is/isn't included in the news--mostly because I don't watch or read as much news as I should.