>>> Start on MM3, as detailed in a previous blog post. Your deadline will be Thursday, Dec. 5, which is the last day of class.
>>> Finish Out-Of-Class #3, which is due Friday, Nov. 22 by 9 a.m. to omars@msu.edu. I will return graded copies of OOC #3 to you by Wednesday, Nov. 27, with rewrites due by Thursday, Dec. 5 (as is the optional fourth out-of-class story, job shadow report, optional first-day personality profile extra credit rewrite, and any other extra credit).
>>> Keep working on your take-home, open-book AP Style quiz, which will be due Tuesday, Dec. 3 by 9 a.m. to omars@msu.edu.
>>> Review the obituary section of Ch. 16 (p. 410-440) in RFTM, as needed.
>>> Do your final practice story assignment, slugged OBIT. Please write an obituary based on Ch. 16, Ex. 7, p. 434-6. You do not need attribution for obituary form information, but you will need to attribute any and all quotes that follow the obituary notice you are provided.
Your deadline for this assignment will be Monday, Nov. 25 by 10 a.m. to omars@msu.edu.
>>> We will not have class Tuesday, Nov. 26 (travel day for some of you) and Thursday, Nov. 28 (Thanksgiving holiday). I will be available for office hours during regular daytime business hours Monday, Nov. 25 through Wednesday, Nov. 27.
>>> Our next regularly-scheduled class will be Tuesday, Dec. 3, when we will lecture and quiz on media law. Prior to then, review Ch. 6 (p. 129-153) in RFTM, as needed. On that day, we will also go over resume and cover letter guidelines.
>>> That's about it, folks. Have safe travels home and a happy holiday!
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
JRN 200: A Message From The J-School, Part 1
Dear Colleagues,
What a coup! Tom Rosenstiel is in great demand, and we are lucky to have him visit.
His newest book is The New Ethics of Journalism: Principles for the 21st Century. He is the author of seven books, including The Elements of Journalism: What News People Should Know and the Public Should Expect, and Blur: How to Know What's True in the Age of Information Overload.
Please encourage your students to attend the Neal Shine Ethics Lecture
with Tom Rosenstiel Nov. 21, Thursday, at 4 p.m. in room 145. He'll
talk about the need for journalists in the 21st century. What is
required are the skills of professional news gathering, and perhaps
more importantly, the intellectual discipline of open-minded inquiry.
He's also talking to some classes about the role of mobile in the future
of journalism.
He is talking in NY tonight: http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/truth-and-trust-in-the-21st-century/
3) Tom's Background:
Tom Rosenstiel is an author, journalist, researcher and media critic.
He worked as media writer for the Los Angeles Times for a decade, chief congressional correspondent for Newsweek, press critic for MSNBC, business editor of the Peninsula Times Tribune, a reporter for Jack Anderson's Washington Merry Go 'Round column, and began his career at the Woodside Country Almanac in his native northern California.
Before
joining the American Press Institute in January 2013, he was founder
and for 16 years director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism at
the Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C., and co-founder and vice
chair of the Committee of Concerned Journalists.
He
is a four-time winner of both the Sigma Delta Chi Award for Journalism
Research and the national prize for media criticism from Penn State.
Among his other awards are the Honor Medal for Distinguished Service in
Journalism from the University of Missouri Journalism School, the Dewitt
Carter Reddick Award for Outstanding Professional Achievement in the
Field of Communications from the University of Texas at Austin, the
Columbia Journalism School Distinguished Alumni Award.
Should be great!
Lucinda
Dr. Lucinda D. Davenport
Professor & Director
School of Journalism
College of Communication Arts & Sciences
Michigan State University
Professor & Director
School of Journalism
College of Communication Arts & Sciences
Michigan State University
JRN 200: A Message From The J-School, Part 2
Please help spread the word in your classes about a new campuswide
journalism contest. The
Best of MSU Journalism Awards, sponsored by the MSU chapter of SPJ, is
designed to promote and recognize quality journalism produced by MSU
students. Learn more or enter work at www.bestofmsu.com.
The contest is modeled on SPJ's national Mark of
Excellence Awards, and first-place winners of the campus contest will be
given financial aid from proceeds to enter the MOE contest. We hope
this will help provide a strong pool of MSU entries for SPJ's national
contest - as well as other journalism contests.
Entries must have been published during 2013 and
entrants must have been enrolled as MSU students at the time of
publication. Work published at campus student media outlets, in
classroom laboratories such as Capital News Service and JRN 300, and at
professional media outlets while on internships is eligible. All entries
must be submitted in a digital format.
There are categories for reporters, designers,
videographers and photographers, for work published by newspapers,
magazines, radio programs, television program and online news sites.
Entries are $1 each for SPJ members and $2 each for non-members,
and the contest is open to all majors. The deadline to enter is Dec. 6.
Entries
will be judged by members of the SPJ Mid-Michigan Pro Chapter, other
professional journalists and maybe by some of you! We aim to announce
winners by mid-January, in time to help winners get into the Mark of
Excellence Awards.
If you or your students have any questions about
this contest, please don't hesitate to contact me. We hope this contest
becomes a great campus tradition that brings together all of our student
journalists!
Thanks!
jws
Jeremy W. Steele, Executive Director
Michigan Interscholastic Press Association o mipamsu.org
Michigan State University School of Journalism Communication Arts & Sciences Building, Room 338
Postal Address: 404 Wilson Road, Room 305 o East Lansing, MI 48824
Office: 517-353-6761Fax: 517-355-7710
RFTM Ch. 7: Ethics
What are ethics? Simply put, acting and thinking morally and being able to distinguish between right and wrong. It's
key to establishing credibility. But the answers to what is ethical and
what is not can be elusive, situational and judgmental.
In ethical decision-making, there are several guiding questions. Among them:
Who will be hurt by this story?
Who will be helped?
What do we usually do in similar situations?
Is this the best alternative?
Can you look yourself in the mirror tomorrow and believe you did the right thing for the right reasons?
Can you justify your actions to the public?
What principles or values can you apply?
Does this decision fit the kind of journalism you believe in and the way people should treat one another?
What is the objective of this story?
Will my decisions contribute to the reason for writing the story?
Is there a greater good that you're trying to accomplish that outweighs whatever bad that may result from my actions?
There are several issues central to ethics. First, we must maintain objectivity. We must put aside personal biases; be accurate, and offer proper context based on the facts we find.
Second, we must be on guard against exploiting grief. It's important to establish the true human impact of a bad happening; that's why we try to talk to victims and survivors and their loved ones. But that's difficult because of the state of victims and their families. We risk hurting victims again by creating a "second wound" of retelling and detailing a tragic event.
So, we need to weigh the importance in the community being able to appreciate the full, tragic weight of an event versus the harm that may be done to victims.
I mean, would you feel the same about something like 9/11 if you didn't hear the personal stories of what people went through that day? That's what made 9/11 news; not that planes hit buildings, but that those events altered scores of human lives like ours.
Then again, how must it be for victim families to hear those details reaired, not only to them but to the whole world? There is no perfect answer; so we try to come up with the best imperfect answer we can.
Third, we should never steal or fabricate information. There's no grey area here; it's never acceptable. We're in the truth business. We tell the truth. It's the same as not tolerating a cop who steals or a firefighter who's a pyromaniac or a doctor that murders people.
Fourth, we must take care in handling rumors and speculation. Ideally, reporters investigate rumors and come up with evidence so they can turn rumors into facts, or debunk rumors. We don't just report rumors.
Fifth, when witnessing a crime or disaster, we need to weigh the risk to the victim versus the value of information gleaned. If we come across a victim that is not being assisted, we should be human first and help others in need. If those hurt are already being assisted, do your job and let professional responders do theirs.
As journalists, we are trying to assist humanity. Our primary way of doing that is by sharing stories of importance to the greater world. It also means using common sense, being a human being and not being a dick when the circumstances call for humanity.
Sixth, conflicts of interest should be avoided. We are in a conflict of interest when we or someone close to us are in a position to benefit from a story we cover. Circumstances that create a conflict of interest include ...
... accepting freebies. We should not accept anything of even minimal value from a news source. Whether or not the freebie actually influences a story is irrelevant; it can create a reasonable appearance of a conflict of interest, and it's that appearance we're trying to avoid.
... free trips. We cannot accept transportation or lodging for an event that would otherwise be inaccessible. If we must be embedded with those we cover, we need to pay back the cost of our access.
... participating in the news. We should not hold public office, help with campaigns or special-interest issues, or write about issues in which we have a direct or indirect interest. For example, if we're the member of a fraternity, we shouldn't be the one writing about that frat's fund-raiser. If we think we have a conflict of interest, alert your boss and ask to be reassigned.
... dating and cronyism. Don't date who you write about. If you do, ask to be reassigned. Plus, don't allow similar conflicts with friends, family or your own private interests.
... "scratching backs." Don't write stories with the purpose of currying favor with a source. You write stories only because they are in the public interest, not your own. Try to have multiple sources in any subject area so you are not beholden to any single source for info.
In ethical decision-making, there are several guiding questions. Among them:
Who will be hurt by this story?
Who will be helped?
What do we usually do in similar situations?
Is this the best alternative?
Can you look yourself in the mirror tomorrow and believe you did the right thing for the right reasons?
Can you justify your actions to the public?
What principles or values can you apply?
Does this decision fit the kind of journalism you believe in and the way people should treat one another?
What is the objective of this story?
Will my decisions contribute to the reason for writing the story?
Is there a greater good that you're trying to accomplish that outweighs whatever bad that may result from my actions?
There are several issues central to ethics. First, we must maintain objectivity. We must put aside personal biases; be accurate, and offer proper context based on the facts we find.
Second, we must be on guard against exploiting grief. It's important to establish the true human impact of a bad happening; that's why we try to talk to victims and survivors and their loved ones. But that's difficult because of the state of victims and their families. We risk hurting victims again by creating a "second wound" of retelling and detailing a tragic event.
So, we need to weigh the importance in the community being able to appreciate the full, tragic weight of an event versus the harm that may be done to victims.
I mean, would you feel the same about something like 9/11 if you didn't hear the personal stories of what people went through that day? That's what made 9/11 news; not that planes hit buildings, but that those events altered scores of human lives like ours.
Then again, how must it be for victim families to hear those details reaired, not only to them but to the whole world? There is no perfect answer; so we try to come up with the best imperfect answer we can.
Third, we should never steal or fabricate information. There's no grey area here; it's never acceptable. We're in the truth business. We tell the truth. It's the same as not tolerating a cop who steals or a firefighter who's a pyromaniac or a doctor that murders people.
Fourth, we must take care in handling rumors and speculation. Ideally, reporters investigate rumors and come up with evidence so they can turn rumors into facts, or debunk rumors. We don't just report rumors.
Fifth, when witnessing a crime or disaster, we need to weigh the risk to the victim versus the value of information gleaned. If we come across a victim that is not being assisted, we should be human first and help others in need. If those hurt are already being assisted, do your job and let professional responders do theirs.
As journalists, we are trying to assist humanity. Our primary way of doing that is by sharing stories of importance to the greater world. It also means using common sense, being a human being and not being a dick when the circumstances call for humanity.
Sixth, conflicts of interest should be avoided. We are in a conflict of interest when we or someone close to us are in a position to benefit from a story we cover. Circumstances that create a conflict of interest include ...
... accepting freebies. We should not accept anything of even minimal value from a news source. Whether or not the freebie actually influences a story is irrelevant; it can create a reasonable appearance of a conflict of interest, and it's that appearance we're trying to avoid.
... free trips. We cannot accept transportation or lodging for an event that would otherwise be inaccessible. If we must be embedded with those we cover, we need to pay back the cost of our access.
... participating in the news. We should not hold public office, help with campaigns or special-interest issues, or write about issues in which we have a direct or indirect interest. For example, if we're the member of a fraternity, we shouldn't be the one writing about that frat's fund-raiser. If we think we have a conflict of interest, alert your boss and ask to be reassigned.
... dating and cronyism. Don't date who you write about. If you do, ask to be reassigned. Plus, don't allow similar conflicts with friends, family or your own private interests.
... "scratching backs." Don't write stories with the purpose of currying favor with a source. You write stories only because they are in the public interest, not your own. Try to have multiple sources in any subject area so you are not beholden to any single source for info.
Ethics: 9/11's Falling Man, The Buzzard And The Girl, The Burn Victim
There's a fine line between showing readers the brutal truth of a
situation so that they understand the powerful truth of any story, and
showing readers a truth so brutal that readers ignore the point you were
trying to make and instead question your judgment.
I can think of no better example of this than the so-called "Falling Man" photo, taken by an Associated Press photographer during the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks and published by The New York Times the next day. Here it is:
This remarkable article from Esquire Magazine in 2003 offers a summation of the complex and contradictory forces at play in deciding if running the image was the absolute right thing or the incredibly wrong thing to do.
If you were an editor on Sept. 11, what would you have done? And why?
Likewise, what would you do if you were a photographer covering an African famine and you came across a starving girl being stalked by a vulture?
That was a real-world decision for one photog, and it may have led to his own unfortunate end.
Finally, what would you do if you were the photographer who took this award-winning pic of this badly-burned girl in the Vietnam War?
Look carefully at each picture; read each link carefully and in its entirety; and then let's talk it out.
What I'd like you to do for each photo is to answer the following questions for each of the three photos and scenarios:
-- Do you agree with the course of action actually taken by the photojournalist? Why or why not? Cite ethical values we've discussed in the blog and read in the ethics chapter.
-- What you would have done and why if you were the photographer? Cite ethical values we've discussed in the blog and read in the ethics chapter.
I want to hear what you think, and why. I'm not looking for simply your personal opinions; I'm looking for your professional opinions, based on what we've learned and what we believe in as journalists and as human beings.
I can think of no better example of this than the so-called "Falling Man" photo, taken by an Associated Press photographer during the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks and published by The New York Times the next day. Here it is:
This remarkable article from Esquire Magazine in 2003 offers a summation of the complex and contradictory forces at play in deciding if running the image was the absolute right thing or the incredibly wrong thing to do.
If you were an editor on Sept. 11, what would you have done? And why?
Likewise, what would you do if you were a photographer covering an African famine and you came across a starving girl being stalked by a vulture?
That was a real-world decision for one photog, and it may have led to his own unfortunate end.
Finally, what would you do if you were the photographer who took this award-winning pic of this badly-burned girl in the Vietnam War?
Look carefully at each picture; read each link carefully and in its entirety; and then let's talk it out.
What I'd like you to do for each photo is to answer the following questions for each of the three photos and scenarios:
-- Do you agree with the course of action actually taken by the photojournalist? Why or why not? Cite ethical values we've discussed in the blog and read in the ethics chapter.
-- What you would have done and why if you were the photographer? Cite ethical values we've discussed in the blog and read in the ethics chapter.
I want to hear what you think, and why. I'm not looking for simply your personal opinions; I'm looking for your professional opinions, based on what we've learned and what we believe in as journalists and as human beings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)