Wednesday, May 20, 2015
JRN 200: Your Thursday 5/21 Homework
Elements Of Journalism: Engagement And Relevance
Journalists must make significant news interesting and relevant. First, we must consider the differences between storytelling versus information. Storytelling is the art of expression, such as a bedtime story you tell your niece. Information is raw data, such as a sports score.
Journalism is a combination of storytelling and information. The two are not contradictory. Journalism is storytelling with a purpose, and rooted in fact. Our duty is not just to provide information, but to do so in a way people will listen while still adhering to accuracy and truth.
There are various approaches to making important news interesting. Those approaches start with asking yourselves questions, like:
Who is the audience and what do they need to know? What is a given story really about? Let's say you're working for The State News, and you're covering student government. They pass some sort of big budget increase and as part of that budget increase, student fees will go up.What's the main gist of the story, the budget or the fee hike? Which would readers -- in this case, primarily MSU students -- care about most? Which would affect them most directly?
It would be the fee hike, right? So that should be the angle you highlight in how you write the story.
Who is the audience and what to they need to know to make up their own minds about this subject? For example, The State News regularly covers East Lansing City Council meetings. Rather than cover whatever the council considers their biggest actions, reporters look for and concentrate on stories that have the greatest impact or interest to their primary audience -- MSU students -- regardless of how big a part of the meeting those issues were. We're not there to take dictation of the meeting; we're there to highlight what matters most to our audience.
Who has the information? Go to the people most directly involved with the subject matters.
What's the best way to tell this story? For example, on a story about a tuition increase, perhaps you'd want to focus on how the tuition increase will affect the average student by talking to students and asking them how they'll handle the tuition hike.
There are various story styles one can utilize. We'll look at each approach, using examples based on coverage of one of the every-few-years Cedar Fest riots around here.
A profile story. Finding people behind a story or the people driving an issue, and focusing on their tale; e.g., a story about someone arrested at Cedar Fest, and what they did/went through/saw.
An explanatory piece. Showing readers why something is happening or how something functions; e.g., how police responded to Cedar Fest.
Issues and trend stories. Looking for a larger picture to explore, that takes evident happenings and puts it into some sort of meaningful context; e.g., MSU has riots every few years; why? (The above-linked Cedar Fest story is an example.)
Investigative stories. Where digging into the story reveals new and telling details.
Narrative stories. A story with a character, scenes and tension. Written in the STYLE of fiction, but ENTIRELY factual.
Descriptive day-in-the-life stories. Focusing on a particular moment, like Cedar Village workers while they were having to clean up after Cedar Fest.
Vignettes. This is where you take short snippets of telling moments and/or quotes and string them together; e.g., a Cedar Fest story with vignettes about a cop waiting for something to happen; a kid setting a dumpster on fire; somebody else complaining that tear gas really stings; ect.
Pictures of the mind. Use words, metaphors, descriptions, quotes to let readers paint a picture in their minds that establishes scene, place and context. Show them, and don't just tell them, what's happening. Of course, make sure everything is factually dead-on, and assume nothing is so until you've confirmed it.
The reveal. Surprise readers with an unexpected twist that reveals a deeper, unexpected theme.
Whatever other technique best tells the context of a story, while staying entirely true to the facts. This is how we're creative; not in making up scenarios, but finding the best ways to represent reality and being there and end result.
Treat every story as unique. Find out what makes each story memorable and genuine. The root of "news" is the word "new." so find what makes the story stand out from others. Let the facts you find suggest story style, by choosing which style best amplifies the most telling and interesting and relevant and useful parts of the story. You choose writing style based on what best tells the facts, and not your own personal preferences.
Also, find the best medium in which to tell the story. Some stories are best told in words, like a complex political story. Others are best told in images, like 9/11.
The great equalizer offered by the Internet is that newspapers are no longer limited by technology to printed words and still pictures, and TV networks are no longer limited to simply broadcasting stories with video. Each can now find the best way to tell a story, instead of simply telling each story in the way the medium has always told it.
So whatever medium is your primary one, don't dismiss text or video or audio or online slideshows of pictures or graphics or online links or a combination of any of that. It's no longer about writing or airing a story; it's about telling a story, in the best ways for that story to be told.
Journalism is a combination of storytelling and information. The two are not contradictory. Journalism is storytelling with a purpose, and rooted in fact. Our duty is not just to provide information, but to do so in a way people will listen while still adhering to accuracy and truth.
There are various approaches to making important news interesting. Those approaches start with asking yourselves questions, like:
Who is the audience and what do they need to know? What is a given story really about? Let's say you're working for The State News, and you're covering student government. They pass some sort of big budget increase and as part of that budget increase, student fees will go up.What's the main gist of the story, the budget or the fee hike? Which would readers -- in this case, primarily MSU students -- care about most? Which would affect them most directly?
It would be the fee hike, right? So that should be the angle you highlight in how you write the story.
Who is the audience and what to they need to know to make up their own minds about this subject? For example, The State News regularly covers East Lansing City Council meetings. Rather than cover whatever the council considers their biggest actions, reporters look for and concentrate on stories that have the greatest impact or interest to their primary audience -- MSU students -- regardless of how big a part of the meeting those issues were. We're not there to take dictation of the meeting; we're there to highlight what matters most to our audience.
Who has the information? Go to the people most directly involved with the subject matters.
What's the best way to tell this story? For example, on a story about a tuition increase, perhaps you'd want to focus on how the tuition increase will affect the average student by talking to students and asking them how they'll handle the tuition hike.
There are various story styles one can utilize. We'll look at each approach, using examples based on coverage of one of the every-few-years Cedar Fest riots around here.
A profile story. Finding people behind a story or the people driving an issue, and focusing on their tale; e.g., a story about someone arrested at Cedar Fest, and what they did/went through/saw.
An explanatory piece. Showing readers why something is happening or how something functions; e.g., how police responded to Cedar Fest.
Issues and trend stories. Looking for a larger picture to explore, that takes evident happenings and puts it into some sort of meaningful context; e.g., MSU has riots every few years; why? (The above-linked Cedar Fest story is an example.)
Investigative stories. Where digging into the story reveals new and telling details.
Narrative stories. A story with a character, scenes and tension. Written in the STYLE of fiction, but ENTIRELY factual.
Descriptive day-in-the-life stories. Focusing on a particular moment, like Cedar Village workers while they were having to clean up after Cedar Fest.
Vignettes. This is where you take short snippets of telling moments and/or quotes and string them together; e.g., a Cedar Fest story with vignettes about a cop waiting for something to happen; a kid setting a dumpster on fire; somebody else complaining that tear gas really stings; ect.
Pictures of the mind. Use words, metaphors, descriptions, quotes to let readers paint a picture in their minds that establishes scene, place and context. Show them, and don't just tell them, what's happening. Of course, make sure everything is factually dead-on, and assume nothing is so until you've confirmed it.
The reveal. Surprise readers with an unexpected twist that reveals a deeper, unexpected theme.
Whatever other technique best tells the context of a story, while staying entirely true to the facts. This is how we're creative; not in making up scenarios, but finding the best ways to represent reality and being there and end result.
Treat every story as unique. Find out what makes each story memorable and genuine. The root of "news" is the word "new." so find what makes the story stand out from others. Let the facts you find suggest story style, by choosing which style best amplifies the most telling and interesting and relevant and useful parts of the story. You choose writing style based on what best tells the facts, and not your own personal preferences.
Also, find the best medium in which to tell the story. Some stories are best told in words, like a complex political story. Others are best told in images, like 9/11.
The great equalizer offered by the Internet is that newspapers are no longer limited by technology to printed words and still pictures, and TV networks are no longer limited to simply broadcasting stories with video. Each can now find the best way to tell a story, instead of simply telling each story in the way the medium has always told it.
So whatever medium is your primary one, don't dismiss text or video or audio or online slideshows of pictures or graphics or online links or a combination of any of that. It's no longer about writing or airing a story; it's about telling a story, in the best ways for that story to be told.
Elements Of Journalism: Making The News Comprehensive And Proportional
Journalists should keep the news comprehensive and in proportion.
Think of journalism as cartography (the science of mapping). Journalism
creates a map for its audience to navigate society (e.g., how much is
tuition going up? When is the football game? Is it a good idea to plan
another Cedar Fest?). That is its reason for being.
And the value of journalism, like a map, depends on completeness and proportionality; accuracy and the ability to see the whole community in coverage. Otherwise, it's like a map with whole parts of town missing. It leaves the audience poorly informed because so much was left out, and vulnerable to making poor decisions about their needs and societal trends based on what they don't know.
This is why we need to show people not just what they want to know, but also what they need to know and what they don't know.
It's also important to have the ability to see yourself and every-day people in your coverage (that is, your needs, values, interests and that of the community at large reflected by the types of stories presented and issues tackled), and a fair mix of what most people in your community would consider interesting, significant, relevant and/or useful.
In judging the wants and needs of an audience, traditional market research does not work very well, like focus groups and surveys. Usually, those ask people to choose between predictable alternatives, like different brands of a certain product. News is harder to market-research because it changes every day.
And news may not be significant until you know about it. For example, personal safety may not be on your radar as a reader. Unless, that is, The State News has a story about muggings on campus. The news creates interest that wasn't previously there.
Journalism requires a more open-ended approach. Simply pay attention to your community and its people. Find out more about their lives. Ask about and look for broad trends. Focus on everyday people and their problems, and not big-wigs and theirs.
Try to understand how to design a news package that is comprehensive and proportional to their community, their needs and their concerns by asking yourself questions like;
What are people talking about? For example, at MSU they may be talking about how high their student loan debt will go, or whether they will have jobs after graduation.
What are they complaining about? Like tuition hikes and off-campus rent getting more expensive.
What are they doing? Like, working multiple jobs while in school, or getting out of Michigan after graduation.
Getting answers allow newspapers to design coverage that responds directly to your audience. And such coverage rings authentic with readers (because they are seeing issues being addressed that actually appear in their daily lives), who then build trust in you.
And the value of journalism, like a map, depends on completeness and proportionality; accuracy and the ability to see the whole community in coverage. Otherwise, it's like a map with whole parts of town missing. It leaves the audience poorly informed because so much was left out, and vulnerable to making poor decisions about their needs and societal trends based on what they don't know.
This is why we need to show people not just what they want to know, but also what they need to know and what they don't know.
It's also important to have the ability to see yourself and every-day people in your coverage (that is, your needs, values, interests and that of the community at large reflected by the types of stories presented and issues tackled), and a fair mix of what most people in your community would consider interesting, significant, relevant and/or useful.
In judging the wants and needs of an audience, traditional market research does not work very well, like focus groups and surveys. Usually, those ask people to choose between predictable alternatives, like different brands of a certain product. News is harder to market-research because it changes every day.
And news may not be significant until you know about it. For example, personal safety may not be on your radar as a reader. Unless, that is, The State News has a story about muggings on campus. The news creates interest that wasn't previously there.
Journalism requires a more open-ended approach. Simply pay attention to your community and its people. Find out more about their lives. Ask about and look for broad trends. Focus on everyday people and their problems, and not big-wigs and theirs.
Try to understand how to design a news package that is comprehensive and proportional to their community, their needs and their concerns by asking yourself questions like;
What are people talking about? For example, at MSU they may be talking about how high their student loan debt will go, or whether they will have jobs after graduation.
What are they complaining about? Like tuition hikes and off-campus rent getting more expensive.
What are they doing? Like, working multiple jobs while in school, or getting out of Michigan after graduation.
Getting answers allow newspapers to design coverage that responds directly to your audience. And such coverage rings authentic with readers (because they are seeing issues being addressed that actually appear in their daily lives), who then build trust in you.
Elements of Journalism: Journalists Have A Responsibility To Conscience
There are no laws, regulations, licensing or formal self-policing of journalists.
All that is prohibited by the First Amendment. So, where does
responsibility lay? With each news organization, and the ethics and
judgment of individual reporters and editors.
Why is self-policing important? Because a news organization's relevance in a community is based on whether readers trust the authority,honesty or judgment of the journalists who produce it. After all, the audience is free to choose other media, or none at all.
So, everyone in a news organization must have a personal sense of ethics and responsibility, and an obligation to exercise their conscience. We have an obligation to challenge superiors, advertisers, and the audience if fairness and accuracy require that.
(But know the difference between an act of journalistic malfeasance and a journalistic disagreement! You need to find a way to fight the former, but if there's no ethical concern and it's simply a fight over two ethical ways of doing something, then don't push back and do your job as asked.)
This is another reason intellectual diversity is important to a newsroom. The advantages of cultural diversity are stifled if people from different backgrounds adhere to a single mentality. A newsroom needs to be open and honest so that diversity can function journalistically.
Problem is, there are real-world pressures against individual conscience. Like human nature. In hiring and promotions, editors may select people in their own image, and not take risks on people outside the mainstream.
Plus, there is bureaucratic inertia, in which an environment exists where it is preferable to do what is routine and expected as opposed to what is right and necessary. And there is putting process over product; e.g., running a story simply to fill space, rather than the story having any merits of its own.
Conformity is a risk, in that it's easier to just get along with the mainstream. And unfortunately, there is sometimes the risk of "influence-peddling," where stories are pushed or killed by editors to support a special interest. This is bad journalism.
So, what are we supposed to do? Unfortunately, there are no easy and obvious answers. Doing the right thing is great, but you still have rent to pay and you need your job. Still, it's up to you to find a way to do the right thing. Each reporter is a steward of good journalism. It's up to us.
Why is self-policing important? Because a news organization's relevance in a community is based on whether readers trust the authority,honesty or judgment of the journalists who produce it. After all, the audience is free to choose other media, or none at all.
So, everyone in a news organization must have a personal sense of ethics and responsibility, and an obligation to exercise their conscience. We have an obligation to challenge superiors, advertisers, and the audience if fairness and accuracy require that.
(But know the difference between an act of journalistic malfeasance and a journalistic disagreement! You need to find a way to fight the former, but if there's no ethical concern and it's simply a fight over two ethical ways of doing something, then don't push back and do your job as asked.)
This is another reason intellectual diversity is important to a newsroom. The advantages of cultural diversity are stifled if people from different backgrounds adhere to a single mentality. A newsroom needs to be open and honest so that diversity can function journalistically.
Problem is, there are real-world pressures against individual conscience. Like human nature. In hiring and promotions, editors may select people in their own image, and not take risks on people outside the mainstream.
Plus, there is bureaucratic inertia, in which an environment exists where it is preferable to do what is routine and expected as opposed to what is right and necessary. And there is putting process over product; e.g., running a story simply to fill space, rather than the story having any merits of its own.
Conformity is a risk, in that it's easier to just get along with the mainstream. And unfortunately, there is sometimes the risk of "influence-peddling," where stories are pushed or killed by editors to support a special interest. This is bad journalism.
So, what are we supposed to do? Unfortunately, there are no easy and obvious answers. Doing the right thing is great, but you still have rent to pay and you need your job. Still, it's up to you to find a way to do the right thing. Each reporter is a steward of good journalism. It's up to us.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
JRN 200: Your Wednesday 5/20 Homework
We
have some more lecture blog posts for you to review below. Be sure to
keep up with all new blog posts on a daily basis: the posts will contain
readings and (soon) homework assignments that you will be responsible
for tracking and keeping up with. It's very easy to fall behind in this
class, so please do keep up.
The blog will be updated every weekday no later than 5 p.m. The blog can also be accessed via all media formats: desktop, laptop, tablet and phone.
Please contact me at omars@msu,edu or 517-432-3009 if you have any questions or concerns.
The blog will be updated every weekday no later than 5 p.m. The blog can also be accessed via all media formats: desktop, laptop, tablet and phone.
Please contact me at omars@msu,edu or 517-432-3009 if you have any questions or concerns.
Elements of Journalism: Who Journalists Work For
Journalism's first loyalty is to its audience. There is an
implied agreement with the public that was is reported is true and in
their interests. For example, The State News can't have a story on MSU
that's slanted in favor of the school just because The State News is
MSU's paper. And a story can't be slanted because the subject is a
friend of the editor.
And that agreement is in the best financial interest of the news organization. That's because it's necessary to tell the news not only accurately, but persuasively. It's the basis of why the audience believes a news organization. If the audience doesn't trust a newspaper, they will quit reading the newspaper, and the newspaper would be unable to sell ads which are bought by advertisers not because they believe in journalism, but because the newspaper has lots of readers whom the advertiser would like to reach.
If you thought or think The State News is a shill for the administration, would you rely on it in the same way if yo thought it was independent? So, journalists have a social obligation to the news and audience, and must maintain a freedom from all obligations except that of the public interest.
We also must maintain an independence from isolation. There is a danger that having a professional detachment from outside pressures -- such as politicians and lobbyists -- could evolve into disengagement from the community.
Ironically, as journalism became more professional, it became more of a clique, with professionals lacking local connections and becoming free agents, hopping from town to town. Also, journalism became more subjective and judgmental after Watergate and the advent of 24-hour cable TV news. Coverage became increasingly focused on mediating and arguing instead of reporting and explaining. There was a growing focus on motives of public officials, instead of actions that affect readers. Plus, there are business strategies to target affluent households that advertisers most want to access, instead of the general public as a whole.
There has been a backlash to that detachment. People on the business end of journalism want greater accountability from reporters and editors. They want to use research to find out what the audience wants. They see themselves as fighting to keep journalism relevant.
But writers and editors fear that approach can intrude on independence. They fear that may allow advertisers, rather than news value, to dictate coverage. They see themselves as fighting to protect the public interest. This tension is still playing itself out, and the resolution seems unclear.
Citizens are not customers. The business relationship of journalism with its audience is different that other businesses with their customers. Traditional businesses sell services and products to customers. Journalists build a relationship with their audience. That is not a nit-pick difference; the relationship is built upon values, judgment, authority, coverage, professionalism and commitment to the community. That creates a bond with the audience. Then, the news organization rents the bond to advertisers, via ads.
The advertiser is the one buying goods and services (in the form of advertising), and not the audience. The trust with the audience is what creates something the advertiser finds worthy of buying. Hence, the traditional "wall" between advertising and news content, and a deference to the newsroom to make journalistic decisions independently.
And that agreement is in the best financial interest of the news organization. That's because it's necessary to tell the news not only accurately, but persuasively. It's the basis of why the audience believes a news organization. If the audience doesn't trust a newspaper, they will quit reading the newspaper, and the newspaper would be unable to sell ads which are bought by advertisers not because they believe in journalism, but because the newspaper has lots of readers whom the advertiser would like to reach.
If you thought or think The State News is a shill for the administration, would you rely on it in the same way if yo thought it was independent? So, journalists have a social obligation to the news and audience, and must maintain a freedom from all obligations except that of the public interest.
We also must maintain an independence from isolation. There is a danger that having a professional detachment from outside pressures -- such as politicians and lobbyists -- could evolve into disengagement from the community.
Ironically, as journalism became more professional, it became more of a clique, with professionals lacking local connections and becoming free agents, hopping from town to town. Also, journalism became more subjective and judgmental after Watergate and the advent of 24-hour cable TV news. Coverage became increasingly focused on mediating and arguing instead of reporting and explaining. There was a growing focus on motives of public officials, instead of actions that affect readers. Plus, there are business strategies to target affluent households that advertisers most want to access, instead of the general public as a whole.
There has been a backlash to that detachment. People on the business end of journalism want greater accountability from reporters and editors. They want to use research to find out what the audience wants. They see themselves as fighting to keep journalism relevant.
But writers and editors fear that approach can intrude on independence. They fear that may allow advertisers, rather than news value, to dictate coverage. They see themselves as fighting to protect the public interest. This tension is still playing itself out, and the resolution seems unclear.
Citizens are not customers. The business relationship of journalism with its audience is different that other businesses with their customers. Traditional businesses sell services and products to customers. Journalists build a relationship with their audience. That is not a nit-pick difference; the relationship is built upon values, judgment, authority, coverage, professionalism and commitment to the community. That creates a bond with the audience. Then, the news organization rents the bond to advertisers, via ads.
The advertiser is the one buying goods and services (in the form of advertising), and not the audience. The trust with the audience is what creates something the advertiser finds worthy of buying. Hence, the traditional "wall" between advertising and news content, and a deference to the newsroom to make journalistic decisions independently.
Elements Of Journalism: Journalism Of Verification
The essence of journalism is a discipline of verification.
That is, journalism isn't about writing; it's about getting it right,
and having a system in place to fact-test information as we discover it.
Verification is what separates journalism from other forms of communication. Entertainment focuses on what is most diverting. Propaganda selects or invents facts to persuade and manipulate. Fiction invents scenarios. Art is based on creating and expressing impressions. Journalism is focused on getting what happened down right.
The meaning of objectivity has been lost. Originally, it was an appeal for journalists to develop a consistent method of testing information, like the reliance on functional truth that we discussed earlier, so that the personal and cultural biases of reporters would not undermine the accuracy of work.
Objectivity is a device to persuade the audience of one's accuracy and fairness. And journalism and science come from the same intellectual roots. In the same way a scientist comes up with a theory and then runs experiments to prove or disprove the theory, a journalist starts out with a presumption, and then find facts (via documents, witness statements, ect.) to find what is rooted in fact, and what is not.
The "science of reporting" is known as the Objective Method. There are several key points to the method. First, never add anything that wasn't there. Don't invent things, rearrange events in time or place or modify or combine people or events. Your writing can arrange events based on news value, but be sure to make it clear that it's out of sequence.
Second, never deceive the audience. Fooling people is a form of lying and it mocks the idea that journalism is committed to truthfulness. If you vary from the most literal form of eyewitness reporting, let your audience know or don't do it.
Third, be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives. Be as open and honest with audiences about what you know and what you don't. Acknowledge obvious questions your stories are not answering. Ask yourself, what does the reader need to know to evaluate this information for themselves? Also ask yourself, is there anything in your treatment of a story that requires explanation of why you did something of left something out?
Doing so shows respect for your audience. It also helps establish credibility through the expressed public interest motive.
Fourth, clearly identify sources -- both individuals and documents -- and explain any anonymous sourcing.
The problem with the science of reporting is, there is no single standard for verification. Doctors and scientists have rigorous standards based on natural law. For example, if you're doing an experiment on freezing water, water will freeze at 32 degrees, no matter what.
But media, by nature, is more subjective and interpretive. For example, how much proof is enough proof? It's situational and argumentative.
Society as a whole may not agree on a single truth. Think of the abortion debate: different groups have different truths. If you're pro-abortion, it's a right enshrined in law. If you're anti-abortion, it's sanctioned murder. In such instances, the public sphere becomes one of argument, and not agreement on what is truth.
Fairness and balance can also be interpreted differently. So instead of striving to define such terms, it's better to use techniques to help guide journalists in developing and verifying their work. As we noted earlier, balance can lead to distortion.
So, fairness should mean you are being fair to the facts and the audience's understanding of the facts, and not to a particular source or that your story is balanced in a distorted way. When you try to determine accuracy based on fact-testing, that is journalism. If all you're doing is getting one side and then the other, then you're simply enabling an argument.
Verification is what separates journalism from other forms of communication. Entertainment focuses on what is most diverting. Propaganda selects or invents facts to persuade and manipulate. Fiction invents scenarios. Art is based on creating and expressing impressions. Journalism is focused on getting what happened down right.
The meaning of objectivity has been lost. Originally, it was an appeal for journalists to develop a consistent method of testing information, like the reliance on functional truth that we discussed earlier, so that the personal and cultural biases of reporters would not undermine the accuracy of work.
Objectivity is a device to persuade the audience of one's accuracy and fairness. And journalism and science come from the same intellectual roots. In the same way a scientist comes up with a theory and then runs experiments to prove or disprove the theory, a journalist starts out with a presumption, and then find facts (via documents, witness statements, ect.) to find what is rooted in fact, and what is not.
The "science of reporting" is known as the Objective Method. There are several key points to the method. First, never add anything that wasn't there. Don't invent things, rearrange events in time or place or modify or combine people or events. Your writing can arrange events based on news value, but be sure to make it clear that it's out of sequence.
Second, never deceive the audience. Fooling people is a form of lying and it mocks the idea that journalism is committed to truthfulness. If you vary from the most literal form of eyewitness reporting, let your audience know or don't do it.
Third, be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives. Be as open and honest with audiences about what you know and what you don't. Acknowledge obvious questions your stories are not answering. Ask yourself, what does the reader need to know to evaluate this information for themselves? Also ask yourself, is there anything in your treatment of a story that requires explanation of why you did something of left something out?
Doing so shows respect for your audience. It also helps establish credibility through the expressed public interest motive.
Fourth, clearly identify sources -- both individuals and documents -- and explain any anonymous sourcing.
The problem with the science of reporting is, there is no single standard for verification. Doctors and scientists have rigorous standards based on natural law. For example, if you're doing an experiment on freezing water, water will freeze at 32 degrees, no matter what.
But media, by nature, is more subjective and interpretive. For example, how much proof is enough proof? It's situational and argumentative.
Society as a whole may not agree on a single truth. Think of the abortion debate: different groups have different truths. If you're pro-abortion, it's a right enshrined in law. If you're anti-abortion, it's sanctioned murder. In such instances, the public sphere becomes one of argument, and not agreement on what is truth.
Fairness and balance can also be interpreted differently. So instead of striving to define such terms, it's better to use techniques to help guide journalists in developing and verifying their work. As we noted earlier, balance can lead to distortion.
So, fairness should mean you are being fair to the facts and the audience's understanding of the facts, and not to a particular source or that your story is balanced in a distorted way. When you try to determine accuracy based on fact-testing, that is journalism. If all you're doing is getting one side and then the other, then you're simply enabling an argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)