The Journalist and Faith

Religion is a sticky subject in journalism. Because of the private and deep nature of religious topics, it is hard to cover a story with complete journalistic integrity. Here are some recommendations to consider when covering faith-based subjects:

• Context is key
• Separate the group from the action
• Consider a religious section (religion section in the newspaper ... or on a webpage)
• Keep it close to home - far-off stories can sometimes seem irrelevant
• Keep it balanced - don't show just one side of the story, it either antagonizes or builds up the religion unfairly
• Should reflect the region or country of the audience - cover relevant topics. If there are absolutely no Muslims in a region, a story about Muslims may not be of much interest.
• Obtain advice and expertise - don't rely on your own knowledge of a religion to cover the story - make sure you get the facts right.

Beyond these recommendations, it's also important to realize that sometimes people don't want to talk about religion in the news. Journalists often like to tell only stories that they can prove right or wrong. Religion is one of those topics that can have no actual proof - but is made up of mostly beliefs or opinion. That is, unless the story is one like THIS about some scandal of a clergyman, but then the story is mostly about the legal implications rather than his/her beliefs. As Jim Roverson said, "Journalism and religion is a tough mix. Religion depends on faith, and journalism depends on proof."

Another reason religion is sparse in the news is that it is a hard story to sell. I love the quote from the handout by Gal Beckerman, "The journalist glances at religious communities as if staring through the glass of an ant farm, remarking on what the strange creatures are doing, but mising the motivations behind the action."

Of course, as in other topics of journalism, it is important to maintain objectivity and balance when covering religion. It is therefore of great value to reconsider the SPJ Code of Ethics - to Seek the truth and report it, to minimize harm, to act independently, and to be accountable. As a journalist, it is a good idea not to aim too high or too low at a story. As David Waters said, "Our personal faith deeply affects who we are and what we believe, but it doesn't always have to affect what we do."

JOURNALISM AS A PUBLIC FORUM

There is a struggle between the proliferation of technology and the integrity of journalism.

According to Elements of Journalism, "The proliferation of debate created by the machines will minimize human fallibility and raise us all. We can rely on the marketplace of facts and ideas, not on journalists, to sort out the truth."

I think this is an interesting topic to think about...though I certainly hope that people never cease to rely on honest journalism (or I will never have a job!). There are many factors that go into the idea of increasing the public forum.

Blogging is one venue of the public forum. As a blogger, writers can write whatever and whenever they please. They can write factual entries, or merely opinion pieces. In our class discussion, we talked about how blogs may eliminate the distortion of facts because the blogger can post links to wherever they got their information. This abdicates the responsibility for the writer to verify the facts.

Wikipedia is another venue of public forum. The philosophy behind Wikipedia is that the facual errors will be caught and changed by the multiple authors of an article.

As the amount of technology increases, the ability for people to talk about events increases as well. This can be a positive thing for journalism by allowing people to share their opinions and further their wealth of knowledge ... but it can also be a detriment to journalism. For instance, the stories that have the most comments on the comment boards may not necessarily be the most newsworthy stories. Also, if a journalist relies solely on the public debate to decide which stories to cover, they may be influenced to cover mostly the arguments, and not necessarily the events.

Four of the driving forces for the argument culture that has evolved in our nation are as follows:
1-Talk is cheap
With blogs, chatrooms, discussion boards, etc. - it is easy for people to communicate and share ideas with eachother.
2-Devalue expertise
There is an emphasis on energetic, young faces - there is an extreme desire for debate
3-Does not expand scope of public discussion
This revers to the general coverage of simple stories, narrow focuses, entertainment stories
See this LINK to a video about the world's fattest woman. This is an example of the focus on entertainment stories.
4-The nature of discussion
This refers to the belief that compromise is not a legitimate option for many people. See this VIDEO of Jon Stewart on Crossfire - reprimanding them for their lack of journalistic integrity.

A good journalist should keep in mind that the goal of journalism is to inform rather than to entertain. I love the ending quote on the handout from class which says, "As rich and empty as the new forums may be, depending on the posting, they cannot supplant the search for fact and context that the traditional journalism of verification supplies."

ETHICS

ETHICS - The aspects, effects, and moral dilemma of diversity in the newsroom.

Ethics is an important part of journalism. In order to create the most fair and unbiased environment, it takes acceptance of diversity. This means acceptance of not only people that look different on the outside, but people who have differing points of view and who THINK differently. This is what it means to truly have diversity in the newsroom.

I think it's interesting how Juan Gonzales put it, "Editors have a tendency to create people in their own image. If the editor doesn't like you for some reason, you don't rise. So there's a self-selection process that goes on within the profession."

Although I only have a narrow-scope of experience in the journalism profession, I can say that I have seen this principle in action...unfortunately! I understand that news directors inevitably have opinions on what goes on the air, and the format and style of each story. However, I have had a few experiences where my opinion was different than the news directors, and so I was forced to either conform to his style or my story would not make air. It was an instance as simple as saying that there was a man with a shotgun in the room where a leopard was being operated on. The news director said that revealing a shotgun was present would be too graphic and disturbing for the audience. I, on the other hand, thought it was an interesting piece of information that many would enjoy to hear. After all, who would have the guts to operate on a leopard unless such precautionary measures were taken? Regardless of what I thought, I took out any mention of a gun, and my story went on the air. This is a small example that may seem insignificant, but I think it shows on a small scale what can happen in larger markets. News directors and editors do tend to look for people who share the same editorial values as they do. This is a natural thing to do ... but it may prove to inhibit diversity in the newsroom.

Another issue of ethics is when it is okay for a journalist to overstep their bounds. Bob Woodward said, "The best journalism is often done in defiance of management." I think it is true that some of the most pressing issues in the news may put the news organization at risk, and it sometimes falls to the journalist to take a stand and do what they feel is the best for the story.

This CLIP is the trailer from All The President's Men, and it shows how Woodward and Bernstein risked their jobs to uncover one of the biggest stories. I think as long as the reporter is not trading their personal standards to get a story, sometimes there are reasons to defy authority. I will say, however, that I think if such action is taken too often, a reporter will lose credibility and respect.

Watchdog Journalism

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Journalists as Ideologues

Everyone sees the world through different "lenses" - and journalists are no different! In order to have objectivity as a journalist, it does not mean that I need not have opinions on the world around me. Certainly, the fact that I was raised where I was, by parents with certain political viewpoints, in the LDS church, etc. affects my personal beliefs. Objectivity in journalism can be more accurately described as being able to see the world through other lenses, as well as my own, and report accurately on the facts I have collected. Ignorance of other viewpoints and "lenses" in journalism can lead a journalist to lack credibility.

An important part of the lesson focused on journalistic values, and how they influence the stories we cover.

* Altruistic Democracy
* Responsible Capitalism
* Order
* Moderatism
* Leadership
* Small-town Pastoralism
* Rugged Individualism

These values influence the stories we choose to cover because they are the values which we try to reflect - as they are similar among most Americans. Are these values "Liberal?" To some people, they may seem that way, but in fact they are more accurately described as "reformist" values.

Some things that a journalist should NEVER do are to infer what people are feeling or thinking, and to make judgments on if a person is right or wrong. This goes from the fact that revealing your sources is imperative to achieve credibility. If we start making assumptions about when a person is angry or what they are thinking we might as well be fiction writers!

As far as politics go, I thought it was interesting that the distribution of journalists among political parties is similar to the distribution of Americans among the political parties. I also thought an interesting part of the lecture was about which associations and clubs are okay to be a part of and why we should stay away from close involvement with too many groups. This is something I want to consider on my own more in the future.

Click HERE to see a video of Anderson Cooper helping a child that was hurt during the looting after the earthquake in Haiti. I think this is an interesting video because it falls right into the discussion of whether or not it is okay for a journalist to become involved in the stories they cover. I think it is natural for us as humans to feel when we cover the news. I don't think we should be involved in EVERY story that we do, but I do believe we have a right and a responsibility, just as a dentist or a lawyer would, to help out when we can in a disaster. I am not suggesting that we make ourselves the center of the story - but turn off the camera and see what you can do to help. Another VIDEO shows Anderson Cooper's frustration as he tells a journalist that they should not just cover a story of death and destruction without even lifting a finger to help out in the situation. Feeling emotions is not a bad thing - in fact, it can fuel our desires to get the story right. There is a fine line, though, in becoming too involved in the story so that we cannot tell it accurately. I think decisions should be made situationally, a journalists needs to choose which battles to fight when it comes to the objectivity versus advocacy dilemma.