Apology to the readers

Hello followers of this blog.

I apologize profusely for my lack of attention to your needs regarding the reception of information. Please accept my sincerest regret and determination to pick up the slack that has been laid before you.

Now if all my posts were written that way, I'm certain none but the avid and forgiving Austen reader would read these posts.

I have a topic I wish to discuss with all of you that is journalism related but not necessarily class related. Why then, do I post it here and not on my other blog? Because the readers here, I hope, are just as involved in the journalism community as I am and would be able to help me understand this topic in greater depth.

There has been some talk in the world about the direction journalism is taking. Many people don't trust the media anymore. In a recent stream of political cartoons emailed to me by my dear grandpa, many pointed out, not only the corruption of the government, but the hand media has in that corruption. Now this disturbs me. Political cartoons generally portray what the public wants to hear. If media is being lumped in with a corrupt government, we certainly are not doing our job correctly. It is accurate in almost every sense, seeing as the media is supposed to give the power of knowledge to the people. Journalism is often quoted to be the fourth branch of government.

Maybe I'm getting defensive about my future profession but it seems there is a need for restructure. Now I know what you regular readers must be thinking, "She preaches an awful lot about laissez-faire and letting journalism evolve on it's own." I'm not suggesting a total overhaul of the system. I'm saying there needs to be a renewed vigor toward transparency and loyalty to the citizen. It is not enough to be loyal, the public needs to know our loyalty.

There is my short and sweet soap box. What do you think?

I Do Declare...

...That independence can be taken to an extreme so wide that it isn't ideal anymore. There seems to be a basic idea that pervades society saying that if one is to report objectively the news, one must cut all ties associating oneself with any group. Such associations taint objectivity, causing the public to distrust their news source. While the first statement is, of course, an exaggeration, I believe it accurately describes my point. Everyone leads a double life, to some extent. We have our work life and our home life. The two lives cross often but they are NOT one and the same. We, as people, have our own beliefs and ideals. The trick is to keep those beliefs and ideals separate from our writing.

I'm keeping this post short and sweet but the point is, while we have a duty to report the truth, we are still human. Allow us our likes and dislikes. If we are good at our job, we will keep our bias out of our reporting, but don't burn us at the stake if they creep up every now and again.

Are you sure?

Last week's topic was one of great common sense. If we look into the world of the citizen, what do we want to know? Anyone? Anyone? Wait...I think I hear it, truth!

We, as a public, want to hear truth. We want the facts. There is a lot of distrust for the news person in these days. Could it possibly be because we hear so many untrustworthy stories that we don't know where to turn for the truth anymore? (That's a question for you to answer in the comments below)A great point was brought up in the class discussion, "Journalists provide information for public discussion, not the discussion itself." Can I get an amen on that?

If I have not been clear, allow me to clarify. Every story that is written needs to be verified to qualify as journalism worthy of the people who will be reading it. Without the verification, it just goes out as another rumor, spread by a paid writer. (or unpaid, as the case may be.)

When a story is verified, it follows the basic principle of having a witness to back up the facts. We all feel a lot better when there is more than one source reporting the facts. That is why we need to interview lots of people to get multiple accounts of events.

Sorry this isn't very insightful or deep. I suppose I just see this as a common sense topic. So how about we discuss this further together?

Where loyalty lies

Now...I technically don't have to write a post about this week's discussion but I find the topic fascinating so you're going to get my thoughts all the same.

The topic for this week is the loyalty of the news. Just who are we trying to serve here? Well let me tell you. The purest form of journalism and news reporting should be aimed at serving one group, the public. Reporting of the news is a free public service. With that comes a small profit, sure, but it also brings service to the community in which we live. If you haven't noticed from past posts, you know I'm a big community girl. This is my bias. I'm all for the local news and sharing of a neighbor's accomplishments. Maybe that comes from spending the crucial teenage years of my life in a small town, I don't know but thus it is.

A journalist's loyalty is to the citizen. So what happens when the citizen moves his/her gaze to a different medium to gain news? Do we tell them they have to stick to the old way of doing things? No! We roll with the punches. Professor Campbell brought up a good point that news has practically come full circle in it's history. It started with stories told in pubs and street corners. From there, it grew to be a biased business with strong citizen loyalties running beneath the surface. Now it's coming back to the people via electronic meeting places. Think about that for a moment, where do you get your news? Do you usually check the paper first? I know, for me, I check my Facebook first. Links, videos, or just a wall post usually tells me everything I really want to know. Then I'll peruse the headlines of a paper to see what else I missed in the outside world. It's like gleaning information from a giant bulletin board!

Now comes the question for us, the future journalists. What are we going to do about this change in forum? Are we going to stick to the newspaper/television, telling people what to think about? Are we going to listen and record? Well I can tell you what I'm going to do...for now. I'm going to report what I see. It will be the world through my eyes. That is the best I can do right now. I'll report it wherever I can! That way, everyone gets a chance to see it. There, you've heard my soapbox speech. I can come down now.

Until next time!

Journalistic Transformation!

Isn't it interesting to see the transformations in societies surrounding a good idea? There is evidence of many press networks around the world turning toward the liberal model of journalism. In our discussion in class, the United States was listed as a pretty good example of the liberal model. It's just another reason why everyone wants to be an American I guess. My question to the blogosphere then is why is America trying so hard to go more political? Why have seemed to have lost our trust in the public's ability to reason for themselves with just the facts? Since when did journalism become an art form instead of a service?

I should probably clarify that last question. When I think of an art form, I think of a form of expression. A way to get out frustrations or joy, depending on the situation, and sharing that with others. When I think of a service, I think of an act the aides those affected in some way or another. Journalism should be a service, presenting the facts as fact. As a public, we don't need to be persuaded to think one way or another. Our brains will do enough of that for us. What we need are the facts, statistics, and basic information that allow us to come up with a plan of action on our own. Journalists get the conversation started by telling the public what to think about, not what to think.

There are many who have come to expect the newspaper to "keep an eye on" government. In fact, some might even have the misconception that watching the government is all the newspaper should really worry about. (This article is a perfect example) Not to discredit anyone's opinion, I personally feel that our government is not our only priority. It is said that "by their fruits, ye shall know them." If all we're hearing about is the actions with government's name written on them, how will we be able to identify the consequences of government on our own? Do we want the press to spoon-feed us our information or should we be a little more tenacious in our information gathering?

Maybe I'm just an idealist. Maybe what I rant and rave about can't actually happen. So prove it! Come on readers. Tell me what you think about this. I want to talk to you about it, so let's talk.

What is a Journalist?

Well...to answer that question, we must ask ourselves, what is journalism? Because, in truth, a journalist is someone who does journalism, right? So what is journalism?

Journalism is, in my opinion, the act of finding and sharing information. Good journalism is making sure that information actually does some good in the world. Whether that information helps cheer a heart that is down or alerts the public to issues that need resolution, journalism plays an important role in the world of democracy. Without the sharing of information, tyranny and ignorance reign free with no resistance. The people can't fight what they can't see. It's the purpose of journalism to spread the light of knowledge to the people so they can make informed decisions.

We discussed this ever present question in great detail in class. Many people voiced the opinion that it is a journalist's duty to watch the government. Government is so evil these days so they obviously need to be watched. My take on this goes something to this effect: I don't think the government is our biggest problem. I do agree that part of a journalist's duty is to watch the government and report on what our elected officials are doing with our trust and tax dollars, but I also believe that journalists play a large role on the unity of our individual and global communities.

Through shared information, we can come together under common goals. People everywhere are born with, what our book calls, the Awareness Instinct. Human beings instinctively want to know what is going on. It's a survival trait, I imagine. When we know what is going on, we feel secure. We are able to plan our next move based on what is happening. So we barter our knowledge for the knowledge of our neighbor, creating a network of knowledge. We begin to rely on each other to feed our desire for knowledge. Journalism is a life dedicated to obtaining and sharing a great amount of knowledge.

Now, the world of exchanging knowledge is changing, rapidly. People are finding more and more of their information online through social media and Google searches. The question I pose is, who is controlling and expediting the process of transferring information? Who is helping the public sift through the growing sea of information? That, my friends, is the new face of journalism.

Many people are worried about the fate of journalism. They fear the career is dying out. I have hope for it though. It may not be as traditional anymore, but it needn't die out. Journalism is an ever changing profession. There is a reason people aren't required to be certified or licensed to be considered a journalist. In the early age of the press, the journalist was the informant, or watchdog. Now the journalist is the forum leader or mediator in a massive online discussion.

It is also a journalist's job to point out the important issues; issues that need to be resolved in a timely manner. We discussed a lot about giving a voice to the voiceless. In a world where the voice of the minority is growing increasingly louder, especially revolving around religion, the society of journalists need to keep a balance between the ever expanding outcry of the injustly dealt with minority and the swiftly quieting majority. Every respectful voice deserves to be heard equally. It is the journalist's duty to make that happen.

So now I ask this question to you, what is a journalist? What is journalism? Do we, who wish to join the society of journalists, need to fear we have simply been born in the wrong age? Who will organize and simplify the exchange of information in the growing pool of knowledge and ideas? Discuss amongst yourselves. Post commentary! Let us discuss and reason together.

What is Journalism for?

Hello World!

This blog is specifically for a class I'm taking, formally titled Comms 329 Principles of Journalism. We have been asked to write and present a blog each week with our thoughts on journalism and the issues covered for the week. In all honesty, I'm not quite sure I can properly convey my thoughts but here goes nothing!

For this week, we were asked to read the first chapter in both The Mind of a Journalist by Jim Willis and The Elements of Journalism by Bill Kovach & Tom Rosenstiel. I have a feeling these two books are going to be a fascinating read. Both books provided interesting insights into the world of journalism and the opinions surrounding it.

Kovach and Rosenstiel mainly focused on what journalism is. The generally accepted duty of a journalist is to provide the public with information in order to remain free and self-governing. I found it interesting that with such a simple duty, there was so much controversy over how that duty should be performed and by whom. My opinion? As long as the information is getting out there, why does it matter who is sharing? I think citizen journalism is great! In The Elements, the role of the journalist is described to be changing to more of a supervisory role. The journalists verify the information submitted by the public and dig deeper to uncover other possible angles to the story. As a whole, it makes sense, seeing as it is very difficult these days to completely shut out one man's voice through the internet.