The Profession of Journalism

I think today its easy to be called a "journalist". Anyone with a blog or a twitter account could easily say that they are a journalist. But, here's my opinion. To actually be able to consider yourself a journalist, I believe you need to have credibility. You need to have some sort of a reputable past. Just because someone has a blog or a twitter account does not deem you a real-life, honest to goodness journalist. Here's why. 

Look at this blog. Its just a regular blog, talking about someone's life. Does that deem this person a journalist because they post their stories or opinions on a blog? Here's a secret. It's my personal blog. By looking at it, would you consider me a journalist? No. There is nothing on there to make anyone consider what I had to write about the day of "journalistic value". 

This blog, however, talks about journalism and opinions. Does that make this author a journalist? In my opinion no, and here's why. 

I think just because someone decides to create a twitter account or a blog with their opinions, does not make them an actual journalist. My views may be skewed because I am actually getting a degree in journalism. I'm working hard and paying money to get a degree so I can call myself a journalist. I don't believe people with blogs like this one, really are true journalists. Yes, their opinions are discussable, and even valid. But if thats the case, there are thousands of journalists in the world. Thousands. Then why on earth am I going to school for journalism? 

I think its important to recognize that journalism is an expounding market. There are things like blogs and twitter and the internet that people have never been able to truly access before. This makes getting facts and opinions out quicker than ever, making journalism a fast paced, competitive market. But again, I feel like just because those options are out there does not make the authors of them, journalists. 

This blog, for example, is a perfect example of a journalist as an author. Credible source, journalism background, and reliable information. 

Lets say Kobe Bryant made a blog. He is a big name. He is someone who is marketable. If he writes on his blog, does that make him a journalist? No, that makes him an athlete with a blog. Does what i'm saying make sense here? He has a twitter. Does that make him a journalist now? 

I guess I maybe feel differently than everyone else. But I feel like with how unreliable some outlets of media are today, its better to trust reliable sources with reliable journalists rather than just random people with opinions and facts. A journalist's job is to report information. Excuse me if I decide not to listen to you if you don't have a reputable past and organization with work experience behind you. 

-kim

Loyalty and Journalism

You'd think this would be a no brainer type of question, the fact of whether or not journalists should be loyal to their employer, or to their audience. Here's the thing. I thought it was a no brainer type of question, until our class discussion. I'm still split on my decision, although learning more in a certain direction. See if you can tell as I describe the pros and cons.

Loyalty to an employer:

OK. I totally understand why this is absolutely essential. If your boss tells you to write a story, or say a certain thing and you don't say it, guess what. You've lost your job. There are plenty of struggling journalists in today's society that you are easily replaceable. I hate hearing that. But really, to think you're easily replaceable? I will always try my best to make sure I am someone who is NOT easily replaceable for this reason.

Here's the question though. Is writing or saying something because your job is on the line...ethical? To lie, or fabricate something so that you don't lose your job? The principle of Utilitarianism comes into play here. Tough one huh?

Pros: You'll have a boss that loves you if you decide to do what they say. You won't have to worry about walking into work and being on edge about a story if its exactly what they wanted. You might even get that big bonus, or promotion. Chances are too that you'll be the employee they choose to rely on; to give the big projects to.

Cons: You'll have to live with the guilt of posting false information. You'll be lying to America, not just yourself. Chances are, you'll get caught. Your employer will do one of two things: back you up, or rat you out and fire you. If they told you to do the piece, I'd hope they would stay loyal to you like you did to them and have your back through the turmoil of having America find out that not all of the facts posted were exactly true.

A student in our class made up a good point. Here's his blog. His big phrase was "Don't bite the hand that feeds you". Its true. You shouldn't. But when is enough, enough, you know? 

Loyalty to the public:

It's best to make the people who help contribute to your pay roll happy. Hence the above post about being loyal to an employer. But, guess who pays your employer? Your audience! If you make them unhappy, they will stop reading, and your audience will slowly dwindle, along with your company's income. Lets say that you find out some dirt on a big issue, something that might make your company look bad as well. What do you do? Do you choose to tell the truth to your readers, and put your company in the bad light? Or do you lie or twist the information so the public is only getting half of the truth? Is THAT ethical? I like what Mark Doremus has to say here. It's not such a clean cut answer.

Pros: People see journalists as a source of information. That's our job, to inform the public. If you make them happy, you're on the right track. People will trust what you have to say, and once that trust is gained, you have a set of faithful readers. You'll have the respect of the public for doing the right thing by informing them of all of the facts, not just what an employer thinks should be told.

Cons: Once you decide to tell the whole truth, there is no taking it back. An employer can fire you just like that, and you're out on the streets without a home and support for your family. Most businesses are unlikely to hire you for remaining unloyal to your company, and you're left to sit at home and hope your blog makes it big.

So what's a journalist to do?

It's a tough one. In chapter three of our book, it states that a journalist's first loyalty should be to the public. I'm going to have to agree. If I were to ever be put in a tough situation like that, I'd have to go with the principle of Utilitarianism again and help the greater number of people. Plus, I'd never want a guilty conscience. After all, its just a job. I'd prefer to keep my integrity instead.

Example:

Look at Marc Stein's article about Jerry Sloan's resignation. Deron Williams called him out on how he fabricated his entire story of what happened, all so he could get a story. This is exactly what I don't want to be as a reporter. ESPN obviously supports Stein. He's one of their biggest sports reporters. However, how he goes about getting his stories makes me sick. He twists information to get readers to follow him. He has a reputation for being an unreliable source. He stays loyal to his company--and is doing just fine. People still read his stuff. He still has a job. But for me, I'd rather have my audience trust me. I'd rather not have the people I write about say that I lie. I want to keep good sources, not destroy them. But that's just me. I'd rather have my integrity, rather than a good story and a high paying job. Just saying.

-kim

Truth and Journalism

Its funny how people can lie every day about big things or little things. People forgive each other and move on, or they somehow escape being caught in their little white lie. Being a journalist gives you no such luxury. When a journalist lies, they are always caught eventually; and when that day comes is the day they are no longer a credible journalist or source.

While reporting this week, I was at the media day for the BYU Basketball team. Numerous reporters were surrounding Jimmer Fredette and asking question after question. It was brought up that someone had made a Twitter account under his name. When asked if it was true, he laughed and replied with a big NO, and continued to state he didn't think he would be getting one for awhile.

As I watched the news on Fox 13 that night, I saw the story preview on the basketball team that one of the reporters there had put together. The reporter's commercial tease said, "And I'll tell you more about Jimmer's new Twitter account after the break". Curious, I stayed tune to hear just what this reporter had to say, as I had flat out heard Jimmer's answers to the question.

In the reporter's story, he brought up the fact famous names like John Wall and Nelly had Tweeted about Jimmer. And then guess what he did. He preceeded to tell his audience how Jimmer got a Twitter account that same night! And that it was really his! If I hadn't have been present for his interview, I might have trusted this guy. After all, I watch Fox 13 every once and awhile and had always found them to be a credible source. After watching that story air, I will never believe a word of what that reporter says. Ever. It also makes me less likely to watch Fox 13, considering the fact that they let him say that on air and didn't check his facts!

When I went to find the link to the story online, it had been taken down. A shortened version has been left in its place. You can watch that here. My guess is they had one to many people comment on it (I sent an email to them. I was quite angry). You can read down in his story below the clip about the Twitter comments from John Wall. As a watcher of Fox 13, and an upcoming journalist, I am still angry about this. Especially that they took it all down and never made an apology for the inaccuracies.

This brings up the topic of truth and journalism. This personal experience helped me realize the severity of one little white lie to make a story sound good. I never want to watch another story from that reporter again.

What is truth?

I loved the quote from the book that says, "And, as we will see, 'journalistic truth' is more than mere accuracy. Its a sorting out process that takes place between the initial story and the interaction among the public, newsmakers, and journalists...(it) is ultimately what sets journalism apart from all other forms of communication"(Kovach and Rosenstiel, 41)

Journalism in that definition then, is not just about reporting truth, but sorting out the truth and reporting the key points throughout the whole information gathering process. For me, that is the hard part about journalism. I have a hard time deciding what to report and choosing the most important pieces of information. 

Apparently, members of our class aren't the only ones researching this question. I came upon this blog.

He asks the same question, what happened to truth in journalism. It brings up a good point, that people more and more are choosing not to trust media sources. In this day and age its important to be able to be a reliable source. Its a good post. Read it. 

When I looked up the definition for truth it states, " A fact that has been verified". Thats our job. To verify and report facts. 

Most importantly though, I reel back to our class discussion. We couldn't come up with one definition of truth. With our activity, every group had part of the truth, and reported it. But the facts lead up to being unless you had all of the information, you didn't know the real outcome of the situation. I think thats how our world is. Things are constantly changing and being uncovered. We are supposed to report facts as we know them, and as fast and accurately as we can. When we cover a story, we should stick with it until the end so all of the truth is then revealed. 

I liked our class discussion and how not everyone had the same definition of truth and journalism. I think that shows how the world really is, and how it always will be. Thats life. Thats journalism. 

-Kim