This thread reminded me of something I realized not so very long ago, when I was still working as a print journalist: many people simply don’t understand why the media is the way it is. I thought I would start this thread so that people with questions could get them out.
But first, a word of caution. I worked for a medium-sized newspaper as a crime reporter, so that is my area of greatest expertise. I do know something about TV reporting, since I worked side-by side with TV for years, but I am less qualified to remark on it. I also am less qualified to talk about how very large media outlets (like the NY Times, or CNN) handle their international coverage.
However, I did go to journalism school, and have studied the field extensively, so I certainly know more about the above subjects than the average person. The basic principles and business model of the news media are the same on every level, and I am very familiar with that.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but how come newspapers never get anything right, ever? Every single time I’ve had personal experience with an event described in a newspaper article, the facts have been wrong. And it’s always the seemingly easy facts too, like how many people were involved and the like. I’d understand if they missed whether the robber was carrying a .44 or a .45, but how many robbers there were should be pretty easily determined. Right?
Priceguy, if it was a daily newspaper I’d bet the problem wasn’t that the writer didn’t get it correct, but that he/she put in the facts as he knew it. It’s hard to deal with people when they are trying to do their own jobs and don’t really want to give you the time of day. Also, if the POC is not aware of anything new, then the story is not going to be perfect and up-to-the-minute.
Crafter_Man - No.
Oops!
Sorry, Lizard, I forgot it said former news reporter.
Don’t worry about my feelings; I am immune to criticism.
But these are good questions, with more than one answer. First off, let me say that most people really don’t realize just how much information of all kinds is contained in a daily newspaper. It takes a lot of work to gather all the information, write it, edit it, lay out the pages, etc. And this process must be repeated, on deadline, every 24 hours. So the people who put together a newspaper operate under continual pressure, which makes some mistakes inevitable. This is compounded by the trend within newspapers over the last few years, which is to cut editorial staff. This means that fewer and fewer people are proofreading stories, looking for mistakes.
So that’s the process end of it. But there are also problems on the simple information-gathering end of it. Sometimes, people or sources simply don’t agree, and a reporter must decide what information to go with. One person says there were five people, another says four. Who was right? Eyewitness accounts are simply not always reliable, a fact known to trial lawyers the nation over. Not only that, but sometimes the people who know the most about a crime, i.e., the police aren’t talking. Since the reporter has to get a story no matter what, he must then go with the best info he has. Very often, that info is wrong. He may suspect it is inaccurate, but the editor (who is operating under tremendous time pressure, remember?) needs the story RIGHT NOW. Watch the movie “The Paper” for an excellent depiction of this dynamic.
Newspapers make their money by selling advertising, and there must be stories to go with that advertising. The best place to determine the facts of any incident is a trial, but those take months to occur. What is a paper going to publish in the meantime? Anything it can get its hands on.
Not only all this, but people tend to remember mistakes for a long time. Given the volume of information newspapers handle, there really aren’t that many, but they stick in peoples’ mind like you wouldn’t believe. Somebody gets their name mispelled in a story, and for years afterward tells everybody they know how the paper “screws everything up,” even while that same publication is pumping out meticulous, factual stories about the local bond levies, or a new city ordinance, or a local business going bankrupt.
Most people have nowhere near the body of knowledge required to tell if a paper is right or wrong on these issues, but since their name was mispelled, all reporters are idiots. ( iknow that’s not what you said, but I’ve heard it from plenty of people.)
Hey Gorgon Heap feel free. I’ve always felt the media would have a much better image in this country if the people who worked in it felt some responsibility to act as ambassadors for their profession. Otherwise, politicians or other public figures can just bash “The Media” at will. And they do.
It depends. I believe there is a certain type of bias at some levels, but it is too simple to just say “a liberal bias in all aspects.”
A great deal of national television programming originates in large cities, such as Chicago, L.A., or New York City. The values people hold in big cities are, and always have been, different from the values people hold in northwest Wyoming or rural Ohio.
But you can’t just call his “bias.” Take crime. Obviously there is more crime in NYC than in rural Ohio. Maybe not per-capita (I don’t really know) but the sheer volume of people means there is more happening. So people hear about it more. It plays upon their sense of safety more. The end result? More support for gun control.
This exposition is pretty simplistic, but I’m trying to make a bigger point here. Much of the media we see, hear, or read is made by people with a certain set of core values. I wouldn’t call those values “liberal,” since I believe that is a loaded word used by certain people for political effect. But they are different values than those held by large numbers of our population.
I sort of expected this answer. I realise that the life of a daily journalist must be extremely stressful (and still I’m trying to become one!). It’s just the kinds of facts that get distorted, that really amaze me.
Oh yeah, we’ve all seen this mentality in action. However, I make no claim to knowing anything about the absolute lion’s share of newspaper articles, just the ones I’m personally involved with. Three incidents come to mind:
There was a story in a semi-local newspaper about our student prom. They interviewed some classmates of mine for a ten-line article. What did they get wrong? The time we were supposed to meet the next day for breakfast. Yeah, a little shit piece of fact, but why not just carry a notepad during the interview?
My mother is a nurse and was involved with a case with a boy who nearly drowned. His age was reported as 5 and 12 in two different newspapers. His age? 8.
One night, myself and 8 friends were threatened by four kids with a fake gun. It was reported that there were 5 of us in one newspaper and 7 in the other. None of us spoke to any reporters, so they must have got their information from the police, who took all of our names and phone numbers. How do you get this wrong?
Why do they always give a persons age when quoting them, i.e. Fanny Doolittle, 57, said “…”? Seems like some people (Women) probably don’t want that broadcasted…
Priceguy, it’s hard to understand just how these things happen until you’ve been there. But regarding examples 2 & 3, I can say unequivocally that reporting on minors is much more difficult. People are very protective of children. Did you ever wonder why no reporters ever called you or your friends, even though you’d all given your names and phone numbers to police? Simple: the cops wouldn’t tell the reporters anything.
The only people who get easy access to write a story on someone under 18 are sports reporters covering high school games. In fact, at my old job we’d occasionally get calls from parents, outraged that we’d taken a photo of their kid for the news pages “without their permission”! Many people simply assume that because the news media so rarely mentions or depicts minors, that it is against he law to do so. In reality, we did so to avoid a public backlash. That same backlash can descend on anyone considered responsible for publicising something involving children, including cops, school teachers, firemen, you name it. Those people are well aware of this, and clam up instantly when kids are involved and reporters are sniffing around.
But regardless, the mistakes you mention are well within the parameters of the mistakes I’ve seen papers make because of pressure or bad editing. I’ve actually made a few bigger ones myself.
Ha! You are absolutely right! Many women don’t want to give their age, although I could usually talk them into it. One paper I worked for wanted reporters to get mug shots (journalism parlance for a photo that just showed somebody’s face) of people we interviewed. And you think getting their age was hard!
But the reason for this is because the management of many newspapers, especially small ones, believe market research that shows people like to know these details about the people in a news story. It’s as simple as that. It’s a minor detail, but surveys have shown that people like to have it. It also provides some context, depending on the type of story.
It’s a little different in crime stories. There, the age is included to make certain nobody confuses the Fanny Doolittle who was arrested for arson with the Fanny Doolittle who is the organist for her local Church. Papers have been sued for libel over such confusion before, and lost. If you start checking stories about serious crimes, you’ll note they almost always include the name, age, and street address of the accused, and a picture, if they can get it. The paper is doing everything they can to identify the person properly.
An Arky, I don’t work on a civilian paper, but for the most part the age is included to give readers an idea of what “kind” of person it is and what kind of “demographic” they belong to.
There is a big difference between someone stealing the purse of a 25-year-old woman and the purse of a 57-year-old.
In such cases, one could also presume it is a matter of gaining the sympathy of readers.
Of course, it is also “just one of those things” that newspapers have gotten used to doing over the decades.
What advice would you give to a young budding journalist who thinks he/she wants to get into the business?
What made you choose news/ed over advertising, PR, broadcast, photo, or other areas of journalism?
What journalism schools do you think are the best, in terms of teaching journalism skills to budding young newbies?
How do you feel about “how do you feel” questions, which IMHO, generally the answers do not add much to the story? (“Elizabeth Smart, how do you feel about being kidnapped?” ES: Well, it sucked. “Thanks, back to you, Bob?”
Where do you stand on the ethical debate about publishing names and identifying data about crime victims, specifically rape victims? On the flip side, suppose ten people got arrested at the local park for lewd and lacivious behavior. They have not yet been arraigned or convicted… publish their names, even though they might be innocent?
Whew, Dogzilla! It’s going to probably take a couple of different posts to answer all that, but I’ll do my best.
Ohio State University.
**
Well, they should know what they’re getting into. First of all, when people tell you you won’t make much money, they’re not kidding! Reporters at smaller newspapers are among the lowest paid college graduates you will ever find, anywhere. And small-market TV people make even less! These are the entry-level jobs for most people, and they also weed out a great many who just can’t survive on $10/hour and pay off school loans too.
Second, understand that Woodward & Bernstein breaking Watergate was an exceptional story, and not one they are going to single-handedly repeat. There is a cultural icon of the snooping reporter, shining the light of public inquiry on the evil underbelly of whatever. The reality is quite different. It can be tedious, thankless, wearying, and even depressing work. I had to deal with personal threats, insults, cops who wanted to arrest me, and the aftermath of horribly gruesome accidents involving children.Nothing can adequately prepare a person for that.
There’s more, but damn, I could be writing for a week. Basically, a person with interest in the field should talk to reporters doing it right now, at every level. They should immediately go and work for their school paper, and see if they can get an internship at the local weekly. Even if they decide they don’t want to pursue it, they’ll learn a lot about life. It’s impossible not to.
**
Okay, advertising and PR are not journalism! People in those fields get mocked a lot by reporters, even though many people doing that work are former reporters themselves. The truth is that advertising and PR pay a lot more than pure journalism, and a lot of people get into them to pay their bills.
Personally, it never ocurred to me to be anything but a print reporter, for several reasons. I had a natural talent at writing, but never had any desire to lug along a camera. I didn’t grow up watching TV or TV news, so it never ocurred to me to go into that line of work.
Like many journalists, I was an idealist. I went into journalism to try to contribute something to the world, to “make a difference.” But reality is not kind to such as me, as I found out. I haven’t simply chucked my idealism along with my journalism career, but I am a lot more realistic now. (Maybe I should’ve included this with the "advice to young journalists section.)
Well, the conventional wisdom says that certain schools, such as Northwestern, The University of Missouri, or Columbia are the best schools, period. But realistically, most people aren’t going to be able to get into those schools. Going on my own experience, I think it is best for a young person to go to the school where they will get the best opportunities to do hands-on work.
In Ohio, the best journalism school is generally considered to be Ohio University. I briefly considered going there when I had decided to transfer out of Engineering school (a whole 'nother story). But in the end, I went to OSU for the opportunities it offered. OSU was in Columbus, the state capital and a major metropolis. It also published The Lantern, one of the biggest college newspapers in the United States.
OU was in Athens, a college town of 30,000. What major stories would I get the chance to cover there?
My experience in school proved my instincts correct. I covered murders, the machinations of the state legislature, and cases heard before the Ohio Supreme Court at OSU. None of that would’ve happened had I gone to Ohio U.
Oh, my classroom instruction would almost certainly been better and more in-depth had I gone to OU, but so what? Journalism is something you learn by doing; like most other professions that are partly art forms, it can’t be taught in a classroom for the most part. And when future employers decide whether to hire you or not, they examine the stories you’ve written in college or at your internships. Which would impress them more, a story on a court case heard before the Ohio Supreme Court, or one on the corn harvest of Athens County?
**
Those reporters are trying to do as they’ve been taught and instructed to do, which is to put a human face on the events that have occurred. Unfortunately, it takes real energy and creativity to think up insightful and revealing questions, especially for events that are of no greater long-term significance to the public at large. (Like the kidnapping and release of one person) And as I’ve explained in replies to other questions, sometimes energy and creativity are lacking. This is really a drawback of the whole way that American journalism is conducted: constantly on deadline, constantly needing to fill airtime or cover the page, or what have you. To discuss WHY our media is like this is actually getting into rather complex territory involving our unique history and Constitution, as well as the American propensity to try to find a way to turn a profit on anything.
But as for how do I feel, well, there are better ways to get into peoples’ heads than just asking “How do you feel?”
Even though there names are a matter of public record, most newspapers/media outlets already choose not to publish the names of rape victims in order to both protect the victims from potential embarassment and the publisher from criticism.
To me, this seems to be no debate at all. Circumstances that make it VITAL to publish the victim’s identity in a sexual assault almost never arise. But when it comes to other crimes, it gets murky. Much of this debate is dependent upon nuance, and that also adequately describes the working life of most journalists, as well.
Here’s a true example: I once found out that a local bank in my town had, very quietly, fired one of its tellers. I also found out the Secret Service had visited the bank and questioned several employees. Here’s the rub: publicizing this would have almost certainly embarrassed the bank and hurt its business. But wouldn’t the customers of that bank want to know if their financial institution had been careless and given access to their money to someone untrustworthy?
I’m oversimplifying the issue, I know, but I don’t have time to write a whole book. This issue has been argued for centuries, and we haven’t reached any better conclusions. That is why we have the First Amendment, in my opinion. Nobody has or should have the absolute authority to decide this issue, once and for all.
As for your specific example of ten people arrested for lacivious behavior, I would certainly oppose any publication of that info if they had not even been arraigned. But again, after that it gets murky. Were they arrested for soliciting sex? Exposing themselves? I was responsible for putting together the Police Log at the paper where I worked, and our rule of thumb was an arrest had to involve three different misdemeanor charges or a felony before we would include it in the log. This seemed eminently fair to me, and your example would fall below that standard of reportage.
Thedre is another point of view, that even if a conviction was reached in these ten cases, the crime was not especially horrible, like murder, or detrimental to society, like a bank robbery. Therefore, the only reason to publish would be to titillate people and embarras the convicted. I think there’s something to that argument, but again, it depends. What if one of those people were mayor, and he was caught having sex with a Boy Scout? You might say that his, certainly, is of great public interest, and should be published. But then I counter, why embarass the mayor, and let the nine other people arrested with him off scot free?
This is no academic exercise. I have engaged in many discussion on matter such as this in reality, that involved the lives and reputations of real people. (Including a real mayor. It’s not always easy to know what the right thing to do is. And it’s a given that no matter what the editors decided, we’d get criticised for it.
True Confessions: Those were trick questions. I was graduated from OU’s journalism school. I majored in Public Relations! (Sucker! :D) I just wanted to see someone say, publicly and in print, that my alma mater is one of the best J. schools there is.
Them’s fightin’ words, my friend! The reason I asked, and I think this is true at OSU as well as OU: Adv. and PR are journalism majors and many of the basic news/ed skills come in handy in those areas. I switched from news/ed to PR simply because I got bored with writing straight news stories all the time. Opportunities for newbie journalists to have their own regular columns are pretty tough to come by. So, I ended up selling my soul for a slightly better starting paycheck, than if I’d stuck with news/ed, and slightly more creative opportunities. Please note I do not regret the choice, but I also do not take offense to being called a “PR Whore” by my news/ed colleagues, since many news/ed professionals in the field do not actually have journalism degrees at all. Finally, in order to be called a PR major, I had to get through a number of core journalism courses, that ALL J. majors had to take. My point: the foundation, and basic skill sets are the same, so IMHO, PR and Advertising are very much areas of journalism.
I beg to differ. I think you might have been surprised at the major stories occurring in Athens, at least when I was there, between 1987-91. Even so, you do have a point: a lot more happens in Cols., than in Athens. OU had a graduation requirement that you had to do an internship or you didn’t get to graduate. Many news/ed majors chose to do several summers at the Beacon-Journal, Plain Dealer, and the Dispatch… so had you gone to OU, you probably would have had some great opportunities to cover really meaty stories, even though life was fairly laconic throughout the school year. Until the Winter Quarter War (aka, the Gulf War) flared up and then you’d have thought you took a wrong turn and found yourself in Berkley.
That said, please don’t misunderstand: OSU has a fine journalism school and was my second/backup choice. Just glad you didn’t go to Florida State and then claim to have journalism credentials. (From what I’ve seen from potential job applicants from FSU – I hire writers and artists frequently – the Florida schools suck in terms of teaching J. students any real world skills useful in journalism. FTR, I’m a corporate communications manager and am responsible for employee benefits education for our clients, and advertising and PR for the company. I use my J. School skills every day of my life. Not that any of the reporters at my local paper, the Tallahassee Democrap, do. ahem.)
Very true. Only thing I’d dispute is that, in many of my classes at OU, the homework was a real world/hands on kind of assignment. We had to interview people, cover events and write stories about them, etc. You still got the hands on experience, even if it wasn’t your internship quarter.
As a person who now hires journalists, the answer is neither. What would impress me more is how well the story was written, how accurate it was and how timely/effective the story was. Subject matter makes no difference. Like they say in Drama, “There are no small parts; only small actors.” If you did a really bang up job with that harvest story (and in Athens County, it would be pot, not corn:p!), who cares?
Since you took the time to write so much in response to my other questions: let me study your answers a bit and see if I have anything to debate with you. Upon initial scanning, I pretty much agree with you and posted those questions because I figured you’d get them eventually. I tossed 'em in for the benefit of those interested in this thread, who did not attend J. school and therefore, did not participate in any journalism ethics classes and might enjoy a little reporter ethics debate.
Nice job, btw. (Now I’m interested in where your hometown is, since obviously, I’m from Ohio as well.)
Here’s another one: Compare and contrast two OU journalism graduates. What do you think of Matt Lauer vs. Helen Thomas? (MHO: I like Helen Thomas better. She asks great hard-core questions, does not back down from softshoeing politicians and Matt Lauer is all purty fluff.)
I’m also interested in why you are a former journalist and not still in the game. You’ve touched on why you left the field. What are you doing now? Are you happier doing that? Do you regret the decision, ever, of changing fields?
I realise that the police didn’t give our phone numbers to the reporters (and I would have been thoroughly p*ssed off if they had), but the police told them the basic facts: we were there, we entered into a verbal argument with the four kids, a fake gun was pulled, police was called and the kids fled the scene, subsequently ditching the fake gun in a park. I can’t imagine they didn’t tell them our exact number, but let’s say they didn’t. Why didn’t the reporters write “a group of people” or something rather than make up a number?
Also note that none of us were minors, although the kids obviously were.
I haven’t simply chucked my idealism along with my journalism career, but I am a lot more realistic now. (Maybe I should’ve included this with the "advice to young journalists section.)
This issue has been argued for centuries, and we haven’t reached any better conclusions. That is why we have the First Amendment, in my opinion. Nobody has or should have the absolute authority to decide this issue, once and for all.