I’d ask for a cite, but…
This is actually true, but of course it’s true for the exact opposite reason you say: the idea of objective and unbiased journalism is relatively new, and it’s certainly not what motivated pamphleteers or Hearst and Pulitzer.
I do agree with this though I don’t have a cite. It really is human nature though, pretty much everyone wants to make a (what they see as) positive impact on the world.
I remember watching a journalism panel on PBS years ago (Late 80’s?). I’m pretty sure it was James Kilpatrick who lamented that: “Journalists used to be ‘truth tellers’ but now they have changed to ‘dragon slayers.’”
WHile this is an opinion, I can agree that many journalists feel that way and want to take up the mantle of ‘dragon slayer’ as opposed to ‘truth teller’.
One of the first reptile collecting trips I made outside of my home state was with a friend who was studying biology in college, and who was interested in collecting any D.O.R. (dead on road) specimens that were in decent enough shape for the college preserved collection. Seeing those initials in McPhee’s book so many years later made me feel like I was in that car again in eastern North Carolina, scanning the road for snakes.
Yes, I truly think that Wolf Blitzer and the Fox crowd are the epitome of stupid propagandists. I won’t dispute adding others to the list.
To some extent, contemporary journalism education is responsible for the lack of depth of knowledge. Although journalism majors are required to minor in another subject in college, that minor is likely to be a softball like music or underwater basketweaving than in anything substantive like a hard or social science. This is wonderful if you plan to be a music critic, but it’s useless for the general assignment reporter sent to cover a city council meeting.
And it’s not like journalism itself is a difficult major. Journalism classes in college are skills-based. Students aren’t taught to think critically about what they’re reporting; they’re supposed to ask questions and write what they heard. So they can be told that 1+1 = 3, and as long as the reporter doesn’t know any better, he’ll write that 1+1 = 3 and not question it.
Finally, schools, like everywhere else, follow the money. Most “journalism” majors want to get into PR or some kind of Internet-based marketing and advertising; few want to get into traditional journalism, so some colleges are dismantling their journalism programs in favor of PR and “new media”. They have no clue about reporting or reporters, or the history of their profession, or the ethics of their profession; they’re content to learn to pass along what they’re handed.
I weep for the future of journalism.
MsRobyn, BA in communication/journalism and MS, communication studies
That should say “details on the same story vary a lot when reported by different sources”.
goes off to write 100 times “I shall check that I’m not missing half a sentence.”
The family was not interviewed only the soldier. We didn’t leave until the following June.
It can be both. Do reporters typically see what the editors do to their story? I almost always get to see the edit to my column. Most of the changes are improvements, but there are always a few cases where the editor didn’t get it and totally destroys the sense. So even if your editor is really good (as my current one is) you still have to pay attention. I suspect science articles are probably more at risk of distortion than ones about the zoning board.
BTW, our local rag outsourced some editing to India. Fine, except for when they thought Oregon was in the Midwest …
It is. It is on the West Coast in the middle between Oregon and California.
Here is a good example. The suspect was posing with an “assault like rifle.” What is that? A new kind of gun that is almost but not quite a kinda sorta assault rifle? I’m not sure the writer would be able to explain what he meant by that.
Complaining that you’re not getting top-flight journalism from Yahoo! is like complaining that your McDonalds hamburger is sloppily made.
A huge part of the issue, in Australia at least, is they can’t get into traditional journalism because there aren’t any jobs for them. The two major print media companies have been having massive layouts, reorganisations and restructures lately and the edited highlights are there are now way more qualified journalists (both newly graduated and experienced) than there are - or probably ever will be again - jobs for them.
If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say “Pretty much, except for the new part - it sounds like the sort of rifle the military would use when storming enemy positions on the battlefield”
It depends. There’s usually a back and forth, but they won’t always see the finished story.
That’s pretty depressing.
I’ve been following this thread with some interest because I’ve not only been a journalist, but I’ve been a public relations spokesperson who’s worked with journalists and followed stories with great self-interest. I have a 40 year background and IMHO, most journalists mostly get it right most of the time.
And when they get it wrong, it’s usually for one of three reasons.
It’s a stupid brain fart. Just yesterday a local TV reporter mentioned something that happened “at the corner of Goodfellow and Union Station.” Goodfellow doesn’t go anywhere near Union Station, but it does cross Union Avenue. In fact, that’s what the script said, the reporter just read it wrong.
The communication with the story source got garbled. People aren’t as good at expressing themselves as they think they area. I can’t even begin to count the number of people I’ve interviewed who insist they said X when they said Y – and I had it on tape. I’ve frequently had arguments with engineering types who insist that when they say “9.937504” and I say “almost 10” that I’m wrong. I’m sorry to take shortcuts and offend your sense of accuracy, but if I say “9.937504” someone will hear it as “9”, someone else will hear it as “99” and someone will just hear “4”, but if I say “almost 10” they’re more likely to hear “almost 10” or at least “10.”
As for not knowing what the governor was talking about with the term “parole,” why is the poster complaining that the reporter should have known what the governor meant, rather than complaining that the governor used a technical loophole to sound like he was tough on crime? This goes with what Ms. Robyn noted: “Students aren’t taught to think critically about what they’re reporting; they’re supposed to ask questions and write what they heard. So they can be told that 1+1 = 3, and as long as the reporter doesn’t know any better, he’ll write that 1+1 = 3 and not question it.”
So the reporter didn’t identify Saintly Loser, but someone in the company figured it out. That doesn’t sound to me like it’s the reporter’s fault.
So a reporter writing against a deadline put in something that you said shouldn’t be in there. I notice you didn’t say said reporter got it wrong. Why did you say it if you didn’t want it to be reported.
With all due respect** Loach**, that’s your interpretation.
It’s probably short for “The suspect was posing with a scary-looking gun that most people would think is a machine gun or something but I can’t identify the model from the photo I saw and it sure looks like an assault rifle but if I flatly say it’s an assault rifle someone will complain that what he was holding is the non-assault version so I’ll throw a weasel word in there.”
In my experience (a small town newspaper reporter a thousand years ago), newsmakers granting interviews are the ones with an agenda, not the reporters. I’ve been yelled at by readers for something that I quoted someone saying, because they thought I should have known that what he was saying was inaccurate. Sorry, my job was to get both sides, not carry the ball for your team.
To be fair, I think fact checking of quotes is a responsibility of journalists that has been largely abdicated (if they ever even regularly did it in the first place). Journalism shouldn’t be only stenography. That’s a part of it: Governor so-and-so said “The new income tax rate of 4% should be more than enough to cover the deficit.” Quote him saying it. But it’s a valid function of a responsible journalist to go on and say: “The deficit is X, the increase in income from the new tax rate would be Y.” Especially if Y is less than X.
I didn’t SAY a thing. And the reporter and photographer agreed to it.
It was something like this. Local rare frog endangered. Here’s how we can help by doing X, Y, and Z by educating the public.
Reporter and photographer come along to Farmer Bobs pond that still has some of the beautiful rare frogs. Photographer gets pics of the frogs. Reporter interviews us local “experts” to get some good quotes.
But Farmer Bob doesn’t want people knowing about those frogs being on HIS property. I don’t think it takes a genius to figure out why. He doesn’t even wanted to be named in person.
THOSE were the conditions of being led to Farmer Bob’s pond by the experts and being allowed on the property in the first place.
Fuck that reporter. Or the editor. Or probably both.
And what does a deadline have to do with it? I’m in a hurry so I break my agreements?
Assholes.
It probably isn’t. It’s unfortunate, but in a situation like that it’s on the source to specify what information about him can and can’t be used. It’s the reporter’s job to disclose as much as is possible and it’s not the reporter’s job to guess what information an anonymous individual’s coworkers might be able to use to identify him.
It sounds like a stupid and cliche lede in any event. It may not be factually wrong, but it’s bland and if the family said the opposite, there’s no reason to assert a comment about their emotional state as a fact.
Sounds like the editor insisted that the location of the frogs be identified in the story.
And time limitations compressed the entire process of the reporter sifting out unnecessary or not-for-print information, having a discussion with the editor about why the location shouldn’t be mentioned and either getting the editor to agree or calling Farmer Bob and telling him what was happening.
[QUOTE=Garfield226]
To be fair, I think fact checking of quotes is a responsibility of journalists that has been largely abdicated (if they ever even regularly did it in the first place). Journalism shouldn’t be only stenography. That’s a part of it: Governor so-and-so said “The new income tax rate of 4% should be more than enough to cover the deficit.” Quote him saying it. But it’s a valid function of a responsible journalist to go on and say: “The deficit is X, the increase in income from the new tax rate would be Y.” Especially if Y is less than X.
[/quote]
In a perfect world, maybe. In this world, however, the situation you outlined would result in the governor accusing the reporter of injecting his own “facts” into the story; the governor’s opponents saying the deficit will be Z instead of Y which only proves the dishonesty of both the governor and the reporter; and readers accusing the reporter of showing political bias by daring to contradict the governor, who certainly knows this stuff better than the reporter.
Daily journalism (as opposed to analysis or commentary) is about getting information in and pushing it back out. As I said, most journalists mostly get it right most of the time.
Half the story was about the frogs being endangered due to ignorant locals. There was no NEED to explain the secrecy. That WAS a major part of the story.
Story synopsis:
Endangered Frogs. Locals using them for bass bait and selling them to pet stores. Some locals just think killing is good fun. Experts worried about said frogs. Enough that they prefer not to reveal where said frogs are. This reporter had to gain the trust of experts to go see said frogs. BTW, here is where Farmer Bobs pond is (except that part is first).
Either the editor was a dick or a moron. Or the reporter was a dick or a coward or carelessly stupid . Or perhaps both were some mishmash of all those.