Religion and Journalism

"...Religion is the worst covered subject in the entire American mainstream press." Terry Mattingly, director of the Washington Journalism Center, as quoted in The Mind of a Journalist.

Religion plays a major role in many people's lives. "We live in a religious country," Gal Beckerman said (Mind 83.)

"All news is religious news," an article from the Poynter Institute for Media Studies agrees. "That's not a statement of faith or an assertion about the importance of religion to society. Rather, it's a lot like saying all news is political news because there's nothing that's not touched by some politician's interests or some piece of legislation. Religion is the same way, with tendrils of connection to everything" (Mind 91.) Some connections are obvious, some aren't. Pastor Samuel Rodriguez contributes his voice to the immigration debate- a current hot topic featured in On Faith.

For sure a reporter can't dodge covering religion stories for their whole career. The question is, how do they overcome personal biases and beliefs in order to tell the story fairly? Can journalists be religious? Should newspapers make more of an effort to balance their coverage of religion? Gal Beckerman thinks so: "Isn't this journalism's mandate: to offer not just a simple play-by-play of reality, but also to explore what stirs, inspires, pushes people to action?" (qtd Mind 84)

"Generally, I think religion confounds and maybe even scares most reporters," David Waters, producer of the On Faith (associated with the Washington Post) Web site, said (Mind 87.) But luckily, it is possible to cover religion fairly, even if the journalist's own worldview disagrees with the doctrine.

Peggy Wehmeyer saw the key to fair reporting in the example of Peter Jennings of ABC News: "I don't know exactly what Peter believed, although we talked about faith a lot. We talked about different religions and the role of religion. The thing that impressed me most about Peter was that he wasn't closed-minded to religion. He wasn't contemptuous toward people who believed things that he might have found different or odd. I think the most interesting thing about Peter was that he was always pursuing and curious and interested about why people believed what they believed, and how did they believe it, and he wanted to know more about it" (Mind 88.)

Journalism With a Conscience

The press has power. And, to borrow a famous line from the movie Spider-Man, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Enter media ethics: a whole field of study all by itself. The Society of Professional Journalists wrote an entire Code of Ethics to help guide journalists in making tough decisions. However, while there are guidelines that may be applied generally, the number one best guide a journalist can have is his/her own conscience.

Things are rarely clean-cut, black and white, wrong or right. Professor Campbell brought up a good point today in class when he said, "Journalists don't promise to do no harm. We promise to minimize harm." A lot of the information we journalists help bring to light will be harmful to somebody. The hope is that some good comes out of what we write. Journalists should point out the problems and injustices in our country so they can be corrected and bettered. In many ways, it's like sacrificing one person for the good of many more.

The Code is there for a reason. The guidelines outlined in it, with your personal conscience, can help clear up your ethical dilemma. A few good questions to think about: Is it okay to take some "freebies" in journalism and if so, when? Does "newsworthy" ever quash privacy? When do you comply if the government asks you not to publish something?

In the case of independent sources: what would be my source's motive for publishing this?

Watching Absence of Malice really drove home the ethics AND verification points for me. If the reporter hadn't been so focused on getting her story and paid more attention to the motives of her anonymous source and the feelings of those she was interviewing things could have turned out so much better.

Robert Phelps wrote in his book, God and the Editor: "I gradually realized I had found the guide to my life I had been searching for. It certainly wasn't religion in the classical sense: it was a secular substitute for religion. It was journalism as practiced at The New York Times." (qtd in Nieman Reports)

Watchdog Journalism

from Google Images

"Watchdog" journalism: associated with investigative journalism; to further democracy by holding people with power accountable for their actions and providing timely information for the public's use.

The presentation last Thursday was all about watchdog journalism and the power of the press. A video clip shown in class gave us a few pointers about fulfilling journalism's important role as the guardian of democracy: watch and listen to what's going on around you. If something doesn't add up, ask questions.

However, equally important in a journalist's job is to report truth and be fair- journalists must take responsibility for what they write- and stories on positive aspects of our leaders are as important as stories exposing corruption or mistakes.

As Murrey Marder, formerly of the Washington Post, said in Nieman Reports:

“[Watchdog journalism] is by no means just occasional selective, hard-hitting investigative reporting. It starts with a state of mind; accepting responsibility as a surrogate for the public. Asking penetrating questions at every level, from the town council, to the state house, to the White House, in corporate offices, in union halls, in professional offices, and all points in between.”

A story from the front page of today's New York Times provides an ideal example of watchdog journalism at work. In it, journalists Eric Schmitt and Helene Cooper report a leak of "classified military documents" from the last six years of war and how their disclosure is already spawning a heated debate over America's presence in Afghanistan. According to the documents, the war is going "even more poorly" than the Bush and now Obama administration have said. This new evidence gives rise to hard questions: can the war in Afghanistan still be won? Is the current policy governing the war working?

This is journalism: providing everyone with information necessary for us to make informed decisions when electing public officials and voting for different things. Presenting information for debate and empowering democracy.

Finding Opinion Among the News

First of all, can I just say how funny I find My Blog List right now? At least half of the latest blog posts for the class last Thursday were posted "__ hours ago."

I guess I can't talk much.

Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers all those years ago, was quoted in The Most Dangerous Man in America to say, "[People] need to ask more, demand more of their public servants." He was talking about government officials. But journalists serve the public too, and the quote could easily be applied to all of us. We need to do better, to be better, if we're going to survive.

On Thursday, we specifically talked about independence in journalism as a class. The SPJ Code of Ethics gives a few pointers: "Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived." "Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment..." "...hold those with power accountable." "Deny favored treatment..."

Previously in class, we debated whether a journalist could have an opinion about an issue and still be a good journalist, sparked by the New York Times story about the CNN editor who lost her job because of a comment she made on Twitter. Something the presenters said Thursday reassured me a little on that subject: newspaper columnists can have an opinion! In fact, it's what they're valued for- accurately reporting the news and then commenting on it. Although I don't know if I'll ever wind up writing a column some day, I feel better just knowing that between the neutral news stories are columns, political cartoons, and editorials. The difference between a general reporter and an opinion writer is their balance between neutrality (suppress opinion) and independence (room for opinion but BASED ON FACTS); general reporters are more neutral and opinion writers are more independent. However, just because you can have an opinion doesn't mean you shouldn't be independent. I believe the more involved a journalist is, the more difficult he/she will find staying neutral and giving each side ample thought.

Absence of Malice: journalism movie assignment

SPOILER ALERT!

Quick synopsis of "Absence of Malice": Meg Carter is an investigative journalist. Elliot Rosen is a government guy in charge of finding out what happened to an important guy named Diaz, who's gone missing. Rosen leaks false information (on purpose) about an impending investigation to Meg, who gobbles it up and puts out a story that winds up on the front page of the next day's paper. Mike Gallagher is the guy who's supposedly being investigated, but he doesn't know anything about it until he reads his name in this article. He confronts Meg at the paper, demanding to know where the story came from, and she stubbornly protects her "anonymous source." At first she is convinced, as is everyone else in the community, Gallagher had something to do with Diaz's disappearance. But then she gets an exclusive interview with Teresa Perone, Gallagher's best friend, who provides an alibi for Gallagher- he took her to have an abortion the weekend Diaz went missing. She begs Meg not to name her in her story- nobody but Gallagher and now Meg know about the abortion- but that doesn't happen, and Teresa kills herself the day the paper comes out. The story is about how Gallagher clears his name and Meg just tries to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it.

This is what I wrote about the movie:

“Absence of Malice”

It’s interesting to note that everything Megan Carter’s paper put out about Michael Gallagher in the film “Absence of Malice” was accurate, but not correct. It made me think of the Pentagon Papers. When they were printed everyone realized the government had been lying through their teeth about how the Vietnam War was going. All the papers up to that point had been reporting what the officials had to say- and they’d been reporting accurately. But none of what they printed was actually true.

There was an obvious lack of verification with Meg Carter’s first story about Gallagher, the one that reported he was currently under investigation for the disappearance of a guy named Diaz. After Gallagher came to the paper and demanded to know where their information came from, Meg mentioned trying to call him- but she only tried to call him once, and she didn’t mention any other things she did to make sure what she printed was true, which makes me think she based her whole article off what was in the file on Elliot Rosen’s desk. This doesn’t sound like a good journalistic trait to me.

Rosen brought in a host of issues we’ve discussed in class: leaked information, anonymous sources, discipline of verification, and public’s right to know. His whole plan to “squeeze” Gallagher for information by leaking false information to the press was fishy from the start, and unfortunately Meg Carter was too dim-witted to see through his act. She should have considered Rosen’s motives for leaving her alone with the file on Gallagher a lot more than she did and then use some of her observations of his suspicious behavior to better decide whether Rosen was a trustworthy source or not. I think Meg was so eager to tell the public something important she neglected some of her duty as a journalist- a duty to the truth.

Meg also handled her interview with Teresa Perone very badly. As Michael Gallagher put it later in the film: “Couldn’t you see her? Couldn’t you put down your [darn] ballpoint pen for a minute and listen to her?” Listening was definitely a problem of Meg’s. Which is interesting; one would think journalists do more listening than talking and judging. Why would you keep a whistleblower anonymous but claim the public “has a right to know the alibi”? What’s the difference? Doesn’t the public also have a right to know who gives incriminating evidence?

In this country, people are innocent unless proven guilty. I thought of that when Meg gave her reporter friend advice about a story she was working on- “Don’t mention the sharks. There aren’t any sharks unless they walk up on land on their fins- then they’re news. If they’re in the water, we call them fish. That way we don’t scare the tourists.” To which Meg’s friend replies: “‘Fish-infested waters,’ then. Thanks.” But it’s hypocritical advice, because Meg has already made Gallagher out to be a shark without a lot to back up her story, and Gallagher’s life and livelihood is slowly ruined because of her mistake.

Before I watched this movie, I was in favor of a media shield law to protect journalists with anonymous sources, but now that I’ve seen the harm anonymous or “leaked” sources can do, I’ve changed my opinion. It just doesn’t make sense to protect the identity of one person but not another. Anonymous sources can be helpful, but they should be used sparingly, and definitely not in a touchy story if you can help it.

Sudoku, Journalism, Verification and Deception

I have recently come to a simple conclusion:

Ask the right questions, and the mysteries of the world will start to unravel for you.

I mean this mainly in two ways: one, in journalism; U.S. journalists strive to report the truth and nothing but the truth in an objective manner. This is easier said than done, but I believe that hard questions- something journalists specialize in- are worthwhile in this quest for truth.

Two, in Sudoku puzzles. It used to hate these things with a passion. They're strictly logical, and I swear my brain isn't wired for logic- mathematical kind of logic, anyway. But since I've been picking up the Daily Universe with my New York Times at school every day, I've used the Sudoku puzzles on the second-to-last page as a break from school (or just to fill the time). And there's a pattern to them I've finally noticed- assume nothing. Double-check all your answers, don't write in anything if there's an alternate possibility, and go over everything line by line, box by box. Sooner or later something will click- you'll find another answer and you'll be that much closer to solving the whole puzzle.

The key is finding that row or box that sheds just enough light to provide a small part of the truth. The key is in asking the right questions.

from http://www.websudoku.com/; check it out for this and more puzzles!

Something else I've been thinking about, stemmed from a class discussion that took place this morning in Comms 239. Our presenters had invited Don Hudson from ABC4's "Good Morning Utah" as a guest speaker speaking on verification in journalism and transparency in journalism- transparency meaning the journalists are up front with the methods they used to get information for their story, how they put together the story, if a photo or film clip was staged, etc, etc. Anything that might be useful to help the public evaluate the article.

Tom Nelson, here from South Carolina where he teaches journalism, was also in class when Don came and presented. Both responded alike to a particular question Haley asked Don about transparency in journalism- it was something like, "In what ways do you see transparency at ABC4?" After clarifying what she meant by transparency for Don, he said he didn't see why he had to tell his audience if he made a minor editing change. The example given was a siren going off. The cameraman got the audio of the siren but was unable to get the visual before the siren turned off. Simple solution: get a shot of the (now-silent) siren and then edit the video so the noise matches up with the visual. Make sense? In our reading from Elements of Journalism, the authors advocated telling the audience when even a small change like that is made. Don specifically said this kind of thing happens at ABC4 all the time and frankly he doesn't think he should have to tell viewers about a little thing like that, even though technically, he engineered the siren effect. Tom agreed.

This discussion continued, and then Don said something else that stuck with me. He mentioned a piece about immigration he's currently working on; a specific example where he didn't think he had to tell viewers something was staged. The example was a shot of an illegal immigrant passing out from heat stroke. "People should just know this kind of thing is staged without me having to tell them; obviously I'm not following undocumented individuals around just waiting for them to get heat stroke."

The thing that got my attention was the phrase "people should just know." Don obviously gives his viewers a lot of credit for being able to tell when things are real and when they're staged. The thought led to a memory of a P.E. class I took at UVU where the instructor told us we shouldn't believe everything we see on TV and for some reason, in his experience, that news came as a shock to a lot of people.

So my question is, is everybody as smart as Don gives them credit for, and how might it affect his show if people find out after the fact he staged some of the clips for dramatic effect? Will they understand his methods of telling the story? Will they approve? How much will they care that some of the things in his story aren't exactly as he observed them?

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I think the more transparent a journalist is, the more trusted he/she will be, and no "deception" is too small to label as such, at least just to be able to tell your critics, "I told you this was a re-enactment, now stop whining!"