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!"