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!"

First Loyalty to the Citizens

"Journalism's first loyalty is to citizens," The Elements of Journalism states.

But in this world of online newspapers and current financial scare, the biggest factor in how much a news executive gets paid at the end of the year is not the quality of their work. It's how much profit their companies made (Elements 51).

Thus the business side of journalism begins to make the calls. Corners are cut, jobs are lost, less (or no) attention is paid to "less important" news.

So who do journalists work for? Where is their first loyalty?

For Nick Clooney, former newscaster, the answer is simple: "I always worked for the people who turned on the television set. Always. Whenever I was having a discussion with a general manager or a member of the board of directors, my bottom line was always, 'I don't work for you. You're paying my check, and I'm very pleased. But the truth of the matter is, I don't work for you, and if it comes down to a question of loyalty, my loyalty will be to the person who turns on the television set..." (Elements 53)

There's a common misconception that journalists must either sacrifice some quality to survive and emphasize business in their work, or sacrifice substantial profits in order to maintain their quality. There is evidence to suggest this is not true! Consider the following passages from Elements:

"By 2005, the problems on the financial side seemed to worsen as readers began to move online. The circulation losses accelerated, and the industry began to see significant job losses again- this time not attributable to economic cycles but wholly to industry fundamentals. The companies that fared best were those that had taken a slower, more long-term approach, including fewer cuts and more newsroom investment. But by then, for companies that had not, time had run out. Investors in Knight Ridder, a company that had been among the most aggressive about cost cutting, were still not satisfied and forced the company up for sale. The buyer, the McClatchy Company, was one of the more long-term, investment-oriented rivals." (67)

"[McClatchy's] president and CEO believes that quality journalism is the cornerstone of the enterprise. In a speech...Pruitt (Gary Pruitt, CEO) added, 'Our focus on journalistic quality and continuous improvement certainly supports our strong performance in circulation.' To that point, the McClatchy papers had grown in circulation steadily for twenty years." (69)

The moral of the story? Business and quality journalism both can exist in a successful paper. Kovach and Rosenstiel, in Elements, identify five characteristics of a newspaper where the relationship between news and business is clearly defined, with emphasis on quality journalism: 1) Owner/corporation must be committed to citizens first, 2) Business managers must also put citizens first, 3) Set and communicate clear standards in the company/ make sure businesspeople and newspeople can understand and appreciate each other's roles, at least on certain levels, 4) Give journalists final say over news and 5) Communicate clear standards to the public (70).

Political Parallelism (and other ideas): Saving Grace or Wasted Effort?

I feel very much at home on the Web and with technology. How did we all survive without Google to answer life's many questions? The Internet is evolving all the time; it's a dragon hoard of constant ideas, opinions, business, and social networks. The Web has it all for a journalist: video, text and all the information you would care to know (as well as plenty you'd be plenty happy never knowing). As media go, the Internet is a great one which journalists may channel their efforts and broaden their audience.

However, as one who would like to be working a job in print journalism ten or twenty years from now- specifically a job writing for a newspaper or magazine- I can't help but be a little concerned about the way my career is sliding downhill before I've even had a chance to get on board.

Traditionally, the United States has exemplified the liberal journalistic model, where journalists are obligated to neutral reporting (or as close to it as they can come.) Our idea of an ideal newspaper is unbiased. It tells all sides of the story, reflects more than one political opinion, and tells the truth.

Truth. One would think it would be easy to define, but The Elements of Journalism by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel calls it "The First and Most Confusing Principle [of Journalism]" (35). But truth can be manipulated, or misunderstood, or misrepresented, even locked away under lock and key. An easy example of this (also used in Elements) is the Pentagon Papers. Following JFK's assassination, President Lyndon Johnson sent his secretary of defense McNamara to Vietnam to ascertain how the war was going. Following three days spent in Vietnam, McNamara told the press in two public press conferences the war in Vietnam was going fine. Presumably, following these outright lies, he in private told Mr. Johnson the truth, that the war was going badly. Eight years later, the New York Times and the Washington Post found and published the Pentagon Papers, which revealed McNamara's lies and the truth of what was happening in Vietnam. Moral of the story (one at least): even though every paper at the press conferences accurately reported what McNamara said about Vietnam, it wasn't the truth.

A journalist's first obligation is the truth. But, ironically, in this present-day Information Age, it's getting harder all the time to sort through all the facts to get at the real story underneath. In addition, even if you have a story ready, there's no guarantee you'll see it in print. Are there times when it is beneficial or even necessary to withhold the truth from the public? What if, say, you gained an exclusive interview with the top general over the war in Afghanistan and learned all about his distaste for dinner parties as well as his superiors? Are the truths of what he said worth showing to the world? What does the public gain?

A harder one: if you had information that could save people's lives but somebody threatened to slap you with an ugly lawsuit if you published, would you do it? (see plot summary of 1999 The Insider) Even harder: in times of war, what do you publish? When? Do you report the whole truth and nothing but the truth? If the government asks or suggests you hold back on something, how seriously do you consider their request?

Short answer? It depends. It all depends.

Onward to the rather boggling question How Can We Save Our Newspapers? As I said, the U.S.A. has traditionally been the poster child for the journalistic "liberal model." The liberal model is characterized by unbiased writing, low political parallelism (don't take sides in politics) and minimal government involvement.

The times are changing. Newspapers are trying everything to stay alive. Consolidation, non-profit, "ProPublica"... And journalistic models from around the world are merging.

Did it begin with openly conservative Fox News? Who cares? It's happening: some U.S. journalists are beginning to write more for a "niche", a select group of people, than for everybody. Political parallelism is rising. Could it work? It seems to be going okay for Fox as well as folks at the Deseret News, which has expanded its Mormon readership.

As with everything, this new shift in writing has its pros and cons; all debatable, of course. Pro: writing to a niche may actually increase readership (case in point with Deseret) and therefore profits. Con: people tend to read, watch, and listen to people with their similar opinions and ideas. If journalists are always telling people what they want to hear, how beneficial is their paper really to society?