Filed under: J840 Week 4, Society + Media | Tags: Dole, Ethics, journalism, Orwell, Sinclair
How do we define unacceptable story telling? Do journalists have to go ‘too far’ to sell their publications?
Panorama of the beef industry in 1900 by a Chicago based photographer
“I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident hit its stomach”Upton Sinclair speaking about his 1906 book; The Jungle.
Sinclair’s socialistic message was lost when readers realized that their food supply was potentially deadly. Sinclair’s writing triggered the establishment of the Federal Pure Food and Drug and Meat Inspection Act of 1906 (FDA precursor). The nation’s food supply could have sickened or killed thousands of people if Sinclair’s editor had suppressed the book for bias or advocacy reasons.
What happens when a reporter’s personal integrity is overruled by their desire to champion a cause?
There is a downside to journalistic freedom; consider the recent case of Dole vs. WG Film AB (producer of Bananas!)
Where does reality meet social responsibility?
All varieties of Journalism can be extremely powerful and influential. Mankind is fallible and should exercise care when weilding any type of power. For the everyday Joe-bag-o-doughnuts the media may be his only advocate; an advocacy we cannot afford to lose.
When does advocacy become abuse of power? Does a ‘good’ reporter stick to facts; do they strive to educate or to persuade the reader?
Each of us must be responsible for judging the truth of what is reported or we will have to rely on governmental oversight. Allowing government to control our media means facing the same governmental dictates George Orwell wrote about in Animal Farm and 1984.
“Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper.” George Orwell
We must be mindful that the more something is abused, the more likely it will be placed under governmental controls. Perhaps Big Brother would do a better job?
Angela Jones
Filed under: Art + Religion, Business + Politics, Energy + Climate, J840 Week 4, Society + Media
The context of the story, purpose of the reporter and philosophy of the media outlet is coordinated to manage the choices around advocacy or objectivity in journalism. Certainly the expectation, with both formats, is that facts will be presented accurately and that conflicting viewpoints will have representation. Either extreme however, verging on propaganda with advocacy journalism and detachment in objective journalism, instantly reduces the potential for a wide spread, consistent audience appeal, in my opinion.
Omitting or distorting information to advocate a point or under the pretense of objective reporting is certainly the most obvious way to lose an intelligent audience. The O’Reilly Factor, for instance, clearly advocates for their interpretations of conservative values, rather than the truly objective “fair and balanced reporting” they propose.
To me it’s so misleading that it’s become almost entertainment-based, and sometimes just as funny a show, as the Daily Show or Colbert Report, that sardonically deliver the news for liberal audiences.
As long as the framework for the reports is honest and the facts are true, either reporting style can be provocative. However, it is frankly far more interesting to read stories by reporters at The Green that invite feelings about environmental issues, or to join the chase of serious business, even journalistic, ethical infractions as does the U.K.’s Guardian or even to get a better view of the world through stories that advocate ethics in specific religions like the National Catholic Reporter or the local Jewish Chronicle. While each outlet has perhaps a primary demographic, they offer information relevant for the interests of society as a whole.
Objective reporting is expected in news outlets with limited time and a broader audience; it doesn’t always seem designed to even expect a reaction. When the whole story has time to be played out in a more focused way to a more particular audience, as with advocacy journalism, the issues have more room to be emotive and become more interesting.
(Colbert and O’Reilly parody themselves in this You Tube clip posted October 11, 2008 by HasanSim14 as obtained by Fox News)
CarrieS
Filed under: Energy + Climate, J840 Week 4, Society + Media | Tags: climate change, global warming, KU, media
I came home one night after the 10 o’clock news feeling good about the story I did, feeling like “I did my job”. It was a story about a complex and heated issue, each side got equal time, it was unbiased and balanced. But I knew the majority of people supported one side, including me…so did I do my job?
The story wasn’t about global warming, but it’s similar in that it’s also a complex and heated issue. (ha ha!) As noted in the AEVS Survey, while there is general consensus among the science community that global warming is real and about certain causes and potential effects, there are still some skeptics. But let’s say the ratio is 90-10. So to be objective and “balanced” in a news story dealing with global warming, should 10 percent go to skeptics and 90 percent to other side? Or maybe more considering the AEVS shows most Americans believe global warming is happening and are concerned about it? It definitely shouldn’t be 50-50, right?
I believe Journalists trying to pinpoint the weight/air-time/print-space to give each side can be a slippery slope. If you agree with John Merrill, that journalists are essentially nothing more than Circus Clowns, it’s asking for disaster. But as Iggers points out, journalists don’t get hired without experience and degrees in larger markets (like top 60 for TV, and of course–national networks & publications). And I believe in most cases these journalists are more, maybe not objective, but FAIR in storytelling. (I don’t know if there can be true objectivity across the board in journalism, unless we’re all robots or something.)
Thinking about advocacy journalism, if allowed whenever and wherever, news might as well turn into opinion (and/or blogs). But it may be more acceptable on environmental issues. I mean, who can argue that trashing the environment is a good thing? There may be a trade-off socially, economically, jobs, etc. And I think the other side needs to be acknowledged, but doesn’t have to get equal time. Advocacy journalism about the environment could be seen as just doing a good thing.
But as I go forward, if it’s known that the majority of people are on one side of any issue, I like it to get the majority of coverage. Is that advocacy journalism, or just fair and “balanced”?
-Dave D.
Filed under: Art + Religion, Business + Politics, J840 Week 4, Society + Media | Tags: Abortion, barack obama, Graduation, journalism, Notre Dame, objective journalism
I bleed blue and gold. As college football season approaches, I conveniently work Kelly Green into my outfit on a daily basis. Yes, anyone who’s seen my embarrassing collection of Notre Dame trademarked items knows it…I’m a domer. However, recent national press forced me to hide my colors for the first time in years.
Obama at Notre Dame commencement
News coverage of Pro-Choice President Barack Obama’s May commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame shed such a negative light on an institution I have been so proud to be a part of for years that I found myself closing my Irish eyes and burying my head in the sand. As I watched political “experts” throw their two cents into the kerfuffle, I could not help but think that objectivity in modern journalism was truly dead.
Silent Protest
“Why,” I thought “does everyone else get to have an opinion about the graduation ceremony of a handful of kids out of millions this year?” Where were the voices that truly mattered in this situation? I understand the outrage of those in the Catholic community. You can not detach Notre Dame from its roots. But why did I have to watch Pat Buchanan tell me what I should believe as a Catholic and a part of the Notre Dame community rather than someone from the 97% of graduating seniors and 73% of students overall who supported Obama’s invitation?
The only refreshing journalism I found throughout the ordeal was from fellow citizen journalists on Facebook (not all of whom shared my opinion) who had legitimate a stake in the situation. Perhaps as an alum, I can’t understand the opinions of those I see as outsiders. Perhaps I’m the one who needs to be open minded about what others might think. Did anyone else watching that coverage even care?
*Trey Williams*
