Editing: an obsolete profession?!

City University of New York professor Jeff Jarvis poses the question in his latest blog post in the Guardian, "Are editors a luxury we can do without?" An odd question when you consider Jarvis is an editor himself. I have to admit I read the article out of sheer disgust that someone in his profession would even consider the topic worthy of discussion. To my dismay, Jarvis puts forth several valid arguments that would make even the staunchest of supporters stop to question the role of today's editor.

Jarvis points out that as Web sites become more and more the preferred medium for news and information, the role of the editor has become diluted. Many readers skip over the painstakingly produced front page by simply searching for a certain subject and going straight to the article, making the effort put into the layout of a page a fruitless endeavor. Another point is that articles, and especially blogs, that make a place for audience comments to be displayed, are minimizing the need for editors as fact-finders, as the audience now has become the medium for correction.

Thankfully, Jarvis is not jockeying for the end of the editing profession. What he suggests is that the role of the editor is re-evaluated in the changing face of journalism. Instead of spending valuable time on layout design and fact checking, the editor should now become an educator of new technologies in the field. Also, they should spend as much time as possible surfing the web for strong, solid sources of information in order to connect their journalists with the best resources, regardless of the subject matter. Instead of moving editors into extinction, Jarvis advocates for a move into a less demanding, more supportive position, something I think some editors might welcome as a refreshing break.

The benefits of risky behavior

The Documentary Channel aired an expose today titled "Ron Haviv: Freelance in a World at Risk." covering the disheartening, treacherous career of a war photojournalist. Award winning photojournalist Haviv began his career in the world of photography by simply having fun with a hobby. Needless to say, the hobby stuck. After attending New York University and working as a member of the paparazzi, he was offered a chance ticket to the Panama election in 1989. His talent, or perhaps luck, landed him with an incredible shot of the vice president's stabbing, and his work was plastered on major newspapers and magazines all over the U.S. From that moment almost 10 years ago, Haviv became a credible war photojournalist, a stage which he has no intention of leaving.

Haviv has travelled the world covering international conflicts, civil wars, and instances of ethnic cleansing. Another photographer points out in the documentary, it takes a certain kind of person to be able to work in such a horrific environment day after day, without quickly burning out. Haviv feels an incredible passion for his work. Though he has witnessed countless atrocities that he was helpless to prevent, he feels that through his photos, he brings the plight of his subjects to the international scene in hopes of motivating others to get involved.

Passionate seems an understatement when trying to describe the world renowned photojournalist. His ambition to document the atrocities of war has proven risky on more than a few occasions. Haviv admits that he has been hunted, even captured on several occasions by both rebels and government officials who would benefit from ending his career, and perhaps his life.

At a time in the history of journalism when many seem to be throwing in the towel, Haviv continues to show his audience, and the world, that the stage of the professional photojournalist is alive and well. As long as he manages to remain alive and well, and as long as there are wars being fought, Haviv will continue to fight for the right to present the world with the images of war.

Learning a crucial lesson through loss

I have a grievance that I need to get off of my chest. Hopefully, you will indulge me this once. As the purpose for this blog is strickly for journalism news, I can promise you the following is journalism related. I just wanted to put out a short disclaimer that this particular post is very personal. For those of you whom I haven't scared away, here goes...

My aunt, Shirley, her daugher-in-law, Kris, and her two grandchildren, Katelynn and Brittany were involved in a fatal car accident Monday, July 28. Miraculously, Brittany emerged from the accident almost untouched. However, Shirley sustained major, but non life-threatening, injuries, and Kris was held in the intensive care unit in critical condition with a broken neck. Eight-year-old Katelynn died at the scene of the accident. Naturally, the past week has been a difficult time for our entire family.

When I arrived at my grandparents' house, as expected the mood was one of sadness and grief. What I also found was a level of support, forgiveness and love the likes of which I have never seen in my family. For once, eveyone was able to set aside their differences and come together to grieve and to heal after the tragic loss. This environment of healing came to an abrupt end Tuesday, when my grandmother placed a newspaper clipping from the Gillette News-Record on the coffee table next to the basket of sympathy cards. The article left my blood boiling.

The article, while covering for itself by offering the sources of it's information about the accident, gives the distinct impression that the driver of the truck, my aunt, was driving recklessly and is completely at fault for the accident. Now, I understand I was not at the scene of the accident and therefore am hardly an expert witness, but in all the article's implications, it fails to mention several facts. First, there were no witnesses other than the individuals involved in the accident. Therefore there is no one who can give an unbiased account of the events leading up to the accident. Second, at the time of this article, police had not taken statements from Shirley or from Kris, only from the driver of the semi that forced their truck off of the road. In other words, the description of the accident listed is strictly his perspective. Third, and finally, the article casually mentions that proper child restraints were not used. Wyoming law does state that children under the age of nine must use a safety seat when riding in a vehicle, so technically, that statement is correct. What is not mentioned is the fact that both girls weighed over 60 lbs, exempting them from the restraint law. Also, just an FYI, Wyoming has the highest requirement in the nation for child safety restraints. Most states allow regular seat belt use without a safety seat starting at age six.

I'm not arguing with the accuracy of the story. As I mentioned, there were no witnesses other than those involved in the accident, so the truth will never be known for certain. I do, however, strongly suggest that the staff at the Gillette News-Record choose their words wisely the next time they are writing an article involving a fatality prior to a full police investigation. While the article never stated that my aunt was at fault, the manner in which it was written certainly led readers to that conclusion. I implore the staff, and journalists everywhere, to consider what kind of impression each piece that they write will leave on its audience, no matter the subject, and to use sound, ethical judgement before publishing. Often it is not the information itself that causes a problem, but instead the way in which it is presented. The Gillette News-Record could have saved my family, specifically my aunt, a lot of grief had they presented the relevant information on the accident in a more compassionate manner.

As I said earlier, this issue is obviously personal for me, so perhaps I am not the best person to be reporting on this. I debated writing this at all. Ultimately, I decided were it not for the personal nature of the story, I may have made the same mistake myself. And so I must pass on this experience and knowledge to you, in hopes of promoting a class of more ethical, compassionate journalists.

Times leads the way in new media formatting

In an interview with Beet.TV, Michael Zimbalist, vice president of research and development for the New York Times, discusses the company's excitement about a new media format available to revitalize print news. Zimbalist, along with his colleages, thinks that mobile devices like the blackberry and the iphone are an innovative new way to push print media back into demand. I have to admit, it does make sense. We live in a world where convenience is the key to successful marketing, especially in journalism. What is the best way to market convenient news to the broadest market? Make your content available on cell phones. Especially now that everyone from my 5-year-old neighbor to my grandma carries some kind of mobile device.

Zimbalist is especially excited about the development of the semantic web. Take a moment to check out its definition. If you are anything like me, you may find yourself a bit lost in its semantics (ok I know, NOT funny) or what I like to call "techno-jargon". What I can gather from Beet.TV's interview, however, is that basically it's a way to categorize internet content and make it accessible in different formats, depending on the device requesting the content. The Times is hedging on this new innovation, because it will allow them to instantly provide quality content formatted specifically to the medium of their audience's choice. At a time when many are concerned about their careers and their livelihood, Journalists and editors just might find themselves some breathing room. Finally, someone in the news world seems to have found a way to promote new technology in journalism, while still support traditional print media. Thanks to the Times for leading the way!

And the hits just keep on comin'

The future of the average daily newspaper looks bleaker every day. Papers are doing all they can to cut costs, which inevitably means payroll cuts and job losses. While editors and journalists have been concerned over their financial future for some time now, recent developments at the Minneapolis/St. Paul Star Tribune have several others facing financial woes.

According to an article Friday in Poynter Online, the Tribune has been pressing to cut the wages of their drivers, pressman, and mailers by 10 percent. The paper was working with the unions to come up with a pay decrease for all rather than cut jobs. Understandably, the union has rejected their concession, as a decrease of 10 percent in today's struggling economy would be disasterous for many of the members.

The Tribune joins the ranks of newspaper giants such as the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News, who are desperately struggling to keep their heads above water. With the costs of production continuing to rise and consumer interest plummeting, one has to wonder how long it will be until talks of layoffs cease and the papers are just shut down entirely.

Speaking of ethics...

Following class Monday night, I went in search of a story to further the debate on ethical and legal issues in journalism. Fox News couldn't have handed me a better story! While most people are aware that the Fox News slant falls hard to the right, hearing that former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan suggested Fox was fed talking points by the Bush Administration has many crying foul.

The story broke on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews last Thursday, when McClellan stated that Fox has been helpful, on numerous occasions, in presenting the exact message the White House wanted to project. Thankfully, McClellan did mention that although they did use the commentators as their spokespeople, Fox's journalists were not involved. Still, these are damaging charges to anyone associated with the corporation. It certainly wears on one's ethical credibility to be a journalist or reporter employed by an independent news corporation who declares itself as fair and balanced, yet is recognized by the Bush Administration as the outlet to feed their 'spin.'

I was never under the impression that Fox was fair and balanced. Anyone could tune in for just a few minutes and figure that out. But the idea that an 'independent' news corporation could merely be a puppet for the current administration leaves me with chills. From what I gathered, I am not alone. Will the public finally demand a higher level of integrity, or will they sit back and allow this to continue? If my fears hold true and they remain impervious, then where will they draw the line?

Obamamania

The damn liberal media is at it again. They have fallen so head over heels in love with Obama that they are clouding the mind and judgment of citizens all over America. Evidently, this whole election is a farce as the pundits have already chosen the president on our behalf. For those of you who know me, you have no doubt realized that there is more than a hit of sarcasm here...

An article Saturday by Kelly McBride of Poynter illustrates her notion of the ridiculousness behind the idea of Obamamania. For those of you hiding under a rock who haven't heard this term coined, it is the conservative view that journalists are in a love affair with Obama and are thus providing the public with a biased and false representation of the candidate, of course at the expense of the republican party. McBride makes a great point. Shouldn't journalists be allowed to choose the candidate of their liking and privately support them? Does this choice necessitate that they are unable to perform their job as an ethical journalist? Let's get real here, all news is biased. Just because a reporter has a preference does not mean that they are unable to report the facts as they come. Any journalist that wants to retain employment is not going to deliver biased, unfactual material, especially now when even factual political material is thoroughly scrutinized! Another article yesterday, this one from the Associated Press, broached the subject as well. It seems journalists agree that although some restraint must be used, they are entitled personal opinions outside of the workplace. Anyway, my point here is that the public needs to understand that journalists are humans, too. They are going to have an opinion, no matter what the issue, and they are entitled to it. We should stop expecting them to have the mind of a robot, at least so long as they continue to report relevant, factual information. And thank you, Kelly, for being gutsy enough to admit that, every once and a while, you get excited, too.