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.

Busting on Anti-blog Bias

Popular blogger Eric Scoble recently defended the blogging industry at a Fortune conference to avid proponents of traditional or "old-school" journalism. As its his industry as well as his livelihood, Scoble defends blogging as a viable medium for journalism on a regular basis. He is slowly, steadily, changing minds. After reading his spiel after the conference, it is easy to see why he is making some headway.


One of the greatest criticisms of blogging as a mode of journalism or as a news medium is that there is no system of fact-checking, no mandated research. In fact any average Joe can post a blog and attempt to pass off their opinion as fact. Scoble counters that the beauty any blog is that its audience is the fact-checking mechanism. If a blog is credible, it will have an audience that will respond to posts quickly, pointing out inaccuracies and errors. He adds that errors are made in traditional journalism as well, despite diligent research. Corrections appear weeks or months later, if they appear at all. Another important point Scoble makes is that the media can be misinformed about a person's actions or beliefs, and often the person who was misinterpreted has no recourse against the media having a heyday at their expense. Conversely, with a blog, if someone feels they have been misrepresented they can go directly to the blog and tell their story, unedited and unfiltered.


I tend to agree with Scoble on most accounts. However even as a proponent I have my grievances. Above all I feel that there is room in the world of journalism for both traditional print journalism and for blogging. Both have their strong points as well as their imperfections, and at least for now, both are here to stay. It's time to stop arguing about their validity and instead work together to provide the world with savvy journalism.

A Dying Breed of Journalism?

I have been noticing an increasing amount of concern over the future of journalism. Society, as a whole, is increasingly turning to the internet, not only for communication or for entertainment, but for their primary source of news. In "Where's the Business Model for News, People?", Jay Rosen of PRESSthink discusses the future of news as we know it, or rather, as we knew it.

As I think back upon my last few encounters with cable news shows, I have to say that I am far from impressed. Gone are the days where investigative reporters bring us educational insight. Gone are the days where tv news spent a good percentage of its time on air with a reporter out in the field. Instead, what we find today is pathetically comical. Stations are desperately trying to cling onto the last of its fleeing viewers but enticing them, not with news, but with celebrity gossip and horrendous comedy. And speaking of losing, not only are viewers and readers leaving their respective cable news and newspapers behind, but according to Rosen, the advertisers are leaving them in the dust as well. He explains that it is only logical for the ad companies to follow consumers, thus leaving traditional news outlets without public or private funding.

What is news media to do? Rosen provides us with information on many new types of media formats that are currently being tested, and many successfully, by news giants such as The New York Times. If Rosen and "The Times" are correct, we can look forward to new media formats such as networked beat reporting, crowdsourcing, reverse publishing, and the "river of news." Add to that the increasingly popular blog sites, and the idea of Pro-Am and "citizen journalists."This is far from a comprehensive list," Rosen explains. Perhaps I am getting behind the times, but the more cyber-jargon I hear, the more I find myself longing for the simpler days of journalism.